Activision Drops the Hammer on Sierra Fan Site

[Cid Silverwing]

Again ratifies that Activision are a bunch of greedy cunts. Like really, who the hell is still buying these 1980's games?

This is why there needs to be a legally recognized movement for the preservation of old games (and movies) that are unavailable in retail.

 

[Albino Boo]

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.

Saying someone post is incoherent whilst making statements that are factually incorrect is not the smartest move. Copywrite in the US before 1978 in the US sated that the coyright lasts 50 years after the owners death so the micky mouse has never even been near coming out of copyright. That is even is the copyright isn't renewed, the release of Epic Micky under the international agreed Bern copyright terms means Micky Mouse is currently under copyright until 2080. Disney never have had to to ask congress to do damn thing, each individual use of the Micky Mouse image by the Disney corporation has counted as new start date for the purposes of copyright.

 

[Andy Chalk]

It's been said before but it appears to be sailing over a lot of heads so I'll repeat it:

King's Quest, Police Quest and Space Quest are all available, in their entirety, from GOG.

Once more, for the benefit of those complaining that Activision is actively denying people access to these no-longer-available games: THEY ARE AVAILABLE, and pretty damn cheaply too.

Activision plays it cool (get it?) for more than a year and a half and nobody says shit about, hey, they're doing the community a solid. The guy starts pushing the boundaries with a multi-platform roll-out, which is essentially what this was, and they say no, sorry, we can't let that go, and suddenly it's the Great Satan.

I readily admit that Activision may not be the most culture-friendly organization on the face of the Earth but not everything it does is inherently evil.

 

[GiantRaven]

I'm pretty sure these games were only just recently released on GOG.com

To me it seems like the could've had a hand in it. It's no biggie really, now you get to support a really cool website.

 

[Gindil]

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.

And that's bass-ackwards and stupid...

They could get a cheap fan made license to gamers as well as promote older games through a shell company. Further, there's the fact that even their other fan games were discussed to find a solution.

You're second paragraph makes no sense... Why forget the games that made a company great?

 

[(LK)]

It might have something to do with much of that old library of games now being available on GoG, too.

Now that Activision is actually offering these titles for sale once again through GoG they have a good reason to stop them from being made available for free.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Saying someone post is incoherent whilst making statements that are factually incorrect is not the smartest move. Copywrite in the US before 1978 in the US sated that the coyright lasts 50 years after the owners death so the micky mouse has never even been near coming out of copyright. That is even is the copyright isn't renewed, the release of Epic Micky under the international agreed Bern copyright terms means Micky Mouse is currently under copyright until 2080. Disney never have had to to ask congress to do damn thing, each individual use of the Micky Mouse image by the Disney corporation has counted as new start date for the purposes of copyright.

Check the history. First of all, it's currently 75 years after the creator's death, not 50. Second, it's only that long because Steam Boat Willie -- the first talking Mickey Mouse cartoon -- was set to go into the public domain a few years back, and Disney's lobbyists managed to get a law passed to extend it again -- this was something they had done before. The original 19th century copyright law was something like 15 years after the creation of the product, a much more reasonable amount of time. It was a bit of hyperbole to say that Mickey himself would go public domain, but his earliest cartoons? Yeah, those would have been public domain years ago if it weren't for Disney's lobbyists.

 

[Steve Fidler]

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.

And that's bass-ackwards and stupid...

They could get a cheap fan made license to gamers as well as promote older games through a shell company. Further, there's the fact that even their other fan games were discussed to find a solution.

You're second paragraph makes no sense... Why forget the games that made a company great?

Because they aren't the games that made the company great. They are games made by Sierra, a company that no longer exists but sold all of its IP to Activision.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

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.

the only problem with your argument, which makes it fall unfortunately, is your understanding oc the word copyright. Which is there to protect the !copyright holder! who is not necessarily
the same as the original creator (unfortuantely, though). Copyrights are not inalienable.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

the only problem with your argument, which makes it fall unfortunately, is your understanding oc the word copyright. Which is there to protect the !copyright holder! who is not necessarily
the same as the original creator (unfortuantely, though). Copyrights are not inalienable.

And your flaw is looking at the current state of the law, not it's original intent. The whole justification for having copyright law in the first place was to allow the creator of the work a brief (15 years, if I remember correctly) period to profit on it, after which it would go into the public domain. The U.S. economy was founded in part on literary piracy, and we didn't even have a copyright law until the 19th century.

 

[nofear220]

We have a turd in the punch bowl... and that turd is activision