Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Don't tell people to pirate

    Originally posted by dimko View Post
    Pirate their games, use them under wine.
    FU Activision!
    I payed for every Linux title I own or owned.
    I will however lightheartedly pirate their games and play them in wine, providing they run there. I will use every dirty way to do them damage now.
    Hackers, Black Hats, please take note who to f*** up next, same goes to Anonymous.
    Fuc**** As* hats!
    Piracy is never the answer. Piracy allows content owners claim that X amount of piracy equals X amount of lost sales, which isn't true. Piracy isn't stealing of content but stealing access to it. You may not be taking away from the amount of copies in existence but you are benefiting from the works of others without compensating them for it.

    When Ubisoft releases Assassin's Creed 2 with its' insane drm I didn't buy it or play it in any form. Active disinterest or even passive disinterest speaks more than piracy.

    Comment


    • #42
      Next time don't pick a shit publisher like Activision.

      Comment


      • #43
        What the **** is wrong here? These things still happen today?

        Todays modern universe clearly speaks another language.

        I have no clue what stone age activision just landed in, but it clearly must be something with stones.

        Comment


        • #44
          In Poland, terms as "X product can only be runned on Y" in EULA's are invalid.

          Sane law.

          (Yes we can install OSX onto normal PC's if OSX was bought.)

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Luke View Post
            That I hope you don't use ffmpeg, libdvdcss, or other patent-resisting software on Linux inside the US either. I do, because I consider software patents to be illegitimate law written by government bought and paid for by corporations. Remember, the main reason the GPL was ever created as as self-defense against others taking our code, then CLOSING it. If there were no patents and no copyrights, anyone could compile our code and release only the binaries BUT nobody could keep us from releasing our own binaries with our source code. That would be "good enough" for my purposes. I say if you don't want your invention copied, keep it to yourself and forfeit all credit for having invented it, the way things were before patents were created as "royal patents" by kings as a subset of paid royal monopolies.

            As for me, I consider the entire system of government AND of international trade to be an enemy organization or set therof, none of whose decrees mean anything except rules of engagement for enemy soldiers. Why do you think I use military-grade encryption and preach its use by others?
            Software patents and copyright are different things. Also, I'm not defending Activision, I'm just talking about consistency here. You say it is valid, well, valididity is a matter of logic. If it is valid to some, it is valid to others. We talk about not respecting the conditions to distribute a copyrighted material, well, this is exactly the same if you do it for GPL software or for artistic material.
            I'm not saying it could or could not be fair. I'd say Activision is giving the finger to Linux users, so I'd consider it fair if Linux users do the same pirating their games. But it wouldn't be valid, if they'd expect companies to respect the GPL when they use code with this license.
            Anyway, your position in this post is consistent. You say for your ends you can distribute whatever code and binaries you want if there is no copyright, and you don't care about others being obligated to share the source code if they redistribute your binaries, so you don't care about copyright at all, and it's fine.

            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            Next time don't pick a shit publisher like Activision.
            It isn't about them being the publishers, but about them being the IP owners.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by przemoli View Post
              In Poland, terms as "X product can only be runned on Y" in EULA's are invalid.

              Sane law.

              (Yes we can install OSX onto normal PC's if OSX was bought.)
              It is not an EULA but it would be a distributor agreement, so I don't think that applies. Also, they don't forbid to try and run it anywhere, they just prevent the making of a port. They wouldn't probably go as far as prohibiting to run it in WINE, for example. In that case, you'd have a case.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                Copyright gives you the right to set the terms of distribution. Commercial or non-commercial. And the GPL takes them as equal, so stepping over it in this case makes valid stepping over the GPL. Also, they are setting terms for commercial distribution, no more than this. Their terms are "not for Linux". That's the same piece that protects authorship and allows to set terms for commercial distribution you said you could agree with.
                Actually no, because the protection of authorship is distinct from the protection of monopoly of distribution. And also, because it doesn't matter if the GPL takes commercial/non-commercial distribution as equal, if the distinction between commercial/non-commercial distribution is written down in law. Licenses cannot overrule laws.

                If noncommercial (ie. private) copying/sharing is freed, that still leaves the part of copyright that protects authorship, plagiarism etc. In other words, you couldn't take someone else's code, modify it, and then distribute the modified product without the permission of the original author. You also couldn't take the code and claim ownership over it, because the original author would still have authorship rights. Making derivatives, distributing the original product and making copies of the original distribution are all distinct actions from each other, and the copyright protection for each are not mutually dependent of each other.

                You could distribute GPL software in binary-only form if it's for noncommercial purposes, but let's face it - you can already do that, no one is going to really give a crap if I take a binary I compiled from some GPL-licensed code and share that binary with my friend Alphonso the talking frog.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by srkelley5 View Post
                  Piracy is never the answer.
                  Not true. Sometimes, piracy is the answer. For example, if someone asks, "what is the word for the activity where people sail in big sailboats and wear eyepatches".

                  Piracy allows content owners claim that X amount of piracy equals X amount of lost sales, which isn't true.
                  No it doesn't. Content producers can claim whatever they want regardless of piracy.

                  Piracy isn't stealing of content but stealing access to it. You may not be taking away from the amount of copies in existence but you are benefiting from the works of others without compensating them for it.
                  If they don't want people to have access to it, they shouldn't publish it. Piracy is just a way of encouraging content producers to adopt business models that are not dependent of ignoring (or worse, restricting) the last 20 years of technological advancement.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    not quite right.

                    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                    Next time don't pick a shit publisher like Activision.
                    As far as I understood, Activision owns the rights on the game, so they had to license their "IP" and Activision can dictate the terms, in this case, no Linux port.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Activision did what?

                      Wait, who's Activision, and why do I care?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X