Help me understand how plagiarism/theft is so wrong

[Mr_Ainz]

I'd understand if you believe me another troll in the forum, but I'm really looking for a discussion around the topic of theft/plagiarism in the space of adult games. More specifically taking an already existing game and releasing a copy as new product. Take games like "Big Brother", "Ecchi Sensei" or "L&S" for example. Abandoned games that never got an ending after years since their last update.

My opinion is that in these cases a "remaster" by a third party wouldn't be such a horrible immoral act as some people make it be. I'm not really discussing the legalities of doing so nor am I really pushing for these re-releases. I just want to express why I believe in some cases it may be okay to do.

Before that though, I want to make clear that when making a product based on an existing work, one should always credit the original author(s) and explicitly point out which parts are being "borrowed" (also in my opinion no monetary gain should occur). Furthermore, efforts should be made to get in contact with the creators of such material and get their permission if possible. Also if a game is in development or it's just been some months since the last update, publishing a copy would be highly undignified.

Now I believe I'm not alone in gleefully discovering a new game from a novel developer with big ambitions, who after realising the massive pain in the ass that is to make games, abandons the raw gem that you you were hoping to one day see finely polished. Sometimes they create something that just resonates with you, perfect mix of narration, fetishes and mechanics. Why then is it so wrong to pick up were they left? A good example for me in this regard was the original game by the infamous ALISHIA, "Holy Slaves". It was good, not great, but at the time it managed to hook me in and make me hope for many more updates. There is no sign that it will be picked back up by the dev, so maybe someone can write an end to the story.


I want to address an argument I believe people will repeatedly make:

"Just come up with your own thing"

And it's a good argument I'll give you that. For a lot of VNs it's really easy to take some ideas, maybe a game mechanic or recreate the setting but still make it your own. I'll concede that I've taken existing works and started changing details, adding my own over various iterations and in the end I arrive at a new story, different in so many levels. At some point I even move away from the source and I'm left with a result that no one would easily say is based on the original.

I'd suggest creators to try to do their own thing and it's not a bad outcome to abandon a project if you still learned something from the experience. Still I truly feel in some situations great creations can actually be recreations.

On a final note I also wonder why sometimes people are okay with new content made by a different individual than the author if it's done in the form of a mod. Truthfully it's not the same thing to add than to base off a blueprint, but when you end up adding so much that the final product can hardly be recognised. Are you really making a mod or making something new?

 

[Glorified_ignorance]

I'd understand if you believe me another troll in the forum, but I'm really looking for a discussion around the topic of theft/plagiarism in the space of adult games. More specifically taking an already existing game and releasing a copy as new product. Take games like "Big Brother", "Ecchi Sensei" or "L&S" for example. Abandoned games that never got an ending after years since their last update.

My opinion is that in these cases a "remaster" by a third party wouldn't be such a horrible immoral act as some people make it be. I'm not really discussing the legalities of doing so nor am I really pushing for these re-releases. I just want to express why I believe in some cases it may be okay to do.

Before that though, I want to make clear that when making a product based on an existing work, one should always credit the original author(s) and explicitly point out which parts are being "borrowed" (also in my opinion no monetary gain should occur). Furthermore, efforts should be made to get in contact with the creators of such material and get their permission if possible. Also if a game is in development or it's just been some months since the last update, publishing a copy would be highly undignified.

Now I believe I'm not alone in gleefully discovering a new game from a novel developer with big ambitions, who after realising the massive pain in the ass that is to make games, abandons the raw gem that you you were hoping to one day see finely polished. Sometimes they create something that just resonates with you, perfect mix of narration, fetishes and mechanics. Why then is it so wrong to pick up were they left? A good example for me in this regard was the original game by the infamous ALISHIA, "Holy Slaves". It was good, not great, but at the time it managed to hook me in and make me hope for many more updates. There is no sign that it will be picked back up by the dev, so maybe someone can write an end to the story.


