Dangers of Imaginary Property Laws
Feb. 28th, 2010 06:06 pm"The jist of it works like this: Owners of a Copyright have to defend their copyright against any form of copyright abuse--or they lose it. "
No. That is NOT how it works.
I was going to write up a lengthy note regarding the differences between patents, copyright, and trademarks (trademarks are what need to be defended or you lose it.) but instead this is all I will say in response to what someone said in the Kotaku comments regarding the Silver Lining and why Activision just HAD to crush the fan game.
No. That is NOT how it works.
I was going to write up a lengthy note regarding the differences between patents, copyright, and trademarks (trademarks are what need to be defended or you lose it.) but instead this is all I will say in response to what someone said in the Kotaku comments regarding the Silver Lining and why Activision just HAD to crush the fan game.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:55 am (UTC)And even if Activision does intend to do something with the various Sierra franchises in the future, I don't know that I'll ever be buying any of it outside of a used games bargain bin, if even that.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 04:51 pm (UTC)The last month on GOG.com (http://www.gog.com) has been "Activision month (http://www.gog.com/en/page/month_of_activision)" and a good chunk of those have been old Sierra games.
So, let me revise my previous statement from "Activision has done exactly jack and shit with the Sierra stuff so far" to "Activision has done jack and shit with the Sierra stuff so far, aside from milking up to 25 year old games for minimal effort." "Minimal effort" in this case assumes that Activision had at least some hand in getting the games XP/Vista compatible and that it wasn't solely the effort of the GOG guys themselves, of course. Regardless of whether Activision had a hand in it, I'm sure they're taking a cut of the sales either way.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-03 09:05 pm (UTC)