Activision Drops the Hammer on Sierra Fan Site

Ne1butme

New member
Nov 16, 2009
491
0
0
thank goodness i still have my original game disks. Now i just have to find a 5.25 drive that will work with my laptop....
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
Ya but will activision ever put these games out for these phones? .. not likely. Stupidity strikes again with a lawyer at the helm.
 

Exort

New member
Oct 11, 2010
647
0
0
Defective_Detective said:
So, I am guessing Activision will soon be re-releasing all these awesome old-school titles for us to play on our mobile devices? No?

Well, surely they must, otherwise this exercise has been a complete waste of time.
normally I would say:
"Yea, lawyers cost lots of money. It doesn't make sense if they do that for fun."
but this is Activision.

edit: if gog.com do sell these title then I understand what they are doing.
 

Steve Fidler

New member
Feb 20, 2010
109
0
0
Activision owns the rights to their games and can exercise their choice to have fan-made copies removed should they wish. This should not come as a shock to some people. They own it, it is their choice. The point being that if they were to decide to re-release these old games in any capacity, they would want the ability to make money off of them. As opposed to let everyone else enjoy them for free. Whether or not they immediately intend to, it is their job to uphold their intellectual property.

Also a lot of these companies don't want to be associated to old games, so they purposely try to quell their relevance to ensure they are only known for what they are currently producing.
 

Exort

New member
Oct 11, 2010
647
0
0
I.E.D. said:
Basically, Activision-Blizzard decided to let these games rot and when fans do something about it, AB turns into a massive corporate cock.

The fact that people will always justify the douchebaggery of giants have always astounded me. Those are ancient abandonware titles, for fuck's sake.
many of those title are still sold on gog.com (good old games)
 

MasterChief892039

New member
Jun 28, 2010
631
0
0

The dudes at Activision are kind of dicks. I mean, it would be one thing if one of their popular games was made available for free on the internet and without their permission, but do they really think they're going to sell anymore copies of Leisure Suit Larry by making sure people can't get it online? I mean, c'mon.
 

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
funny thing is i dont think this would hold up in court. Intellectual property expires, and if you dont use it it can become public domain. I dont really get Activisions point in this lawsuit, they probably couldn't sell those games if they tried, and i bet the only people interested would have actually purchased the game previously and want a nostalgia fix.
although i wanted to lynch Activision after the spiderman 2 game for PC.
 

s_glasgow99

New member
Jan 8, 2010
77
0
0
josemlopes said:
BoogieManFL said:
Maybe he should have been happy with what he had and quit while he was ahead. Still though.. So long as people aren't making money off of it, where is the harm?
I guess that the harm here is that Activision isnt making any money out of it
That is so true. I'm so tired of that over used argument of nobody's making money on it. That's the problem with piracy as a whole. NOBODY'S making any money. It's the surest way to shut down commerce. It's the problem with media in general right now, there is no thoroughfare for financing anymore. If you don't want something, you don't buy it. You don't rip it off and say 'it wasn't worth it anyway.' That's not for you to decide. It's for paying customers and distributors to decide.

On the other side though, I really hope that Activision is using it's grasp for some good. The last ports these games saw were just plain awful. A Sierra Classics mobile App would be killer!
 

neolithic

New member
Feb 22, 2009
65
0
0
this is one of those times that I give a full go ahead for pirating your weasely black guts out.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Steve Fidler said:
Also a lot of these companies don't want to be associated to old games, so they purposely try to quell their relevance to ensure they are only known for what they are currently producing.
If that's true, it's a serious problem. It would be like Warner Brothers suppressing Casablanca because it was better than the Clash of the Titans remake, and they didn't want the self competition.

OT: I can't say I'm surprised at this -- if ActiBlizz owns the rights, then they have the legal right to do this. What really bugs me about this is they hold the rights, but they aren't the creators -- last I heard, Sierra was gone, meaning Activision bought the rights at some point, and proceeded to sit on them. How are the developers getting paid here, even assuming the games are up on GoG?
 

LewsTherin

New member
Jun 22, 2008
2,443
0
0

I mean really, that's just silly.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
JUST VISIT www.GOG.COM

and buy the Sierra games from there!

Kings Quest, Police Quest, Space Quest, all series you can buy legally from there.
Good Old Games have a deal with Activision, so Larry etc. will turn up there eventually too.

so, besides the Flash-wizardry, there was no real need for that Site, anyway.
the Step by Activision is a bit drastic, though - IMHO.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Steve Fidler said:
How are the developers getting paid here, even assuming the games are up on GoG?
though ethnically correct - this not of YOUR problems.
You only problem is to get a legal copy.

Which leaves you with two choices: either by buying from GOG or get a original Sierra Diskette/CD etc.
 

Kakashi on crack

New member
Aug 5, 2009
983
0
0
It has nothing to do with activision making money guys, it has to do with copyrights.

Activision could care less about whether or not the games are outdated, they games were copyright infringement, so they had to make a demonstration. It was probably a choice of "pay this much money per person who uses this game or stop allowing people to play the game." Same thing the wright brothers did, Thomas Edison did, the guy who created the telephone, Nintendo, etc.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
BloodRed Pixel said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Steve Fidler said:
How are the developers getting paid here, even assuming the games are up on GoG?
though ethnically correct - this not of YOUR problems.
You only problem is to get a legal copy.

Which leaves you with two choices: either by buying from GOG or get a original Sierra Diskette/CD etc.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with ethnic tensions, but I'm glad I won't be pissing off any ethnic minorities by making my argument. And why should I care if the current copyright holder is reimbursed for something they had no part in making? You do realize that the only reason copyright lasts as long as it does today is because Disney asks politely every time Mickey Mouse is set to go public domain, and congress extends it? The way the laws were originally intended, and the way they should go, these games would all be public domain by now.

Heck, Depending on what Activision has done with them, they may legitimately be public domain under the rules governing abandoned copyrights. I'd say it's definitely my problem to find out if something is technically in the public domain before I buy it from someone claiming to have copyright -- especially if it's a corporate raider who bought the copyright off of its rightful owner, and is getting reimbursed for intellectual property they had no part in creating.

By the way, that was a pretty incoherent post; you might want to get some sleep before responding again.


P.S.: Look into Kohlberg's <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#Post-Conventional>stages of moral development. I'm arguing from a stage 5 or 6 perspective, whereas you're arguing from a pretty solid 4; legality is not the only, or even the most important aspect of a moral question. I even said in my post that Activision had every legal right to do this, but were bankrupt for it both morally and ethically.

Edit: Also, the only reason copyright exists at all is to protect the right of the original creator of a piece of intellectual property to be reimbursed for his or her work. When someone else is getting reimbursed for that person's work, and they aren't getting anything, something is seriously amiss.