I want to address an argument I believe people will repeatedly make:

​

And it's a good argument I'll give you that. For a lot of VNs it's really easy to take some ideas, maybe a game mechanic or recreate the setting but still make it your own. I'll concede that I've taken existing works and started changing details, adding my own over various iterations and in the end I arrive at a new story, different in so many levels. At some point I even move away from the source and I'm left with a result that no one would easily say is based on the original.

I'd suggest creators to try to do their own thing and it's not a bad outcome to abandon a project if you still learned something from the experience. Still I truly feel in some situations great creations can actually be recreations.

On a final note I also wonder why sometimes people are okay with new content made by a different individual than the author if it's done in the form of a mod. Truthfully it's not the same thing to add than to base off a blueprint, but when you end up adding so much that the final product can hardly be recognised. Are you really making a mod or making something new?

Reviving games, it's like digital CPR for abandoned projects! Just be cautious not to accidentally create a pixelated Frankenstein, we're all for originality, not a clone parade. Keep the pixels pulsing, responsibly!

Keep in mind, many tried, many failed. Sometimes it's wiser to leave the dead to rest in their place.

If you are so sure of your skills on revival, why not go for parodys instead? Could easily revive missing gem, and get away from copyright stuff and also include most of your original ideas instead.

ps. excuse the cheesy response as this was asked several times.

 

[Jack Madrigal]

there's nothing wrong with plagiarism, only the creatively barren and insecure peoples care about having their work stolen, I don't want to talk about me specifically but I find it flattering to be copied.

Even if someone is blatantly taking your ideas and try to make a profit out of it, you still have the creative mind that came up with that idea in the first place, and it won't be the last, why dwell on something of the past that is out there for everyone to see in the first place ?

art, culture, ideas, all that is meant to be shared with the world.

 

[Glorified_ignorance]

there's nothing wrong with plagiarism, only the creatively barren and insecure peoples care about having their work stolen, I don't want to talk about me specifically but I find it flattering to be copied.

Even if someone is blatantly taking your ideas and try to make a profit out of it, you still have the creative mind that came up with that idea in the first place, and it won't be the last, why dwell on something of the past that is out there for everyone to see in the first place ?

art, culture, ideas, all that is meant to be shared with the world.

 

[EvolutionKills]

(also in my opinion no monetary gain should occur)

Congrats, you just stumbled upon one of the pillars of the Fair Use doctrine.


About Fair Use
Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.

You must be registered to see the links

provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
2. Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-bycase basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

You must be registered to see the links

Want to write an erotic fan fiction where Luke Skywalker bangs the fuck out of his sister Princess Leia, and share that text document for free online? So long as nobody is making any money off of it, and the story is your own words, there's not much for Disney to do about it in court.

My opinion is that in these cases a "remaster" by a third party wouldn't be such a horrible immoral act as some people make it be.

I actually just got introduced to Out of Touch! less than a week ago, and I am hooked. The game is up to Chapter 44, but that's out of a supposed 100 already written up before production of the game itself began. I am invested in the characters and the mystery of the narrative, and if the dev keeled over tomorrow and I never got another update to the story? I would be super bummed for sure.

That being said, I don't want just some other random fan to pick up the reigns, become the new self-anointed lore keeper, and push the story forward with their ideas. I want to see the conclusion of the original creative vision. Anything else would be a cheap imitation, a pretender, or a usurper; with no way to tell how far or close it could ever be to the intended original. For me, personally, I'd rather not. I would prefer to keep the memory of the unfinished original that left such a lasting impression, rather than muddy those feelings with an imposter.

I would much rather see a new game inspired by or made as a homage to Out of Touch! rather than someone else besides the original author try their hand at writing a conclusion for a story they didn't create.

Why then is it so wrong to pick up were they left?

So long as it follows and adheres to the Fair Use doctrine, I don't think it would be immoral or unethical. If enough time has passed that a property has become part of the Public Domain? Have at it. But as explained above, there is very much a vibe check independent of any ethics or legality. Taking over a supposedly 'abandoned' project for your own, even without any monetary gain, fails the vibe check for me. I don't want doppelgangers. Any fan of the work who enjoyed it and was inspired enough to do their own work should be allowed to, and to hew as close to the original as they want within the confines of Fair Use.

