Taking a guess based on the text in the cited intro, I wonder if the problem wasn't one of copyright, but one of credit.
Even in a group that doesn't care about copyright at all, it'd be tacky to copy someone else's code and not credit them, or to pretend it's all your own work.
> Taking a guess based on the text in the cited intro, I wonder if the problem wasn't one of copyright, but one of credit.
Might be true. Not familiar with Amiga scene but the following actions were always mostly ok in the European C64 scene, provided credit was given to original author:
* Re-using music in whole
* Re-using fonts
* SOMETIMES re-using small parts of graphics
It always was not ok and considered "stealing" to re-use complete demo routines though for example.
People did get away (reputation wise) with re-using code routines for tools, though, provided credits where given and the re-released tool somehow improved on the original.
Another thing which many people disliked for example was re-using "instruments" from music, even when melodies changed. While the players were mostly open tooling, specific instruments/sounds for those players still had to be crafted first and I witnessed a couple of conflicts when people reused the instruments.
Nothing was written in stone, though. A concept such like licenses did not exist.
It was rare to reuse graphics, even fonts. But music was a bit more reusable with credit of course. It also depended on your group, but most groups had an artist, not every group had a musician.
And many of the original intros, before the term "cracktro" was even coined and which predates demos (demos were standalone), would often reuse music from games and not music from other intros.
So those plundering the digital high seas would not only remove copy protection and write an "intro" to both boast about it and show their coding skills, they'd also steal music from commercial games.
And they were the OGs: the demoscene only came after the work (a bit shady of a work but a work nonetheless) of these pioneers.
Another one that in my opinion distinguishes the scene behaviour from the classical copyright system is that the latter allows the copyright holder to use the state violence to squeeze out damage payment from copyright infringers.
Applying this kind of violence seems not to be accepted in the scene.
Well it’s just that there was public shaming if found out, which is just as violent in a small group of people in which everything is based on reputation.
Yes, you also see this in the scientific community where it is the norm to build onto others' work without explicit permission but not citing that work is unthinkable.
In my view cracking is great because it democratizes games for those who can't afford them. If you can afford it (and the game+company is good), then buy it. That's how you can kind of be for-cracking and for-commercial games at the same time.
Personally, it would be great if everything was free and everyone used good judgement to pay creators. But I admit maybe a large chunk would just pay nothing, including some wealthy people who could well just chip in. While enlightenment doesn't come...
A great read. Even today in the indie game developer scene there's a huge range of opinion about what constitutes borrowing, copying, stealing, ripping, and grifting.
I think the article dives at the shallow end of the pool, and only comes up with "demoscene's approach to copyright is self-contradictory". Yes, but does it matter? Is demoscene the only sub-culture with that kind of moral code overrides? Don't we see the same in religions, cartels, NFT grifters, and people who use AI generated images?
Are these people who just create stuff for the sake of art, "credz" and self-entertainment really the only outstanding example? Are they the most important?
This is not a demoscene topic, but a human topic. Narrowing it down to demoscene doesn't serve much purpose, IMHO.
In Tom Scott's YouTube's copyright system isn't broken, the world's is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU), he says "It may seem unfair that the law holds kids on YouTube messing around to more or less the same legal standard as Hollywood studios. In public opinion, there's definitely a big difference there: People smile at small creators taking content from big companies well outside fair use, but never the other way around. And that's the reason that some small-time reaction YouTuber can take a five-second clip from a movie [...] but I'm damn sure if a movie studio took a clip of a reaction channel's video and used it in a film without permission, there would be lawyers lining up to take the case."
This is what happened with Timbaland. The famous guy took a hobbyist's work and gave him no credit whatsoever. Bastard!
I'm pretty sure that even if the _only_ thing Timbaland did was write "Track 9: samples from GRG's remix of Tempest's Acidjazzed Evening" in the liner notes of Nelly Furtado's album, then there would be no controversy... even if he paid them nothing and didn't bother seeking permission. But as he's a sneak-thief and an egotist, he deliberately didn't give them any credit, because then he'd have to admit it's not his hook, it's their hook he's hanging the track on, and his ego refuses to allow that. He also disrespected them by not even appearing to know where the music came from - he claimed it was from a "video game"; BZZT, wrong, it's /MUSICIANS/B/Blues_Muz/Gallefoss_Glenn/Acid_Jazz.sid from the High Voltage SID Collection, and he probably found and sampled the tune while using a SIDStation and browsing C64 music... but didn't respect his fellow musicians enough to cite his source.
