Yeah, but (for example) I download the ProLCD visual style for StyleXP. Then I use skinstudio to port it over so I can use it in WindowBlinds. I dont distribute it...is this a violation of intellectual copyright?

Depends on where you wish things to go and how you wish them to get there really.

A msstyle port is done thru permission from the original author

That I know, but I said for personal use. I can download any msstyle and use SKS to port it to use with WindowBlinds, so long as I don't upload it, who has a say in it? What's the difference if a user of StyleXP downloads an IconPackage and ports it for personal use?

quote]#26 by Skinner CerebroJD - 7/20/2004 9:15:41 PM

I think it's distribution that is prohibited.[

But StyleXP doesnt PORT the IconPackage does it? It just uses the straight .ip file.
[Message Edited]

That is exactly right Stephen. They (the users) are not ripping the author's work.
They (the TGT Soft company) are ripping the program's format/script

Porting/editing images for personal use doesnt violate any codes. Thats part of what 'customizing' is. I have a green version of CopperDeck II icons that I edited for my personal use, and unless I distribute them I'm not in violation of any law.

So this issue is not the art/skins, since TGTSoft isn't distributing anyone's work. The issue is exactly what Frogboy said. TGTSoft licensed the .iptheme, but not the encryption.

Nite all...really got to catch some Zzzzzz's The daily grind starts in about 3-1/2 hours for me

Well one thing to consider is that TGTSoft also has a nasty habit of using an install wrapper on some items which installs spyware and adware while doing so. Neat huh, would you like that crap force fed to you?

I guess it's not so bad if tgtsoft has actually licensed the use of the IP theme.

I do hope that what brad said about stylexp losing popularity is true. I can't stand that they charge for their product.
[Message Edited]

Reverse Engineering is a No No...

Can Stardock change the encryption if they want?

yup...

I used Style XP once, for about 10 minutes, and I remember every skin I tried was ugly and basically Luna recolored. And I remember having a lot of problems, and me wanting to set the faces of some programmers on fire...

There will be more of an announcement soon but in brief:

TGT Soft wanted Style XP to read in IconPackager files (for obvious reasons).

We told them they would have to license the .iptheme format.

They filed a lawsuit asking for the courts to give a declatory judgement stating that they could use the IconPackager .iptheme format without our permission (and subsequently argued that .iptheme isn't a format and can't be protected).

We settled out of course in which they licensed the .iptheme format. The exact terms of confidential (i.e. what we got in return I can't disclose).

However, we don't have to provide them with the means of encryption. My personal opinion is that if they can crack the .iptheme encryption then good for them.  It's up to us to decide whether we should change the encryption or do something else.

Style XP does now include in its about dialog that it licensed the IconPackager format and .iptheme files are displayed as Iconpackager files rather than simply "icon files" generically.

We look at our formats like skinners see their skins. You need the creator's permisison before you can use it for commercial purposes.

This doesn't give them the right to re-distribute icon packages. The icons belong to the icon author and can only be at places they've given permission for.

Tell me that they can't create .iptheme through their software at least.

I don't think they can create any "icon sets" from scratch with it.

At least what they have done is legal. While I don't personally agree with it, it's nice to know that Stardock/TGTsoft have settled their differences.

Couldn't they argue the same thing about wba's and such too, I mean once a WBA is extracted all the pieces are open resources.

At least what they have done is legal. While I don't personally agree with it, it's nice to know that Stardock/TGTsoft have settled their differences.

Honestly I don't see it that way. They are still cracking the encryption so they are still up to no good.

I personally feel that TGTSoft are a bunch of thugs.. Hopefully some of the people that pay them for StyleXP will wake up and realize that the program IS NOT zero footprint. Recently I actually spoke with a person here at work who uses StyleXP and he gave me practically verbatim the marketing message from tgtsoft.com as the reason he uses the program. It was really funny to listen to an intelligent person blindly repeat that message like he knew it to be a fact. When I questioned him about whether he knew that his themes were simply running under the cover of one of the svchost.exe processes and probably using 20MB+ of memory, he seemed really surprised. I'm going to show him WB and everything it can do and see if maybe we can convert one more from the dark side.

On a related note I was browsing the ThemeXP forums yesterday and it seems there are quite a few people who are really ticked about the spyware packed skins..
[Message Edited]

At least what they have done is legal.

No, cracking the existing encryption was not legal in the least.

They have license to make use of themes without the encryption created before it was applied. They did not buy license to break the encryption and Stardock was not ordered to sell or gift them the encryption scheme.

But, as stated before, it will be left alone and over looked.
They also do not have any Rights to host, wrap, or in any other way make use of anyones IP Themes that does not give them specific premission if a disclaimer is added to the Theme.

Something along the lines that only the Author is allowed to upload to sites of their choice to host the Theme. Anyone else posting them is breaking the eula for the Theme and must delete it.

How you would enforce it, I could not tell you at this point. But if you host all your work on say WinCustomize and only WinC. People would have to come here for it or share it p2p and not post it at TGT.

That is a personal choice....

or share it p2p

Technically that is 'distribution', not 'personal use' and is thus also likely to be against copyright......

Technically that is 'distribution', not 'personal use' and is thus also likely to be against copyright......

Heh, since copyrights have worked O' so well for movies, music, and programs