Intellivisionaries: Questions For Keith Robinson

[Intymike]

M-Network games have not much left of the original artwork.

 

 

 

 

[+intvsteve]

Well, then there's Adventures on GX-12...

[First Spear]

I get the feeling that IP is very ROI-sensitive and risk averse. This might not apply to Keith Robinson, but I have seen others in his age bracket (not that he's much older than me) that own their own businesses and want to go with predictable revenue streams (even if they are smaller) rather than than something with more calculated risk with high payoff value. Assuming IP has the source code to say Tron Discs, getting someone to do more than change the shape of the Recognizer, modify some colors, and update the manual/title screen is likely more than IP would want to pay. I hate to get into the business of how they run their business, but maybe a new KR question could be

 

"Do you have a framework setup to contract with programmers to modify games to remove licensed intellectual property so games like Tron Discs could be re-released without Disney property for example?"

 

Not my best wording but you get the idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did they leave the recognizer untouched? That would be a nice test case for a FB release if changing the name only is enough.

 

Maze-A-Tron can become Maze-A-Dude

 

And if there is fear of repercussion, then change out the recognizers so there isn't anything Tron related in the game play at all.

 

And for Deadly Discs they can add a menu for selecting Deadly Dogs play style. I really like my thought of a giant ketchup bottle spurting at you

 

I am still thinking Solar Sailor is too close to Tron since it does have too many Tron recognizable things.

[+Tarzilla]

You wouldn't need the original source code to de-IP Deadly Discs. Disassemble the Rom, update the recogniser to something else. Remove the T R O N text from the title, maybe replace it with GX-12, maybe edit the horizontal disk graphics with an overhead view, I'm sure there are people that would even do it for free.

[First Spear]

I was not going to split hairs, but then I said to myself, "self, that is what we do here on this forum".

 

I submit that the original source is not needed to change Deadly Discs from a technical standpoint, but it may be essential to de-IP Deadly Discs.

 

My thin understanding of the legal part of things is that IP would have to take two source listings and compare them to say "see, this is the original, we identified the intellectual property parts here and here and here, and this is our new source and see how we changed them there and there and there." Then the other side looks at the listing and agrees that the new is sufficiently different and does not resemble the original, and the source can go into a repository somewhere and the right people are indemnified. The intellectual property holder is not expected to play the game and say whether it looks like their game or not as the primary thing. Also, if the game is disassembled and changed and there is no source comparison, there is no way to know if a Recognizer suddenly pops out at level 75 or something due to an easter egg or bug.

 

I had to deal with something similar when my company had some open source software in it's tech stack and the company was acquired; the larger company did not want OSS in the stack for their own legal purposes. The lawyers were happy when we could prove that we had replaced the OSS bits (compression libraries) with commercial libraries, documented source tree comparisons of method calls to the commercial libs were the proof path of least resistance.

 

 

You wouldn't need the original source code to de-IP Deadly Discs. Disassemble the Rom, update the recogniser to something else. Remove the T R O N text from the title, maybe replace it with GX-12, maybe edit the horizontal disk graphics with an overhead view, I'm sure there are people that would even do it for free.

[+Tarzilla]

I was not going to split hairs, but then I said to myself, "self, that is what we do here on this forum".

 

I submit that the original source is not needed to change Deadly Discs from a technical standpoint, but it may be essential to de-IP Deadly Discs.

 

 

 

To keep splitting hairs...disassembled roms ARE a form of source code.... and wouldn't be any different from the originals other than that the original source comments would be missing, which would be irrelevant to an IP challenge after changing graphics and text.

 

[Click to enlarge]

Even a lawyer would be able to see the differences to ensure the IP in question has been sanitized. They'd need an expert witness that reads Assembly but there are lots of those.

 

Having said that, I'm sure more hairs could be split by others invalidating my terming dis-assemblies as source code

[+DZ-Jay]

To keep splitting hairs...disassembled roms ARE a form of source code.... and wouldn't be any different from the originals other than that the original source comments would be missing, which would be irrelevant to an IP challenge after changing graphics and text.

 

[Click to enlarge]

compareasm.png

Even a lawyer would be able to see the differences to ensure the IP in question has been sanitized. They'd need an expert witness that reads Assembly but there are lots of those.