There was a similar controversy with Zombie Nation taking David Whittaker's Lazy Jones subtune 21 to make "Kernkraft 400" (but little mention that subtune 7 is the main riff of Nena's 99 Red Balloons)
Scener here since the early 90s. The demoscene is what I've always sort of called the great "third way" of software development after commercial and open-source. The first two are very concerned with copyright (and left as it were) while the demoscene exists in an alternative universe where copyright doesn't really exist and what is and isn't allowed is complex enough to warrant a military-industrial program a la the Human Terrain System [1]. It's almost impossible to succinctly describe, and is probably a big part of why the Demoscene is now (finally) recognized as a UNESCO cultural heritage of several countries.
In the demoscene universe you exist as an individual (scener) with a reputation, or a public "face", then as part of a team (group) with its own reputation/face, and finally and to a much lesser extent as part of a nation-state with a reputation.
Face is gained by making interesting team productions (prods) and successfully competing at competitions (parties) in various strata of competition (compos). You can of course also release prods outside of competitive parties (a release), but true social acceptance in the scene comes from competing, doing well, and competing regularly at higher and higher profile parties.
Where it gets interesting is in understanding the culture of what's allowed and not allowed in a prod. It's a complex mixture of compo rules, technological challenge, novelty, social norms and customs, and several other things that range from easily discernable to impossibly vague. But if you participate in the scene for any length of time you know what's allowed and what's not. For example, some groups in the last year released prods that had obviously AI generated components to them. The scene generally responded to those prods like a overamped shellfish allergy responds to shrimp -- not well [2]
You can make tribute prods that recreate assets, remix music, or squash, stretch, or otherwise shift the artistic vision of other works just so long as you do it "right". The scene reward a certain amount of original effort, while outright copying is villainized, unless of course the copying is done in a way that works within the culture of the scene. The use of a 3d framework made by your group? Totally fine. Use of a framework made by another scener and released to the scene? Also fine. Use of Unreal engine? Controversial.
While AI generated assets were hated, I would almost bet that a demo prod, synthesized from other demo prods, in the right context (maybe in a wild compo) would do well.
The scene is complex, and interesting. There are a few efforts to academically catalog and study it, and I hope it gets a really thorough treatment from anthropologists because the demoscene is a really interesting phenomenon.
> The scene generally responded to those prods like a overamped shellfish allergy responds to shrimp -- not well [2]
I've read half of the thread (12 pages, lost interest after that because it kept repeating) and it doesn't seem to be any different from the sort of responses you'll see here, on Reddit, X/Twitter, etc - i.e. about half the people are pro, about half the people are against and some are somewhere in the middle. The pro/against people even use the same arguments you'd read elsewhere (some recontextualized in demoscene but overall not demoscene-specific).
I have been into the demoscene for the last 25 years and never heard of this website demoscene.info. It looks like the kind of website a domainer will make to "increase" the price of a low value domain name.
Fascinating read and I’ve no sympathy for a scene that eats itself based on its own “copyright does not exist” mantra. No wonder Timbaland ripped them off. Good to get a lesson in the community.
Interesting posts that don't get a lot of attention go into the pool, and are re-injected to the (lower part of the) front page. Timestamps (of the post & the comments) get updated when this happens.
Taking a guess based on the text in the cited intro, I wonder if the problem wasn't one of copyright, but one of credit.
Even in a group that doesn't care about copyright at all, it'd be tacky to copy someone else's code and not credit them, or to pretend it's all your own work.
> Taking a guess based on the text in the cited intro, I wonder if the problem wasn't one of copyright, but one of credit.
Might be true. Not familiar with Amiga scene but the following actions were always mostly ok in the European C64 scene, provided credit was given to original author:
* Re-using music in whole
* Re-using fonts
* SOMETIMES re-using small parts of graphics
It always was not ok and considered "stealing" to re-use complete demo routines though for example.
