Activision Is Preventing A Game From Coming To Linux

[Vim_User]

Are those games Linux native?

So now you want to pirate native Linux games?
<sarcasm> This is really the way to support companies that support Linux, we all can be very proud of you! </sarcasm>

For posting illegal download links to native Linux games you should be banned immediately.

[sarmad]

Regardless of the legality of pirating Activision's games, doing so is still a bad reaction. The correct reaction is to ignore them and go put your money on other games whose publishers do care about supporting Linux. Support Linux by buying games built natively for it; running pirated Windows games through Wine does not support Linux.

[honeybadger]

Sorry, I submitted two almost identical posts. I had a connection break, thought the first one didn't go through

[bayan.r]

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.

But you're not protesting different portions of copyright law. Copyright grants the author a monopoly on the redistribution of the work allowing him/her to dictate the terms for redistribution for a certain number of years. When you violate copyright, you are saying the author has no right to dictate the terms of redistribution, but GPL is built on the premise that the author has that right, therefore when you pirate you are rejecting the GPL as well so yes, you are being inconsistent.

This is why nobody applauded the idiot who found the F2FS source code and re-licensed it under GPL, it's because he disregarded and rejected the author's right to redistribute, something FOSS developers need to prevent people from locking up their code

[Vim_User]

I think Double Fine selfpublished Br?tal Legend on the PC, Mac and Linux.

Double Fine wanted to publish over Activision, but chose EA in the end. Activision even sued them for that.

[fettouhi]

Br?tal Legend.

I think Double Fine selfpublished Br?tal Legend on the PC, Mac and Linux.

[RealNC]

Did they (EA) already publish anything on Linux?

Br?tal Legend.

[honeybadger]

Torrenting stuff is consistent with open-software and free information ethics. Movies, books, etc. if it's digital, it belongs to everybody. Paying is a form of support. Steam, despite being a DRM platform provides good value for value exchange, so I feel good not only because I like games I play, but because I paid for them. GPL is not a copyright license, it's a copyleft one. I buy electronicly what I really need, like and/or can afford, and, off course, I pay for Linux games, everything else, that I need temporarily, or just need to try out, I torrent. All talk about legality is nonsense, Microsoft patents for Android are legal, so what?!!! I don't care about their "rights". They are a rip-off monopoly. Everybody should look through their peer list, when they torrent. They'll find countries, where people live for 10 bucks a week or less. Is there anybody here, who wants to teach them to respect copyright law?!!)

Most output of big game-publishers is rubbish, Activision included. Last high-end 3D game, that I consider to be excellent and old-school worthy was Mass Effect. These days Indie developers make the best stuff, often in 2D. As far, as I'm concerned GNU/Linux gaming is there, full-scale, on any reasonable distribution (in my case Debian).

[honeybadger]

As far as I'm concerned gaming on GNU/Linux is there, full scale, on any reasonable distribution (in my case Debian). And most of the games I recently enjoyed playing are Indie-games. You don't need bloated 3D graphics to make a good game. Last 3D title, that I consider to be an excellent game was Mass Effect. Who cares what Activision or EA does, they'll lose in the long run.
PC is not Windows and if some "average people" think otherwise it's their problem. GPL is not a copyright license, it's a copyleft one, and torrenting stuff is consistent with open-software and free information ethics. Books, movies, etc, if it's digital it belongs to everybody. Paying in 21 century is a form of support, and Steam, despite being a DRM service provides good value for value exchange, so that I feel good, not only because I like the game, but because I pay for it. All talk about legality is nonsense, Microsoft patents for Android are legal, so what!!!!! I buy electronicly what I really like, and what I can afford. And, off course, I pay for Linux games I play.

Microsoft is a rip-off monopoly, and I don't care about it's "rights"!!!

And next time everybody, when you torrent a movie or a book, look through the peer list, you'll see such countries, where people live for a 10 bucks a week. Is there anybody here, who wants to teach those people to respect copyright law?!)

[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.