 

Having said that, I'm sure more hairs could be split by others invalidating my terming dis-assemblies as source code

That's a rather naive view. Ignoring for a moment that the current disassembling tools in the SDK-1600 were not designed to generate assembly code that can be re-assembled, there is the sometimes complex logic encapsulated in macros and higher-level constructions that make reading a disassembled ROM extremely hard.

 

Although the tool may generate code that is 1-to-1 with the ROM binary, it may be rather far from the original source in logic flow and data structures.

 

Trust me, it is not really trivial to understand a disassembled game -- especially those that were built with higher level tools or that rely heavily on clever tricks to conserve space.

 

For instance, I believe that the BSR's used a macro library that generated many data structures that are hard to understand without the original semantics. They also employed a linker, which resolved memory addresses and jumps, and allowed for library and sub-procedure code blocks to be non-contiguous and scattered all over the place

 

The final code may look like a jumbled spaghetti mess!

 

dZ.

[+Tarzilla]

That's a rather naive view. Ignoring for a moment that the current disassembling tools in the SDK-1600 were not designed to generate assembly code that can be re-assembled, there is the sometimes complex logic encapsulated in macros and higher-level constructions that make reading a disassembled ROM extremely hard.

 

Although the tool may generate code that is 1-to-1 with the ROM binary, it may be rather far from the original source in logic flow and data structures.

 

Trust me, it is not really trivial to understand a disassembled game -- especially those that were built with higher level tools or that rely heavily on clever tricks to conserve space.

 

For instance, I believe that the BSR's used a macro library that generated many data structures that are hard to understand without the original semantics. They also employed a linker, which resolved memory addresses and jumps, and allowed for library and sub-procedure code blocks to be non-contiguous and scattered all over the place

 

The final code may look like a jumbled spaghetti mess!

 

dZ.

Hardly naive at all, it was just an illustration that the original source code and development systems wouldn't be needed to survive an IP infringement challenge from Disney over modifiying the original game to remove Tron references. I believe Keith has said he'd rather try again and get a licence like he almost had when the Tron DVD was released.

[freewheel]

Could you add this to the next “Questions for Keith” segment, or if you have an answer before the show, and if you get a "preview answer" could you post it here?

 

"

Could you point the world to a definitive 'fair use' document that states the circumstances of where and when and under what rules the Intellivision Running Man can be shown? It would be interesting to know when that iconic figure can be shown on a fan site vs a homebrew publisher vs an independent/commercial venture. A pointer to a written declaration is all that's needed to be clear in this case.

"

 

We know that Keith is not a lawyer, but he's referred to legal issues about this-and-that in other segments, so it would be great to get some clear cut information on this topic. Different companies treat their brand identities differently so it would be good to know how IP treats this particular piece.

 

Neat idea, never gonna happen. Not only does IP law not work that way, KEITH doesn't work that way. You want to use the Running Man? Contact Keith and license its use. Otherwise you're either in a legal grey area of skating very close to it. He tends to look the other way, for the most part - but you are never ever going to get his blessing just out of the goodness of his heart.

 

The same goes for the discussion on "couldn't we just swap out some graphics and then have Tron games in a Flashback?". Yes, it's technically possible. Keith has had 15+ years to think about doing it, with all these collections, and hasn't. Ask yourself why.

 

If nothing else, Keith isn't going to risk Disney's wrath just to add a couple of games that only hardcore collectors care about. Because the second you take the Tron name away, you now have a game that the average person doesn't even remember. Even if it costs literally nothing to do this (which it won't), he's not about to take even a tiny risk just to sell an extra 50 Flashbacks.

 

Keith covered these sorts of things very well the last time (if memory serves) that they interviewed him. He's not going to waste even 30 seconds of his time on something that brings in another $200. Fortunately, he's also not going to sue you into bankruptcy over your $200 homebrew profit. Wanna pay $5-10,000 for a license? Let's talk. Selling stuff that undercuts his profit margins (ie: selling 5000 copies of a ROM CD)? At the very least you'll receive legal notice.

 

[+DZ-Jay]

Hardly naive at all, it was just an illustration that the original source code and development systems wouldn't be needed to survive an IP infringement challenge from Disney over modifiying the original game to remove Tron references. I believe Keith has said he'd rather try again and get a licence like he almost had when the Tron DVD was released.

 

Read again, I meant this comment:

 

 

 

and wouldn't be any different from the originals other than that the original source comments would be missing, which would be irrelevant to an IP challenge after changing graphics and text.

 

My emphasis.

