Frogboy Frogboy

Only MY intellectual property counts..

▼

Only MY intellectual property counts..

A view from the glass house

from WinCustomize Forums

I've been observating (and participating) in some interesting..ahem..discussions with regards to Adam's article on using SkinStudio to import .msstyles files as WindowBlinds skins.

Some intersting "outrage" at the thought that some user, in the privacy of their own home, might run a skin that was originally in .msstyles format in WindowBlinds. That this was, somehow, a violation of the rights of the skinner.

Let's be clear: No one is suggesting that someone should be able to import in a .msstyles skin and then start being able to upload it around. You still need permission. The rights of the skin author should still be respected.

But we also have to have some perspective as well. .msstyles is MICROSOFT'S FORMAT.  It's a format that NO ONE has legally licensed to make use of. And it gets worse - every single .msstyles on the net is a derivative of the Luna.msstyles.  People either reshack luna.msstyles (or an existing derivative of it) to change the bitmaps and data in it or they use a $20 editor that is available that reshacks luna.msstyles with a prettier interface. 

The reason WinCustomize currently does not have a .msstyles section is because of that issue: Can we condone the distribution of what is borderline pirated files?  It's the same reason why we don't include Boot screens that are patched files of the NT kernal (we only support .bootskin and had to write a freeware program just so that we could have boot screens here).  You can't just patch someone else's copyrighted stuff and pass it around.  Believe me, I would love to have a .msstyles section here from a purely capitalistic point of view and if someone can rationalize it for me to have a section for them, go for it - I'm ready to believe.  But like I said, we're talking pretty gray market stuff.

But let's get back - so then the people who object to the idea that WindowBlinds would somehow profit from the ability to make use of .msstyles.  This is apparently somehow different than the commercial programs that have existed for the past 3 years that make use of .msstyles by patching uxtheme.dll.

And anyone who claims that hacking your system files to use .msstyles should explain to others why the main sites that promote patching uxtheme.dll do not have forums.  Even the main NON-FREE developer of a uxtheme patching program removed their forums. The most popular .msstyles distribution site has no forums.  Could it possibly be that it's because of the technical disasters it causes? I don't know. What I do know is how much tech support WE get from people who messed around with their files and blew away their default visual style or had problems when they applied a service pack or something else.  In my opinion, anyone trying to claim that patching your system files (either in RAM or on disk) is "safe" is not telling the whole story.

Puttin that aside - there are already programs making a profit from .msstyles and have been for years. Where's the outrage? But because the handful of original msstyles floating around the net might be able to be added to the 3000+ existing WindowBlinds skins Stardock is the greedy one? Please.

Regardless of the format, the rights of skin authors need to be respected. They are artists.  As the #6 most downloaded skin author on this site, I know something of the work that goes into skinning.  But I also know where my rights end.  When someone downloads my skin onto their own computer, my rights end.  What they do with it on their own computer is their business. People have been downloading and modifying skins for their own use since day 1.  And of all formats, .msstyles authors happen to be using a format that requires them to be using someone else's stuff without their permission in the first place. 

skinning
45,815 views 136 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Lots of people have opinions....some of them have opinions about what 'copyright' means....and very few have managed to get it right.

All of this issue is determining which 'interpretation' of the situation you prefer to 'side' with.

There are 3 potential forms/outcomes of 'porting' anything at all...whether done by SKS or magic or Auntie Flo's knitting needles.

1. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work.  Yes, it's a port.  This someone lives happily ever after playing with it.

2. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work.  Yes, it's a port.  This someone seeks and obtains permission from the author of the prior work to upload/distribute. He therefore is granted [limited] copyright for distribution.  He distributes. Several someones live happily ever after playing with it.

3. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work.  Yes, it's a port.  This someone uploads/distributes this port WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION.  He violates implied and inherent copyright of the original author by doing so.  This is theft of copyright [as it has not been granted/transferred by its holder], and in our "Skinning" world we call it RIPPING [you doubtless have heard the term, emotive, albeit colloquial].

So....

What we get between here and Customize.org is two interpretations of the same article....which is quite cute...as there is only one article and no matter how many times it is read it still communicates one meaning...

Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top
i see your point Colo .. but as it has been stated .. the majority have already been ported... and those who want personal ports will make them any ways.(with or with out the SKS extra)

i believe brad and the guys were trying to help those who wish to port them to WB...it is a neat little extra that opens doors to those who might want to share their themes with a whole new range of users.

i seriously doubt that stardock saw the 160 skins and thought ,....."gee ma theres a ton of money in there.. lets get us sum"...come on .. think abt it .. it prolly cost more in codeing time alone,than they will possibly "make" from increased sales due to a few MSstyles.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top
You make a painting of a bridge, and donate it to an non-profit art museum. However, a business makes a copy of your painting and starts charging admission for people to see it.


Well thats just plain stealing. Funny how metaphors often misdirect everything from the actual topic.
Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top
In addition, you get no money from the business that copied your painting.



stardock copied nothing.they offered the msstyles community a tool ...that would be like gripeing at hewlet packard cause they built a printer that was used to print your skin to paper...
Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top
The EULA could be associated for the images i would imagine. But they would be protected by copyrights anyway. So it would be redundant.

I don't think someone should be able to change your artwork and then show it in a screenshot. I don't think artwork that is modified or altered in any way without the artist's permission should be shown. I had this discussion when Boxxi ported our Catwoman skin and then showed it in the screenshot section. It dilutes the quality of our original artwork.

As the original artists we do and should have a right to control how our graphics are shown in public. Something i don't see happening here. When i asked for that shot to be taken down i was told no. Now i put you may not alter or distribute our artwork in any form. It's clearly stated like on the nVidia skin.
Reply #31 from WinCustomize Forums Top
i didnt see the eula Jesh....to keep with your wishes....i have removed my screenshot Nvidia nights..
Reply #32 from WinCustomize Forums Top
if it bothers jesh... i have no problem removeing it ..
Reply #33 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Would like to hear from Jafo about screenshots. I thought screenshots, within an acceptable range of "decency"....PG-13...that sufficiently hide the desktop wallpaper were generally accepted here, whether they be works in progress or for private use only....a skin you've created that you don't have permission to distribute, but would like to show off...I think I've seen some of those from Snowman, where he's updated a skin and posted a screenshot of it and stated in the description it was as such...not for distribution.
Reply #34 from WinCustomize Forums Top

It has been commonly argued for one heck of a long time that screenshots fall under the heading of 'fair use'...which, I might add is relevant to the US interpretation of Copyright Law...and not that of other countries...however the US/AUS free trade agreement means that will now be a little more wide-spread.

Wincustomize.com is, I believe the only site which requests that the wallpaper be obscured to prevent the 'easy' distribution/reuse of the single image... a quite tangible 'infringement'.

It's yet to be demonstrated [by anyone] that, for example a straight screenshot of a Winamp skin in action is actual distribution of the skin's bitmaps, as the bmps are quite different to what displays, anyway...

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
A screenshot is NOT a distribution of a skin. It's just a picture of what's on your screen. Taking a picture of your Ford then posting it on the internet does not violate Ford's IP rights even if the Ford in the picture is "pimped out."
Reply #36 from WinCustomize Forums Top
JesseJ, you make some great looking bikes and cars but you really need to smile more, man. hey tech_cat!
Reply #37 from WinCustomize Forums Top
"As for who loses, that's a very subjective issue. Let me use a metaphor. You make a painting of a bridge, and donate it to an non-profit art museum. However, a business makes a copy of your painting and starts charging admission for people to see it. You meant your work to be free for everyone, but now it's being used by others to make money. In addition, you get no money from the business that copied your painting. Personally, I think the artist loses in that situation. It would certianly be tough to say that anyone other than company wins."


Copyright violation. Artist still owns the printing rights to painting even though it was donated. So it's same thing.
Reply #38 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'm sorry, but the "bridge painting" analogy is flawed. The ability, in SkinStudio to port msstyles to WB format would be more like someone using their digital camera to take a picture of the bridge painting, then using that picture as their wallpaper on their own home PC. No one is hurt, no one's IP rights are violated. If, however, that person then distributed that digital picture without the original artist's permission, that would be a violation of the artist's IP rights. The msstyle port feature in SKS amounts to little more than the digital photo. Hell, why not claim that Photoshop violates IP rights since you can use it to convert file formats? (jpeg to bmp, etc...)
I do very little "skinning" and that only for my own use. And I've never seen any msstyle that I would even want to use. Sheesh...Some people need to get out more.
Reply #39 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Let's simplyify the "exploitation" and "respect" argument to its basics:

This is Customize.org's msstyle library: http://www.customize.org/list/stylexp

Look at the top: It mentions Style XP and has a link to TGTSoft's website.  Style XP is a $20 program that runs msstyles. They did not make the msstyle format.  The more msstyles there are, the more profit one can assume TGT Soft will make.  