People did get away (reputation wise) with re-using code routines for tools, though, provided credits where given and the re-released tool somehow improved on the original.
Another thing which many people disliked for example was re-using "instruments" from music, even when melodies changed. While the players were mostly open tooling, specific instruments/sounds for those players still had to be crafted first and I witnessed a couple of conflicts when people reused the instruments.
Nothing was written in stone, though. A concept such like licenses did not exist.
It was rare to reuse graphics, even fonts. But music was a bit more reusable with credit of course. It also depended on your group, but most groups had an artist, not every group had a musician.
And many of the original intros, before the term "cracktro" was even coined and which predates demos (demos were standalone), would often reuse music from games and not music from other intros.
So those plundering the digital high seas would not only remove copy protection and write an "intro" to both boast about it and show their coding skills, they'd also steal music from commercial games.
And they were the OGs: the demoscene only came after the work (a bit shady of a work but a work nonetheless) of these pioneers.
This sounds like an important aspect.
Another one that in my opinion distinguishes the scene behaviour from the classical copyright system is that the latter allows the copyright holder to use the state violence to squeeze out damage payment from copyright infringers.
Applying this kind of violence seems not to be accepted in the scene.
Well it’s just that there was public shaming if found out, which is just as violent in a small group of people in which everything is based on reputation.
Yes, you also see this in the scientific community where it is the norm to build onto others' work without explicit permission but not citing that work is unthinkable.
Related, and a personal favorite of mine: DEF CON 18 - Jason Scott - You're Stealing It Wrong! 30 Years of Inter-Pirate Battles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCAL_YgYiP0
In my view cracking is great because it democratizes games for those who can't afford them. If you can afford it (and the game+company is good), then buy it. That's how you can kind of be for-cracking and for-commercial games at the same time.
Personally, it would be great if everything was free and everyone used good judgement to pay creators. But I admit maybe a large chunk would just pay nothing, including some wealthy people who could well just chip in. While enlightenment doesn't come...
It's been quite sometime since I have heard the term "lamer", but I remember it being a ubiquitous insult in the BBS scene in the early to mid 90s.
Viznut, a scener, created a cheesy sitcom of sorts called PC-lamerit you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVw4FkdNx37dw0vV-N6KL...
“Lamer” was still used on IRC until the mid-2000s, at least in my experience.
Previous discussion on this theme:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41703213 Boris Vallejo and the pixel art of the demoscene (5 months ago, 118 comments)
A great read. Even today in the indie game developer scene there's a huge range of opinion about what constitutes borrowing, copying, stealing, ripping, and grifting.
I think the article dives at the shallow end of the pool, and only comes up with "demoscene's approach to copyright is self-contradictory". Yes, but does it matter? Is demoscene the only sub-culture with that kind of moral code overrides? Don't we see the same in religions, cartels, NFT grifters, and people who use AI generated images?
Are these people who just create stuff for the sake of art, "credz" and self-entertainment really the only outstanding example? Are they the most important?
This is not a demoscene topic, but a human topic. Narrowing it down to demoscene doesn't serve much purpose, IMHO.
In Tom Scott's YouTube's copyright system isn't broken, the world's is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU), he says "It may seem unfair that the law holds kids on YouTube messing around to more or less the same legal standard as Hollywood studios. In public opinion, there's definitely a big difference there: People smile at small creators taking content from big companies well outside fair use, but never the other way around. And that's the reason that some small-time reaction YouTuber can take a five-second clip from a movie [...] but I'm damn sure if a movie studio took a clip of a reaction channel's video and used it in a film without permission, there would be lawyers lining up to take the case."
This is what happened with Timbaland. The famous guy took a hobbyist's work and gave him no credit whatsoever. Bastard!