Edited September 23, 2015 by DZ-Jay

[First Spear]

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah homey I get in general how the IP stuff goes (or does not go). That's why I worded my KR question the way I did, for him to directly answer or directly point too something. Since he "owns" the IP and has legal docs, he can say clearly what is good or what is not or where to look for the rules. The rules exist somewhere. KR has said stuff anecdotally and sprinkles history in here and there about copyrights and etc. But I would like for him to say something definitive about something. I trust Nurmix's skills as an interviewer to get the point across.

 

 

Neat idea, never gonna happen. Not only does IP law not work that way, KEITH doesn't work that way. You want to use the Running Man? Contact Keith and license its use. Otherwise you're either in a legal grey area of skating very close to it. He tends to look the other way, for the most part - but you are never ever going to get his blessing just out of the goodness of his heart.

 

The same goes for the discussion on "couldn't we just swap out some graphics and then have Tron games in a Flashback?". Yes, it's technically possible. Keith has had 15+ years to think about doing it, with all these collections, and hasn't. Ask yourself why.

 

If nothing else, Keith isn't going to risk Disney's wrath just to add a couple of games that only hardcore collectors care about. Because the second you take the Tron name away, you now have a game that the average person doesn't even remember. Even if it costs literally nothing to do this (which it won't), he's not about to take even a tiny risk just to sell an extra 50 Flashbacks.

 

Keith covered these sorts of things very well the last time (if memory serves) that they interviewed him. He's not going to waste even 30 seconds of his time on something that brings in another $200. Fortunately, he's also not going to sue you into bankruptcy over your $200 homebrew profit. Wanna pay $5-10,000 for a license? Let's talk. Selling stuff that undercuts his profit margins (ie: selling 5000 copies of a ROM CD)? At the very least you'll receive legal notice.

 

[freewheel]

Yeah homey I get in general how the IP stuff goes (or does not go). That's why I worded my KR question the way I did, for him to directly answer or directly point too something. Since he "owns" the IP and has legal docs, he can say clearly what is good or what is not or where to look for the rules.

 

 

And that's why I said: IP law doesn't work that way. And most definitely not Keith's interpretation of it. Fortunately, he doesn't (to my knowledge) actually ACT on his view. Or even exercise his rights, for the most part. He certainly could, if he wanted to be an ass about things.

 

Long story short, he can't just casually condone use of the Running Man (to address your specific point). As a trademark, he's pretty much legally obligated to take action against any outside use of it. He *could* license it out for use - even for a dollar - but the legal paperwork required means it just ain't worth it. It would cost him a small fortune. Best just to turn a blind eye towards it, which is his implicit way of allowing it. But he most certainly can't publicly say "this use is fine, that isn't". Because that's not how the law works.

 

If pressed, he'd point you to the various pieces of copyright and trademark legislation. Which are quite clear: you have practically zero legal right to use any of his intellectual property, outside of strictly limited "fair use" exceptions - reviews, educational purposes, that sort of thing. Fan/hobby sites aren't exactly mentioned in these laws, and where they are, the laws almost never work in our favor. Which is why Nintendo is fully within their rights, for example, to demand that people take down speedrun videos of Super Mario Bros. Or prevent ANYONE from using their name and/or logo on a fansite (something else they've done in the past). Or why you're seeing more and more video reviewers having their stuff pulled, once they use more than a miniscule fraction of the content in a review. The actual laws on the books are absolutely horrendously weighted against "us". Practically nothing is allowed.

 

And unfortunately, short of giving up near-complete control of the properties Keith has to actually play by those rules. The fact that he intentionally dodges the bullet when asked speaks volumes. His lack of response here is actually a good thing, believe it or not.

[Walter Ives]

On 4/11/2015 at 2:03 PM, Lathe26 said:

I would love to hear why the RAM sizes were unusual sizes (352 words of System RAM, 240 bytes of scratchpad RAM) and whether there was internal controversy before those numbers were set in stone. I have good guesses as to why but would love to hear confirmation.

Robinson didn't know, but here's the answer.

GI's RAM design came in 32-word chunks. The designers figured they could fit 11 of those on the chip and still get tolerable yields. As it turns out, 11 was a little too much--initial yields were atrocious.

Scratchpad RAM is of a logical size (256 x 8), less a 16 byte location carve-out for the sound chip. It shares a page with the sound chip because APh went ballistic when GI tried to locate it outside of the low 10-bit address range.