Just taking a project over and unilaterally proclaiming oneself as the new torchbearer henceforth I feel violates the spirit of Fair Use. If the intent is to release a new product meant to explicitly be a continuation (a new eroge VN to continue an abandoned eroge VN), then it very likely violates the letter of Fair Use as well (see prongs 3 & 4 above).

 

[Artemissu]

Even if someone is blatantly taking your ideas and try to make a profit out of it, you still have the creative mind that came up with that idea in the first place, and it won't be the last, why dwell on something of the past that is out there for everyone to see in the first place ?

It's mostly money. If someone takes your project, do things to it, then start earning money from it, a lot of people wouldn't sit so cool about it. People usually don't like someone leeching off their work while they themselves get nothing from it.

IMO, i like to think that everything is allowed so long money is not involved. If money IS involved, then everything should be properly accorded with the original author(s). In the unlikely scenario that the author(s) abandons their project, then proceeds to literally disappear off the face of the internet, never to be seen or heard from again (unlikely, but can happen), then i think it's fair game to assume their games have become "public domain" and thus can be profitted off it from someone else.

 

[EvolutionKills]

there's nothing wrong with plagiarism, only the creatively barren and insecure peoples care about having their work stolen, I don't want to talk about me specifically but I find it flattering to be copied.

Even if someone is blatantly taking your ideas and try to make a profit out of it, you still have the creative mind that came up with that idea in the first place, and it won't be the last, why dwell on something of the past that is out there for everyone to see in the first place ?

art, culture, ideas, all that is meant to be shared with the world.

I vehemently disagree.

If you, a lone artist, come up with an amazing story. Do you want those with more money than you to just be able to copy your work, distribute it, make a profit off if it, all without you getting any compensation for your original work? You will never have the same amount of money as, say, Disney. But copyright protections to prevent plagiarism are what forced them to pay over 4 billion to acquire the rights to Star Wars. If plagiarism was a-okay, then everyone and their dog could just make their own and pass it off as the original. We would have seen a dozen 'sequels' to Star Wars in theaters before the end of 1977. It doesn't matter how creative you are or can be, we live in a capitalist world, and you can't just 'creative thoughts' your way into a position to compete on equal footing with those who have far more capital than you do. In the market place of ideas, capital is the ultimate 800lb gorilla in the room.

Plus there are other considerations, like course work in academia. When you're assigned a research paper or doing a doctoral thesis, the very point is to asses the student's aptitude and grasp of the subject matter. Just being allowed to copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own defeats the entire purpose.

There is definitely a discussion to be had about the length of copyright protection (I'd argue that Disney's lobbying has extended it way too far), but in principal the concept of copyright protection is a strong net positive. Undermining that through plagiarism is something to be avoided, discouraged, and actively worked on to prevent.

 

[Glorified_ignorance]

There's a golden rule to this whole argument :

Treat others the same way you wish to be treated yourself.

 

[Jack Madrigal]

I vehemently disagree.

If you, a lone artist, come up with an amazing story. Do you want those with more money than you to just be able to copy your work, distribute it, make a profit off if it, all without you getting any compensation for your original work? You will never have the same amount of money as, say, Disney. But copyright protections to prevent plagiarism are what forced them to pay over 4 billion to acquire the rights to Star Wars. If plagiarism was a-okay, then everyone and their dog could just make their own and pass it off as the original. We would have seen a dozen 'sequels' to Star Wars in theaters before the end of 1977. It doesn't matter how creative you are or can be, we live in a capitalist world, and you can't just 'creative thoughts' your way into a position to compete on equal footing with those who have far more capital than you do. In the market place of ideas, capital is the ultimate 800lb gorilla in the room.

Plus there are other considerations, like course work in academia. When you're assigned a research paper or doing a doctoral thesis, the very point is to asses the student's aptitude and grasp of the subject matter. Just being allowed to copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own defeats the entire purpose.

