Kinect support?

[Phopojijo]

Yeah I'm glad you're not my lawyer... that line of reasoning is not valid in a legal sense.

It SHOULD be somewhat like that... but it's not... Microsoft could still feasibly sue you and you would have to show up in court with legal council even if you would be eventually found innocent which you may or may not.

That said..........

Microsoft has (apart from what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction from a bored lawyer) appeared to be open to people using their device however they feel like provided it's done through a legitimate USB interface.

But yeah, copyright and patent laws are very... ... broad and tough to defend against (and yet also tough for small guys to use). Proprietary hardware can be VERY much encumbered.

Don't forget, lawmakers (including judges ala common law) aren't necessarily the most technically inclined people... and are also usually briefed by the prosecution for the technical details. The RIAA is famous for telling judges and juries what the DMCA means... and you know... lying in the process. A judge recently opened a case with a rant against the prosecution for lying to him. It was pretty funny... and scary... because think of how many more judges listened to the prosecution and believed everything they said was true.

[Hboybowen]

They're not selling it. Do you just ignore everything I type?

?. Of course they arent selling it its a tool kit released to implement into games.
It was tested with WoW fully packaged. I linked it to show you that you can get kinect into UDK now with this without a "license". If we needed a license USC would have gotten one to develop this. Your saying we need a license to do anything with kinect. An if we make a game and add kinect we can still sell it. WoW is a retail game and they added kinect. Microsoft has not told USC that they cannot do this for a retail product that would be "profiting" off kinect (which it wouldnt). Your main argument is that if anyone creates a game for retail with kinect integration needs to go through Microsoft. The only way that would be the case if Microsoft requires some form of royalty for kinect integration in any product.Is there information saying this is the case?

I keep coming back to this because that just seems like their is a hole in your entire arguement that I cant ignore in this one?

[ambershee]

ok so USC integrated Kinect with WoW. The explanation is in the video and could be applied to UDK. WoW(world of warcraft) is a cooked and packaged game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wj8eJ0FHw

-take that ambershee lol

a download to the SDK is in the video

They're not selling it. Do you just ignore everything I type?

[Blade[UG]]

It would be their burden to prove that it's not legitimate.

[Phopojijo]

They might disagree, but it's not within their rights to be able to come after you for hacking a device that you own. Now, if there's a service that goes along with that, it is totally within their rights to disallow people from using hacked units on that service.

Now, it would be a little more grey area, if you were selling software that was purposed for doing something illegal - such as breaking copy protection, as that would get into a DMCA violation, potentially - but still only for the people who actually -used- the software. Aside from export violations on crypto, I'm pretty certain that I could sell any kind of software I wanted for any kind of hardware, and the only boo the hardware manufacturers can say is "we don't endorse this", "we won't support this", and "if you use that software, your device isn't getting on our service".

Doesn't matter if they sue you and you don't have enough resources to buy good enough lawyers to prove that it's legitimate.

Hell, it took the Librarian of Congress to shut up Apple's jailbreaking-is-illegal ****.

[Hboybowen]

ok so USC integrated Kinect with WoW. The explanation is in the video and could be applied to UDK. WoW(world of warcraft) is a cooked and packaged game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wj8eJ0FHw

-take that ambershee lol

a download to the SDK is in the video

[Blade[UG]]

They might disagree, but it's not within their rights to be able to come after you for hacking a device that you own. Now, if there's a service that goes along with that, it is totally within their rights to disallow people from using hacked units on that service.

Now, it would be a little more grey area, if you were selling software that was purposed for doing something illegal - such as breaking copy protection, as that would get into a DMCA violation, potentially - but still only for the people who actually -used- the software. Aside from export violations on crypto, I'm pretty certain that I could sell any kind of software I wanted for any kind of hardware, and the only boo the hardware manufacturers can say is "we don't endorse this", "we won't support this", and "if you use that software, your device isn't getting on our service".

[Phopojijo]

Also, there's no ambiguity on hardware "licenses" vs software. You buy a piece of hardware, you can do what you want with it, so long as you don't brain someone with it or something otherwise illegal.

Some manufacturers (Apple -- "Jailbreaking", consoles themselves, etc.) would disagree. Microsoft in this case, however, seems to say "Have at it".

I'm pretty doubtful that anyone could say what I can sell, if I'm not selling your stuff with it.

They'll still try if it's in their interest to.

Hell, in the early days a lot of DVD players with DivX support was unlicensed because they figured DivX wouldn't have the resources to sue them.

There's plenty of companies who hope that they can get away with **** because their target doesn't have the money to figure back.

[Blade[UG]]

I'm pretty doubtful that anyone could say what I can sell, if I'm not selling your stuff with it.

[ambershee]

Except that as developers, we're selling the software? Why is this so hard to understand?

[Hboybowen]

SALE OF software.

not

USE OF software.

Author/Vendor/Distributor - not End User.

Jebus >.<

yes so using the unofficial kinect for pc tech would not affect you in any way like I said ages ago.

[ambershee]

SALE OF software.

not

USE OF software.

Author/Vendor/Distributor - not End User.

Jebus >.<

[Blade[UG]]

I think we determined back in the 70's, when RMS dealt with the printer manufacturers, that no one could tell you what kind of software you had to use with hardware you own. I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to take legal action like that, it would get laughed out of any court.

Where are stipulations like this, in the docs?

[ambershee]

Or sell software for it.

[Blade[UG]]

Also, there's no ambiguity on hardware "licenses" vs software. You buy a piece of hardware, you can do what you want with it, so long as you don't brain someone with it or something otherwise illegal.