Re: enough is enough, and it's time for a change.
A few things here.
The process set forth would involve going after projects with enough legitimate evidence of stolen assets. Did it go after the worst offenders? Yes, after they demonstrably refused to care about ramifications, in Crazy Party's case. Are we going to blanket ban them all on impulse, or a specific category? Absolutely not.
This is where @ironcross32 in post 78 is wrong, and is something that oculd go south in enacted upon. Few things about libraries here.
1. Yes, it is true that a sound should be well mixed in a project to the point where it is reasonably difficult to recover the entire unmodified asset. For sounds at least, sound vendors never said that a small portion of a sound that clearly sounds ripped out of a mix would fall under restrictions. For music this is a different story, since there's a shit ton more that can be derived from a partially unmodified sample of a royalty free music track being exposed than there are clearly broken portions of sounds that someone tried to recover.
2. If the sounds are modified to this extent, then project asset distribution is on your terms. This was, in essence, how Munawar was able to A-GPL the entirety of TDV, including assets, because they were modified to the point where the entire unmodified originals were unobtainable. In contrast, this is an issue I remember Dan Zingaro telling me about when going over the implications of open sourcing BSC titles, given that encrypted sounds meant that some unmodified assets were used within a project, and there was no disclosed way to get at the sounds. Obfuscation does not always have to involve encryption, especially in cases where it is technically impossible.
3. Most sound vendors will make pretty clear that you are not at fault if someone lifts assets of your project through no fault of your own, provided you didn't go out there and blatantly allow it. And no, lack of encryption *does not* fall under this. Just because sounds are left unencrypted doesn't mean users have been authorized to lift them, and if you really want to insure maximum protection, you put in the manual or license agreement that all assets are property of *insert name here* and must not be redistributed or used in other applications. Again. Obfuscation doesn't have to involve encryption, and it is not the fault of the original developer if their sounds were lifted without consent. The process would not go after you and say, hey, we noticed your sounds were lifted too, so your project's going as well, oh well, that's what you get for not encrypting. That would be clearly unfair and we all know that.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