There is definitely a discussion to be had about the length of copyright protection (I'd argue that Disney's lobbying has extended it way too far), but in principal the concept of copyright protection is a strong net positive. Undermining that through plagiarism is something to be avoided, discouraged, and actively worked on to prevent.

I mean it when I say that I absolutely understand your perspective on this subject, but with all due respect, I find it to be narrow.

what's wrong with having a million star wars movie ? why the need to have one unique piece, and have the credit attributed to a single person in the world ? why the need to create an outstanding individual out of the multitudes ? can't we all create and tell stories in our own ways ?

your argument is valid but it acknowledge money as the only driving factor in the process of creation, which is false.

to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm talking about Artists, and don't get me wrong, it's a blessing if you're a creative mind and you're able to live out of your work, but money isn't the reason why you need to create.

if you put aside the pragmatic stance on money, there's no moral reason to stop anyone from copying your work, I don't think you need something as futile as recognition if your creative goal is achieved, to birth what existed only in your mind.

and make no mistakes, Artists will always come up with new ideas, we don't have to fight like rats over that ONE unique idea in the world (which is what i call being creatively barren, you got one idea and you cling on to it)

 

[Death Panda]

This thread has nothing to do with either "theft" or plagiarism.

Before that though, I want to make clear that when making a product based on an existing work, one should always credit the original author(s) and explicitly point out which parts are being "borrowed"

Then you are against plagiarism and know exactly why it is so wrong.

 

[EvolutionKills]

I mean it when I say that I absolutely understand your perspective on this subject, but with all due respect, I find it to be narrow.

Likewise I find yours naively utopian.

what's wrong with having a million star wars movie ? why the need to have one unique piece, and have the credit attributed to a single person in the world ? why the need to create an outstanding individual out of the multitudes ? can't we all create and tell stories in our own ways ?

A nice idea in theory, but just not compatible with our current reality. If we actually lived in a perfect utopia where everyone's needs were met and everyone could afford to be creative for the pure joy of it? Sounds lovely. I hope we get there in my lifetime.

Sadly, that's not the universe we currently live in.

your argument is valid but it acknowledge money as the only driving factor in the process of creation, which is false.

Nope. I also pointed out how plagiarism is a detriment to academia.

And while I do have my own bone to pick with 'pick yourself up with your bootstraps' libertarians and the whole 'grindset' gig economy bullshit, there is a non-zero factor to incentivizing innovation through copyright protection. Being able to guarantee that someone can profit from their ideas does encourage them to pursue new ones. Don't like that? Work on getting us out of a capitalist framework first. Until then, it serves a very necessary role in protecting those without means from those who do.

Plagiarism in entertainment is lazy. But plagiarism in biotech? That's corporate espionage. Plagiarism isn't all just about bleeding heart artists.

to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm talking about Artists, and don't get me wrong, it's a blessing if you're a creative mind and you're able to live out of your work, but money isn't the reason why you need to create.

Again, creative thoughts alone won't pay your rent, put food on the table, or pay your health insurance. I would love to live in a world where such necessities were universally guaranteed, but we don't live in Star Trek.

if you put aside the pragmatic stance on money, there's no moral reason to stop anyone from copying your work, I don't think you need something as futile as recognition if your creative goal is achieved, to birth what existed only in your mind.

So theft, so long as it's an idea, is ethical?

At what point does theft become unethical for you?

How much work does someone need to do before taking it without compensation becomes unethical?

and make no mistakes, Artists will always come up with new ideas, we don't have to fight like rats over that ONE unique idea in the world (which is what i call being creatively barren, you got one idea and you cling on to it)

There is plenty of space for new ideas, and the creative adaptation of current ones, all within the framework of something like the Fair Use doctrine; while still maintaining the incentives and protections so that those who create them can profit from their labor.

There are plenty of things that shouldn't have a profit motive, like access to education and healthcare. But in a world where corporate hegemonies worth billions of dollars already exist, maybe we don't torpedo the few innate protections that stop them from wholesale intellectual theft from the unwashed masses?

