BtS 3.13 - how to get around it and launch GOTM

[Lexad]

Here are the archives - courtesy of /name deleted/Lexad - that allow to change assets back and forth between 3.13 and pre-3.13. Just unpack them in your CivIV folder.

Back from 3.13 - link deleted/Lexad
Forth to 3.13 - link deleted/Lexad

 

[ainwood]

Can you please advise as to how these files were generated?

I know that it seems a bit "anal", but if its just packaging the pre-3.13 vanilla DLL, then I beleive it infringes copyright..... we do need clarification from firaxis on that point.

 

[Lexad]

It does sound anal indeed. Have no idea how it was done, and as long as noone is making any money on it or it can be of no value to persons without civ, I do not see how it can harm Firaxis or anyone.

 

[ainwood]

It does sound anal indeed. Have no idea how it was done, and as long as noone is making any money on it or it can be of no value to persons without civ, I do not see how it can harm Firaxis or anyone.

Yes, but Firaxis' legal department may not see it that way.

 

[Lexad]

OK, thanx for warning. I'll try to pass the news. And I hope Firaxis will try to amend their dll blunders ASAP.

Edit: I removed the links from the first post, just in case. Sorry guys.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Yes, but Firaxis' legal department may not see it that way.

That's why I propose custom CoreDll.

Custom DLL is a mod, and as such can be redistributed.

So, take original DLL source-code, add some minor functionality (like "HOF active" message), recompile it and use it for HOF games.

That way, all players will have same DLL and there would be no problems, neither for players nor for any legal department.

 

[Lexad]

We should point the legal department to those pesky HOF-mod-building patent infringers...

 

[swan]

Somehow Firaxis produced tow patches with the same marking which are different by LMA control sum, which is an obvious developers mishap that caused users grief.
When a person does something like an unofficial patch that can convert one OFFICIAL patch into another OFFICIAL patch and back (one set of original files of the patch is substituted with the original files from another patch)?

PS Which one of the patch file set is more "original"? The one delivered as an offical patch or the one obtained from applying the 3.13 patch?

 

[BLubmuz]

bah, for what i can know about copyrights and so on, to post some original files for players convenience does not infringe any law.
the material is original, both files are patched, and no one can play without the original cd (well, at least not with those files).

IMO Firaxis would appreciate the efforts to simplify the life of a lot of players.
Anyway, we are guests ot this forum, and we must stay at its rules.

Thanks Lexad and the other guys @civ.ru.

btw, i got the files, grabbed right after posted

 

[LowtherCastle]

Yes, but Firaxis' legal department may not see it that way.

Maybe Firaxis ought to get its act together before assorted geeks get tired of their lazy bs and just freemarket civ to the world.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The thing is, neither Firaxis nor Take2 whould probably ever bother with this, even if these files got distributed (since in no way it hurts when finnanically).

But, CFC is playing on safe side, which is understandable (as semi-official Civ site).


Apolyton, on the other hand (another semi-official Civ site), has 3.13 versions of vanilla and Warlords core dll available for download.

News article:
http://civilization4.net/

Thread:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=171033


And no one, from officials, is objecting at the moment, yet.



P.S.
Still it would be better, if things like this could get official approval, just to be safe.

P.P.S.
Why not send PM to someone from Firaxis, asking for permission to redistribute DLLs?

 

[m4gill4]

Thanks for the thought though. And the effort.

Can't say I blame CfC for erring on the side of caution, though. We live in a litigious world.

 

[ainwood]

P.S.
Still it would be better, if things like this could get official approval, just to be safe.

P.P.S.
Why not send PM to someone from Firaxis, asking for permission to redistribute DLLs?

I have contacted firaxis about it - we'll wait and see as to their response.

Can't say I blame CfC for erring on the side of caution, though. We live in a litigious world.

Actually, I doubt they'd sue the site. It is more that we endeavor to maintain good relations with Firaxis, in order that they are then more inclined to visit & contribute here. This is part of that effort.

 

[da_Vinci]

It does sound anal indeed. Have no idea how it was done, and as long as noone is making any money on it or it can be of no value to persons without civ, I do not see how it can harm Firaxis or anyone.

Yes, but Firaxis' legal department may not see it that way.

ainwood has a good point ... I have heard stories where daycares or preschools have painted Disney characters on their walls, only to be sued by Disney for TradeMark infringement (or whatever the relevant term is).

I guess the corporate world has its own rules of logic and reason ...

dV

 

[Balbes]

American copyright law seems to say that the copyright owner, upon learning of an infringement, must pursue the infringer or else he (the owner) stands to lose the copyright. I think it makes sense actually.

 

[LowtherCastle]

American copyright law seems to say that the copyright owner, upon learning of an infringement, must pursue the infringer or else he (the owner) stands to lose the copyright. I think it makes sense actually.

Hmmm...so I put my heart and soul into a book that I write and then some criminal fkup decides to email it to the world and now I have to pursue each and every person who downloads it from their email???

I propose an (unthinkable) alternative:

How about people living ethically and honestly and not stealing from other people?

Just to show you how weird I really am (because I actually authored a book and actually try to live according to that unthinkable alternative): In the last two days I saw a $5 and a $1 bill lying on the floor. I left them there. Why? Because they were not mine. Period. It simply doesn't matter whether someone else comes along and picks them up inappropriately.

 

[Balbes]

The key part is knowing exactly who did exctly what, but not acting upon that knowledge. Even then you don't lose the copyright automatically; the interested party must sue you and prove that you knew but didn't try to enforce. Only then may the copyright be revoked, as you don't seem to care about it.

 

[LowtherCastle]

Okay, I understand the distinction you're making. In other words, it's about being responsible.

I just got an email from a university VP to all students saying many have been sued for bit torrenting movies and music at $3000-4000 for out-of-court settlment, more if they go to court...sounds like a profitable business...

 

[DaviddesJ]

American copyright law seems to say that the copyright owner, upon learning of an infringement, must pursue the infringer or else he (the owner) stands to lose the copyright.

No, this is not true. American copyright law says nothing like that.

 

[wwassme]

Putting on my hat as an attorney with a working knowledge of United States copyright law . . .

The normal rule of American law is that the copyright holder must file suit within three years of the infringement occurring (the statute of limitations). Depending on which Circuit you are in, a failure to enforce before the expiration of the three years, may or may not bar a claim. Some Circuits have held it will not. Others have held that it may (under the doctrine of laches) if the copyright holder fails to enforce his rights and the infringer and/or innocent third parties suffer undue prejudice as a result. See, e.g., Chirco v. Crosswinds, 474 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007) (a recent discussion of the application of laches in a copyright case). The use of laches to bar a copyright holder's claim before the expiration of the three years is fairly rare.