Arkaether
Smash Ace
No, I am not posting to prolong the drama. If you got things sorted out with Thinkaman and AA, great. I'm posting this to correct certain massively incorrect points that ColinJF has taken the liberty of making.
There is a difference between doing the research for a project, and creating the end product of a project. How often do you see the names of people involved in the research teams of big projects? How often do you see the name of the main scientist who presents the end result of those big projects?
The point here is simple: you were not credited because you did the research. The coder is credited. Call it unfair, call it terrible if you will, but that is the law of the world and nothing you say will change it.
Also, it's not hypocrisy, considering that the point here is that a coder did not receive credit, and your "hypocrisy" point is based off the premise that researchers deserve as much credit as coders.
Put it this way: a random letter generator, left going, will eventually generate one of Shakespeare's sonnets. YOUR argument is based on the idea that Shakespeare owns that random number generator. Show me somebody who thinks he does, and I'll show you an idiot. Show me somebody who thinks Shakespeare DOESN'T own the rights to his sonnet, and I'll show you another idiot.
Fact is, Shakespeare's sonnets are specific things in a specific language with a specific meaning with a specific presentation in a specific format. Codes are a specific thing created for a specific purpose to change a specific game in a specific format. Trying to bypass the "specific" parts is stupid. I can just as easily convert one of Heinlein's short stories to binary and match that string with a specific atomic arrangement in my coffee table. You're trying to prove that Heinlein doesn't own his stories because he doesn't own my coffee table. I'm proving that my coffee table has no relation to Heinlein simply because you tried to intentionally pull up situational evidence that can be linked to Heinlein in a roundabout and ******** way.
Codes are property of the coder. The coder is not entitled to copyrights concerning that code, nor is he entitled to intellectual property rights as far as legal rights go, but the fact remains that the coder was the creator of the code and as such is the owner.
Oh, and interesting thing of note: "Property" refers to quite a lot more than tangible physical items in your possession. This isn't the 1920s anymore.
GCT files do not have the information directly given to you. True, as paprika pointed out, it's possible to open them in a hex editor and see the files, but the fact still remains that the information is not directly available. GCT files are meant to be used for a specific purpose. Bin files, for instance, may have the information available, but it's not intended to be available.
Oh, and no, I'm not going to say that what the hackers/modders have done with Brawl is not considered reverse engineering, because we are reverse engineering it. Except that what applies to a commercial, widely-produced product does not apply to coders and homebrew programmers. Reverse engineering a homebrew program that someone did is considered morally bankrupt. Reverse engineering a massive commercial game like MKWii is not considered morally bankrupt.
You ask why? Why is it that it's fine to walk into a friend's house, eat an orange, and walk out, but it's not fine to walk into a grocery store, eat an orange, and walk out? Why is it that it's fine to pick up a penny in someone's house and keep it, but it's not fine to pick up a hundred dollar bill in someone's house and keep it?
Don't attempt to compare two significantly different things. True, what both sides are doing is technically reverse engineering, but there's a reason why technicalities don't comprise the main core of arguments.
So you're ok with your code being taken and you being credited. Do realize, however, that not everybody is you.
Great work on that data. Great work on the analysis. I love what you did, I respect your work, and I hope that you realize that despite your data, you did not make the code.
There is a difference between doing the research for a project, and creating the end product of a project. How often do you see the names of people involved in the research teams of big projects? How often do you see the name of the main scientist who presents the end result of those big projects?
The point here is simple: you were not credited because you did the research. The coder is credited. Call it unfair, call it terrible if you will, but that is the law of the world and nothing you say will change it.
Also, it's not hypocrisy, considering that the point here is that a coder did not receive credit, and your "hypocrisy" point is based off the premise that researchers deserve as much credit as coders.
Not to be mean or anything, but my entire point was that code is owned by the coder legally. I don't particularly care about your ideas, or the fact that you seem to want to try to twist things to warp them into a form they were never meant to be.
Put it this way: a random letter generator, left going, will eventually generate one of Shakespeare's sonnets. YOUR argument is based on the idea that Shakespeare owns that random number generator. Show me somebody who thinks he does, and I'll show you an idiot. Show me somebody who thinks Shakespeare DOESN'T own the rights to his sonnet, and I'll show you another idiot.
Fact is, Shakespeare's sonnets are specific things in a specific language with a specific meaning with a specific presentation in a specific format. Codes are a specific thing created for a specific purpose to change a specific game in a specific format. Trying to bypass the "specific" parts is stupid. I can just as easily convert one of Heinlein's short stories to binary and match that string with a specific atomic arrangement in my coffee table. You're trying to prove that Heinlein doesn't own his stories because he doesn't own my coffee table. I'm proving that my coffee table has no relation to Heinlein simply because you tried to intentionally pull up situational evidence that can be linked to Heinlein in a roundabout and ******** way.
Codes are property of the coder. The coder is not entitled to copyrights concerning that code, nor is he entitled to intellectual property rights as far as legal rights go, but the fact remains that the coder was the creator of the code and as such is the owner.
Oh, and interesting thing of note: "Property" refers to quite a lot more than tangible physical items in your possession. This isn't the 1920s anymore.
Despite your beautifully done (sarcasm alert) masking of the central point in a series of semantics, wordplay, and failure to actually address the point, the fact remains that what Thinkaman did is "reverse engineering". Extracting specific information from a format in which information is unable to be directly extracted is called reverse engineering. "Indirectly extracting" specific information from a format in which information is unable to be directly extracted is called reverse engineering. The fact is, Thinkaman reverse engineered it. Extracting it from a gct file is reverse engineering.
GCT files do not have the information directly given to you. True, as paprika pointed out, it's possible to open them in a hex editor and see the files, but the fact still remains that the information is not directly available. GCT files are meant to be used for a specific purpose. Bin files, for instance, may have the information available, but it's not intended to be available.
Oh, and no, I'm not going to say that what the hackers/modders have done with Brawl is not considered reverse engineering, because we are reverse engineering it. Except that what applies to a commercial, widely-produced product does not apply to coders and homebrew programmers. Reverse engineering a homebrew program that someone did is considered morally bankrupt. Reverse engineering a massive commercial game like MKWii is not considered morally bankrupt.
You ask why? Why is it that it's fine to walk into a friend's house, eat an orange, and walk out, but it's not fine to walk into a grocery store, eat an orange, and walk out? Why is it that it's fine to pick up a penny in someone's house and keep it, but it's not fine to pick up a hundred dollar bill in someone's house and keep it?
Don't attempt to compare two significantly different things. True, what both sides are doing is technically reverse engineering, but there's a reason why technicalities don't comprise the main core of arguments.
Remember that an emotional appeal is meant to cater to the masses and is used commonly in arguments. Your personal opinion doesn't really matter; if the emotional appeal doesn't work on you, it doesn't. It works on plenty of other people, because plenty of other people don't publicly release the code for their programs and do not release them freely as far as the idea of "do what you will with it" is concerned.
So you're ok with your code being taken and you being credited. Do realize, however, that not everybody is you.
This isn't a high-school English paper, dear. An ending like that isn't even acceptable in a college-level writing class. For one, you didn't really resolve much. Second, you have shown that ONE aspect of reverse engineering which is commonly condoned is a part of this community, while failing to address the fact that the reverse engineering done by Thinkaman is NOT commonly condoned. Thirdly, I never said that codes couldn't be used in any way you please. I merely said that it was a morally and ethically wrong thing to do. Which it is.