 

[Pretentious Goblin]

If you don't charge money for it, it's as much "theft" as a mod that uses assets from the original game. If you do charge money without the original author's permission, yeah, I'd consider it IP theft, but not plagiarism as long as you credit the author. Both are based on the status of the game as abandonware; releasing a free standalone mod for a currently-available commercial product also harms the dev.

 

[Death Panda]

So theft, so long as it's an idea, is ethical?

Yes. Thoughts are not property, suggesting otherwise is monstrous.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Yes. Thoughts are not property, suggesting otherwise is monstrous.

I agree, and I clearly did not word that properly to get across the idea that I intend to.

I'll be curios to see what their response is to the other questions.

 

[Jack Madrigal]

Likewise I find yours naively utopian.

that's fair.

I don't have the pretension to change the world for the sole reason it doesn't suit me personally, but I still have my own set of moral values, I choose for myself what I think is ok or not.

My perspective is romantic, but I don't believe it's preferable to approach this specific subject with nihilistic pragmatism, it's not a nine to five job at a factory we're talking about, and to jab back at you, I'd say it's rather naive to think you can realistically make a living out of Art alone.

So theft, so long as it's an idea, is ethical?

At what point does theft become unethical for you?

How much work does someone need to do before taking it without compensation becomes unethical?

What are you trying to make me say, is there anything else BUT ideas ?

If I make a sculpture or a painting, and I sell it, what happen to it then is out of my control, if you want to copy my work by all means, help yourself. If i freely publish my drawings on the internet, they aren't mine anymore, do what you want with them.

what you present to me is more of an ego issue, in my opinion, of peoples that need recognition, more than an actual impediment in someone's livelihood.

 

[Mr_Ainz]

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.

You must be registered to see the links

provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research

Thank you EvolutionKills for the mention of fair use. As I said in my original comment I didn't want to make this a discussion about law, given that I have almost no knowledge of the discipline. Another point against discussing it is that (to my understanding) fair use applies to the US. I don't know if someone in Europe can take an existing game and re-release it and still be in accordance to the fair use doctrine.

It's different when talking about the morality of such an act as there is not a clear description that we have to follow. For some it may not be problematic, to others it's an unforgivable crime.

This thread has nothing to do with either "theft" or plagiarism.

I knew when I wrote the OP that I wasn't describing plagiarism but I didn't want other users attacking my character instead of participating in the discussion (I also wanted to catch peoples attention using an inflammatory title). I know that if you at a minimum give credit to the author it's not really plagiarism (which I do view in a negative light) but I want to continue by presenting some examples that may be inflammatory to some.

Another common occurrence I find in this space is that a developer slows down development with every release, sometimes grazing the line of what could consider abandoning the project. Sometimes this happens because they lose motivation in the story, the amount of work it requires grows out of control or maybe the income (subscription service mostly) keeps coming in anyways so why make an effort in pushing real content when you can relax and still get a pay check.

I don't want to attack nobody in particular but in some cases it feels like if a copy of their work appeared and threatened their income, they would have to go back to seriously working on it.


An entirely different point of view I have is that in some cases a game is obviously plagiarised. After "True bond" came out a almost perfect copy of the game was also published "Crazy Son". Some may say it could constitute as satire but I digress. My point with this is that sometimes not crediting the original work has almost no effect. When talking about adult games in the internet, with sites like this where you can get over paying for the product, plagiarism isn't as damaging as in other situations.

Who's to say that a developer may not have received backlash from a past work and decided to start again with the same concept under a new name trying to distance themselves from the negative reviews?

 

[anne O'nymous]

Sometimes they create something that just resonates with you, perfect mix of narration, fetishes and mechanics. Why then is it so wrong to pick up were they left?

You answered you own question.

It resonates with you because it's "them" who made it. It's their writing and ideas for the story, as well as their way to handle the story and balance the game mechanisms, that make the game great to your eyes.
But do you really think that someone would be good enough to be able to copy all this, making the game in such way that they player would never feel that the writer, the artist and the coder have changed ? And if such person exist, do you really believe that he would lost his time reviving someone else project, when he have all it need to be successful with his own original ideas ?