So the staff of the site that ADVERSISES commercial programs to use msstyles is objecting because SkinStudio provides the ability to import .msstyles into the WindowBlinds format and that therefore, even though the FREE version of WindowBlinds and the FREE version of SkinStudio do this, that somehow in some way WindowBlinds may financially benefit from it.

Talk about double standards.

Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Agree with Brad.

The argument boils down to the fact that some people object to Stardock making money PERIOD.

The argument is similar to the equally unreasonable ones that "Microsoft shouldn't exist", "that Linux is the only way to go", "that everything is copied from Mac", and "Intel is bad for the CPU business".

Finally, it's just a waste of breath, hosting space, time and energy (and a few others that I no longer wanted to waste in this thread).
Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Showing screenshots with the artwork kept intact is one thing and yes would fall under Fair Use. Altering artwork and then displaying is not Fair Use.

No one has any right to alter our artwork in any way without our permission, screenshot or not. Our work is released as a whole entity. Not a kit for people to pick apart and then display in some screenshot section. People i see here tend to abuse the whole Fair Usage right. The artist or studio has full control over who can or can't alter their artwork. I've all ready discussed this with our IP attorneys. So please don't tell me about Fair Use rights.
Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top
oh and HG i don't have a problem if you ask. Or better yet go ahead. I'm just stating generalities.
Reply #43 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Jeff, you should write an article on that. I don't want this discussion to get too off track and I think your point of view is an interesting one.  I don't agree with it but I think it has a lot more merit than the position some people have with regards to msstyles being used by WindowBlinds.
Reply #44 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I also dont believe that an artists work should be defaced. That is why whenever I make a screenshot (and thats a lot) I try always to never alter the artists work. Because I see how hard it is for me to make the shot so I can imagine how hard it is for them to make their creation. I just believe that if we had respect between everybody (hope) that everyone would get along better.
Reply #45 from WinCustomize Forums Top
"I also dont believe that an artists work should be defaced. That is why whenever I make a screenshot (and thats a lot) I try always to never alter the artists work. Because I see how hard it is for me to make the shot so I can imagine how hard it is for them to make their creation. I just believe that if we had respect between everybody (hope) that everyone would get along better"

ABSOLUTELY!

I view The Skins Factory as pro as pro can get, and his views on IP rights are probably very accurate.

If a msstyles author mentions in a EULA that his work may not be altered in any way, woe to the first wb user who unwarily posts a ss of such a vs. And you can bet I'll keep a list.

And since we seem to be not allowed to say anything negative Stardock or Wincustomize without you flipping out Frogboy, how about you ease up on the negative rhetoric towards customize.org a little bit? It's a two way street. You seem to be allowed to call us names and say the site is dead and a mess.
Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top
custo.org admins insult stardock .. bash frogboy and put down WC then lock the thread. after blasting a whole group of skinners here .. then wonder why hes mad ????


wholy cow talk about dense...
Reply #47 from WinCustomize Forums Top
point me in the direction of an mssytle skin that has such a EULA, colossus72, and i'll convert that baby and post a screenshot of it. i'll even promise to add some wb features that msstyles can't do.
Reply #48 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I certainly don't have the desire to take the thread off track. Just adding a my few cents in. We'll leave it for another day. Right now i have CES to worry about not if some artist is altering our work. Have to keep the priorities straight here
Reply #49 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Okay well i read some of the posts here and at Custo. This is my personal opinion. I'm not a fan of auto-porting for the simple reason that i don't like the idea of an artist's work being transformed into a format that it wasn't intended for. Is it a crime? No. I think its more of a matter of bad taste and form than anything else.

Example: Microsoft put out the Winamp to WMP skin converter. I thought that was in bad taste. It was disrespectful to the winamp artists.

I don't think any screenshots of unauthorized porting should be allowed. Period. Because that takes it from the privacy of their home and displays it for the world to see. It ceases being private at the point.
Reply #50 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Not to be a argument party pooper but shouldn't we be discussing how as a community we can help raise money to donate for the victims in Asia? Everything else compared to that seems rather trivial. Don't you agree?