I'm pretty sure that even if the _only_ thing Timbaland did was write "Track 9: samples from GRG's remix of Tempest's Acidjazzed Evening" in the liner notes of Nelly Furtado's album, then there would be no controversy... even if he paid them nothing and didn't bother seeking permission. But as he's a sneak-thief and an egotist, he deliberately didn't give them any credit, because then he'd have to admit it's not his hook, it's their hook he's hanging the track on, and his ego refuses to allow that. He also disrespected them by not even appearing to know where the music came from - he claimed it was from a "video game"; BZZT, wrong, it's /MUSICIANS/B/Blues_Muz/Gallefoss_Glenn/Acid_Jazz.sid from the High Voltage SID Collection, and he probably found and sampled the tune while using a SIDStation and browsing C64 music... but didn't respect his fellow musicians enough to cite his source.
There was a similar controversy with Zombie Nation taking David Whittaker's Lazy Jones subtune 21 to make "Kernkraft 400" (but little mention that subtune 7 is the main riff of Nena's 99 Red Balloons)
Scener here since the early 90s. The demoscene is what I've always sort of called the great "third way" of software development after commercial and open-source. The first two are very concerned with copyright (and left as it were) while the demoscene exists in an alternative universe where copyright doesn't really exist and what is and isn't allowed is complex enough to warrant a military-industrial program a la the Human Terrain System [1]. It's almost impossible to succinctly describe, and is probably a big part of why the Demoscene is now (finally) recognized as a UNESCO cultural heritage of several countries.
In the demoscene universe you exist as an individual (scener) with a reputation, or a public "face", then as part of a team (group) with its own reputation/face, and finally and to a much lesser extent as part of a nation-state with a reputation.
Face is gained by making interesting team productions (prods) and successfully competing at competitions (parties) in various strata of competition (compos). You can of course also release prods outside of competitive parties (a release), but true social acceptance in the scene comes from competing, doing well, and competing regularly at higher and higher profile parties.
Where it gets interesting is in understanding the culture of what's allowed and not allowed in a prod. It's a complex mixture of compo rules, technological challenge, novelty, social norms and customs, and several other things that range from easily discernable to impossibly vague. But if you participate in the scene for any length of time you know what's allowed and what's not. For example, some groups in the last year released prods that had obviously AI generated components to them. The scene generally responded to those prods like a overamped shellfish allergy responds to shrimp -- not well [2]
You can make tribute prods that recreate assets, remix music, or squash, stretch, or otherwise shift the artistic vision of other works just so long as you do it "right". The scene reward a certain amount of original effort, while outright copying is villainized, unless of course the copying is done in a way that works within the culture of the scene. The use of a 3d framework made by your group? Totally fine. Use of a framework made by another scener and released to the scene? Also fine. Use of Unreal engine? Controversial.
While AI generated assets were hated, I would almost bet that a demo prod, synthesized from other demo prods, in the right context (maybe in a wild compo) would do well.
The scene is complex, and interesting. There are a few efforts to academically catalog and study it, and I hope it gets a really thorough treatment from anthropologists because the demoscene is a really interesting phenomenon.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Terrain_System
2 - https://www.pouet.net/topic.php?which=12637&page=1
> The scene generally responded to those prods like a overamped shellfish allergy responds to shrimp -- not well [2]
I've read half of the thread (12 pages, lost interest after that because it kept repeating) and it doesn't seem to be any different from the sort of responses you'll see here, on Reddit, X/Twitter, etc - i.e. about half the people are pro, about half the people are against and some are somewhere in the middle. The pro/against people even use the same arguments you'd read elsewhere (some recontextualized in demoscene but overall not demoscene-specific).
Not to be confused with the "demoscene".[1]
[1] https://www.demoscene.info/
I have been into the demoscene for the last 25 years and never heard of this website demoscene.info. It looks like the kind of website a domainer will make to "increase" the price of a low value domain name.
https://www.demoscene.info/miscellaneous/ the logo in the footer seems to show it's made by the same people who run Evoke
That's the demoscene the article is referring to. What makes you think otherwise?
Fascinating read and I’ve no sympathy for a scene that eats itself based on its own “copyright does not exist” mantra. No wonder Timbaland ripped them off. Good to get a lesson in the community.
Strange to see this comment from days ago get listed as 2 hours ago.
What gives?
It's called the second-chance pool.
Interesting posts that don't get a lot of attention go into the pool, and are re-injected to the (lower part of the) front page. Timestamps (of the post & the comments) get updated when this happens.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
https://news.ycombinator.com/pool