Picking up a dead project is wrong because, as Glorified_ignorance implied, there's high risk to create a monster. Personally I prefer to have thoughts like, "this game is good, to bad that he'll never be finished", than "that game used to be good before 'that guy' turned it into shit".

On a final note I also wonder why sometimes people are okay with new content made by a different individual than the author if it's done in the form of a mod.

Because they do not have the same expectation from this content, and they know they can drop it at anytime without loosing the original content.

 

[EvolutionKills]

that's fair.

I don't have the pretension to change the world for the sole reason it doesn't suit me personally, but I still have my own set of moral values, I choose for myself what I think is ok or not.

My perspective is romantic, but I don't believe it's preferable to approach this specific subject with nihilistic pragmatism, it's not a nine to five job at a factory we're talking about, and to jab back at you, I'd say it's rather naive to think you can realistically make a living out of Art alone.

Is it easier or harder to make a living with art when anyone else can just take your shit and profit off it it without permission or compensation?

You call yourself the romantic, but I am the one actually defending the safe-guards that protect artists and allow them to continue to make a living doing art (within the confines of our very flawed capitalist system).

What are you trying to make me say, is there anything else BUT ideas ?

If I make a sculpture or a painting, and I sell it, what happen to it then is out of my control, if you want to copy my work by all means, help yourself. If i freely publish my drawings on the internet, they aren't mine anymore, do what you want with them.

If the person you sell a sculpture to takes it and without permission makes a million copies, and then sells them all far cheaper than you can afford to make them yourself (e.g. economies of scale), that's perfectly fine with you? Instead of buyers coming to you for your sculpture, you're really okay with someone else undercutting you with an identical copy that you get nothing from?

How about the the same as above, but they just copied one of your artworks onto a t-shirt, and proceeded to sell millions of them at $100 a pop? Still okay with getting nothing in return? If so, why are you cool with being exploited?

Even if you are, who are you to enforce that standard on other creatives? Why should everyone else be stripped of their rights and protections, just because you personally are cool forfeiting them? You can do that already within the existing framework. You, personally, do not need to protect, contest, and can even proactively forfeit your rights as you so choose.

But to get back to my original question, at what point does theft become unethical for you? If stealing art is okay, what about stealing food? Or a car? What theft is not okay, why is it not okay, and how does that reasoning not apply to art? Do you actually have any sort of a consistent ethical framework, or is this all just on-the-fly hippy vibes for you?

what you present to me is more of an ego issue, in my opinion, of peoples that need recognition, more than an actual impediment in someone's livelihood.

Then maybe you need to work on explaining yourself? "there's nothing wrong with plagiarism..." is a broad and absolutist statement that I find to be unequivocally false. In the various examples I've presented, I've demonstrated why these protections exist and how they benefit creatives and academics.

Apparently you don't think you need copyright protection, and anyone else who does is just in it for their ego? A you for real now? What gilded mountain top do you rest upon? If only the rest of us were so lucky, our every needs and whims taken care of so succinctly, that we too could just waste our days being creative purely for the joy of it with no thought for the morrow.

No, everyone else who's being creative as an actual job? Who earn their wage and pay their bills by being creative? All just a bunch of ego stroking attention whores, the lot of them.

That is comically absurd, and I feel that warped perspective can only come from a person who's either never known hardship, or severely lacking in human empathy. I don't have any other explanation. I am just aghast at how out of touch with reality you seemingly are.

You obviously have never spent a single day in your life trying to put bread on the table by being creative. If you had, I wouldn't need to explain in excoriating detail just how wrong it is for others to take that away from you.

 

[morphnet]

Before that though, I want to make clear that when making a product based on an existing work, one should always credit the original author(s) and explicitly point out which parts are being "borrowed" (also in my opinion no monetary gain should occur). Furthermore, efforts should be made to get in contact with the creators of such material and get their permission if possible. Also if a game is in development or it's just been some months since the last update, publishing a copy would be highly undignified.

You clearly DO understand why it is wrong.

