Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

[dee.]

It's okay to break laws as long as you don't believe in those laws? Good luck getting off an assault charge with that attitude.

Laws do not equate with ethics. A lot of nazis were only obeying their laws, while operating the gas chambers. Not even that long ago, there was racial segregation in some countries, it was entirely legal. Go back even further, and it was all legal and fine to enslave others. Homosexuality was illegal. Interracial marriages were illegal. In some countries, even now, it's illegal to disrespect a religion. And there are plenty of laws that are made in the first place because of legalized bribery, ie. corporate lobbying, and those laws oppress the citizens they're meant to protect.

If a law is unjust, it's more ethical to disobey it and be a criminal, than to obey it and add to it's legitimacy.

[Vim_User]

If a law is unjust, it's more ethical to disobey it and be a criminal, than to obey it and add to it's legitimacy.

Only that this does not apply here. You can't say "the copyright law is unjust in the case of Activision not wanting to support Linux" and "the law is just in case of GPL violations" at the same time. Either the law is just or it is not, it can't be both. This is were the hypocrisy starts and where inconsistency in your believes shows up.

[mike4]

So from now on Activision is obsolete for me. Thanks for letting us know.

[RealNC]

Weird. We're in a situation now where EA actually publishes Linux games but Activision is hostile to Linux.

Never thought I'd see *that* happen.

[smitty3268]

Nope. I'm entirely consistent in my beliefs.

Consistently hypocritical, yes. We agree.

No, we didn't. Only some of us like to pretend that they did because they're trying to act smarter than they actually are...

Oh please, we've had the same copyright and drm discussions on phoronix a hundred times. The only way anyone wouldn't have already known what was going to be said was if this was their first visit, or they have some kind of memory retention medical issue.

[Setlec]

i'm not surprised to see that Lack-of-vision is still having their usual halfhearted faith to not let their games to be released to linux. id soft was the only studio that was able to release their games for linux. but Activision always had their bad decision done their way for others studios.

[dee.]

Only that this does not apply here. You can't say "the copyright law is unjust in the case of Activision not wanting to support Linux" and "the law is just in case of GPL violations" at the same time. Either the law is just or it is not, it can't be both. This is were the hypocrisy starts and where inconsistency in your believes shows up.

Ok. How about we apply the same logic to other laws then? You can't agree with one part of traffic law and disagree with others. If you accept the prohibition on drunk driving, you also have to accept 5km/h speed limits in city areas, mandatory GPS tracking for cars... Or let's take the laws on alcohol. You can't disagree with one part of alcohol regulation and agree with others! If you agree on the prohibition to sell alcohol to children, you also have to agree with sales restrictions, restrictions on how long restaurants can stay open, or ridiculous taxing policies... does this start to sound ridiculous already?

For the x+1th time, copyright law is not one monolithic take-it-or-leave-it block. It consists of many parts, which together outline a collection of many related but separate rights, all of which are bundled under the umbrella term of "copyright". Even the name "copyright" is misleading, because it contains much more than just copying rights. (In Finland, we call it "author's rights", which is a somewhat more accurate description in my opinion).

Now then, where exactly do you get the idea that I can't be against one part of copyright law (or any law) while being ok with others? Do you have any kind of reasonable justification or basis for that view, other than an arbitrary decision on your part that I have to either accept all of copyright law or disagree with all of it? If so, I'd love to hear it.

Shit, I wish people would study these things even superficially before starting to mouth off at me. There's no hypocrisy on my part, my beliefs are entirely consistent here. Feel free to disagree, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with my views, but don't come calling me a "hypocrite" based on your entirely arbitrary criteria.

[alexThunder]

Weird. We're in a situation now where EA actually publishes Linux games but Activision is hostile to Linux.

Never thought I'd see *that* happen.

Did they (EA) already publish anything on Linux?

[Slartifartblast]

Can hear the meeting now

So Activision you want to put your titles out on the Xbox one. What your putting out a game on Linux ? Well me might have to look at your licensing fees for the Xbox one.

[Vim_User]

Ok. How about we apply the same logic to other laws then? You can't agree with one part of traffic law and disagree with others. If you accept the prohibition on drunk driving, you also have to accept 5km/h speed limits in city areas, mandatory GPS tracking for cars... Or let's take the laws on alcohol. You can't disagree with one part of alcohol regulation and agree with others! If you agree on the prohibition to sell alcohol to children, you also have to agree with sales restrictions, restrictions on how long restaurants can stay open, or ridiculous taxing policies... does this start to sound ridiculous already?

For the x+1th time, copyright law is not one monolithic take-it-or-leave-it block. It consists of many parts, which together outline a collection of many related but separate rights, all of which are bundled under the umbrella term of "copyright". Even the name "copyright" is misleading, because it contains much more than just copying rights. (In Finland, we call it "author's rights", which is a somewhat more accurate description in my opinion).

Now then, where exactly do you get the idea that I can't be against one part of copyright law (or any law) while being ok with others? Do you have any kind of reasonable justification or basis for that view, other than an arbitrary decision on your part that I have to either accept all of copyright law or disagree with all of it? If so, I'd love to hear it.

Shit, I wish people would study these things even superficially before starting to mouth off at me. There's no hypocrisy on my part, my beliefs are entirely consistent here. Feel free to disagree, I'm not forcing anyone to agree with my views, but don't come calling me a "hypocrite" based on your entirely arbitrary criteria.

OK, go ahead, tell me which part of the copyright law you are in favor of and which part you don't agree with. Tell me exactly why it is OK to not adhere to a license in one case, but not in a different case. Tell me why it is OK for one developer/publisher to choose which license to use and to dictate the conditions, but not for other developers/publishers.