I'd understand if you believe me another troll in the forum, but I'm really looking for a discussion around the topic of theft/plagiarism in the space of adult games.

Maybe people think this because you make provocative posts that don't make real sense. You are also in this case using the terms incorrectly.

Theft.

You must be registered to see the links

also see.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Plagiarism.

You must be registered to see the links

My opinion is that in these cases a "remaster" by a third party wouldn't be such a horrible immoral act as some people make it be. I'm not really discussing the legalities of doing so nor am I really pushing for these re-releases. I just want to express why I believe in some cases it may be okay to do.

Two things here,
One,

You must be registered to see the links

is clearly NOT what you think it is in this context.

" To put it simply, remastering an old game will make it look less like pixelated vomit on your fancy new TV. "

Two, remastering DOES NOT deny the legal license holders.

What you might have meant was you consider it a

You must be registered to see the links

but that again does not fit with your outline.

More specifically taking an already existing game and releasing a copy as new product.

In either case what you said does not make sense....

Now I believe I'm not alone in gleefully discovering a new game from a novel developer with big ambitions, who after realising the massive pain in the ass that is to make games, abandons the raw gem that you you were hoping to one day see finely polished. Sometimes they create something that just resonates with you, perfect mix of narration, fetishes and mechanics. Why then is it so wrong to pick up were they left? A good example for me in this regard was the original game by the infamous ALISHIA, "Holy Slaves". It was good, not great, but at the time it managed to hook me in and make me hope for many more updates. There is no sign that it will be picked back up by the dev, so maybe someone can write an end to the story.

Writing an end to the story DOES NOT mean the person doing it has to claim they are the original creator nor does it mean that they HAVE to leave the original creator out of the credits. Neither of those things are NEEDED for a new dev to pick up where the game left off and complete it so why bring them up in the first place?

I want to address an argument I believe people will repeatedly make:

"Just come up with your own thing"

​

And it's a good argument I'll give you that. For a lot of VNs it's really easy to take some ideas, maybe a game mechanic or recreate the setting but still make it your own. I'll concede that I've taken existing works and started changing details, adding my own over various iterations and in the end I arrive at a new story, different in so many levels. At some point I even move away from the source and I'm left with a result that no one would easily say is based on the original.

I'd suggest creators to try to do their own thing and it's not a bad outcome to abandon a project if you still learned something from the experience. Still I truly feel in some situations great creations can actually be recreations.

Again NONE of that requires the new dev to claim they are the original creator or to leave the original creator out of the credits, so why bring it up?

On a final note I also wonder why sometimes people are okay with new content made by a different individual than the author if it's done in the form of a mod. Truthfully it's not the same thing to add than to base off a blueprint, but when you end up adding so much that the final product can hardly be recognised.

Two things here,

One, mod creators DO NOT claim the are the original creators of the base game.
Two, "the final product can hardly be recognized" or in some cases "

You must be registered to see the links

" do not claim to be the original creators or ownership of the product (base game).

Are you really making a mod or making something new?

This clearly depends on what you are talking about as you are being very vague here. You have mods, mod that are total conversions and you have standalones.

Some standalones like DayZ become new games BUT the creators of DayZ NEVER claimed they created or owned the ARMA franchise and they did NOT need to claim that to create DayZ.

You must be registered to see the links

At the end of the day none of what you mentioned would require a new dev to claim ownership of the original work or claim to be the original creator. Claiming or implying that the above is necessary to complete an abandoned game is absurd. Also adding to or trying to complete a game that is still in development but that the player feels is taking too long is released as a "fan made game" so there is still no need to claim ownership of the original product or claim to be the original author.

 

[fitgirlbestgirl]

It doesn't matter whether it's immoral, it's just boring and a waste of everybody's time. The reason you like a game is because of the dev. The way he/she writes, renders, animates, whatever. If you just like the game because sexual scenario A, DAZ model B and contrived porn story C, you are kind of a retard.

Games I really liked have been abandoned, I would rather they stay that way then that some random shitter thinks he should take it upon himself to continue them.