Main Menu

The Silver Lining - Cease and Desist

Started by Yonkey, February 27, 2010, 08:59:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BloodShed

#120
LOL!  Okay, I've been watching this project since before the name change to "The Silver Lining".  I occasionally just check up on the progress (or lack thereof) and read the newsletter and sometimes I'd browse the forums.

I'd been questioning the release of this game for awhile now.  I've watched release date after release date pass by.  So, first of all, I just want to point out that if this project held some kind of focus (i.e. released before Activision acquiring Vivendi)... this wouldn't have happened.

Secondly, I'm more in agreement with Xizer's opinion.  Sure, it's easy for a fan like myself to tell you guys to grow a backbone... but seriously guys... you even took down the forums?  At least draw the line somewhere on your legal rights.  Need I really point out that lawyers often use unjustified "scare tactics" to provoke another party into doing what they ask?

Quote from: oberonqa on February 28, 2010, 09:57:52 PMThe problem with the whole "leak it and run" idea is, as was already stated previously, not possible at this point.  If the game was "leaked" right now, it would have clearly been from someone attached to the project and with the C&D in place, that's grounds for litigation.
Come on, there's plenty of people (past and present) involved with this title. ...including the beta testers.  So please explain, if some anonymous person "leaked" the current development build, how you expect anyone to associate blame in court?  They cannot simply throw out a blanket accusation and fine/jail everyone associated with the project; especially a project that was legally granted a limited non-commercial license in the first place.  Don't be ridiculous.  The only thing that could happen is Activision might care enough to send another threatening/angry letter and everyone would deny that they were the ones who leaked it and that's as far as it would go.

Also, as Xizer said, Activision wouldn't bother to take this to court.  The latest game in the King's Quest series is 12 years old, with no new work on the horizon, and the point-and-click genre in general has been completely dismissed by the big players in the industry, such as Activision.  With the exception to selling a nearly (sadly) worthless brand like Sierra... the IP holds no real value to them.  I think they'd have trouble both convincing themselves and share holders that there is any sense in throwing funds at pursuing litigation on this; especially in this market.  Further, they'd have a difficult time not only proving worthwhile value of the brand (i.e. the "loss" caused by releasing The Silver Lining), they would also know that they won't see a penny of it.  Even if they cared enough to take this to court, even if they could prove exactly who did it, and even if they could show some worthwhile loss to revenue... the defendant would never have enough to pay judgment and simply file bankruptcy.  Activision would still be left holding the bill.

oberonqa

Quote from: BloodShed on February 28, 2010, 10:49:33 PM
LOL!  Okay, I've been watching this project since before the name change to "The Silver Lining".  I occasionally just check up on the progress (or lack thereof) and read the newsletter and sometimes I'd browse the forums.

I'd been questioning the release of this game for awhile now.  I've watched release date after release date pass by.  So, first of all, I just want to point out that if this project held some kind of focus (i.e. released before Activision acquiring Vivendi)... this wouldn't have happened.

Secondly, I'm more in agreement with Xizer's opinion.  Sure, it's easy for a fan like myself to tell you guys to grow a backbone... but seriously guys... you even took down the forums?  At least draw the line somewhere on your legal rights.  Need I really point out that lawyers often use unjustified "scare tactics" to provoke another party into doing what they ask?

Quote from: oberonqa on February 28, 2010, 09:57:52 PMThe problem with the whole "leak it and run" idea is, as was already stated previously, not possible at this point.  If the game was "leaked" right now, it would have clearly been from someone attached to the project and with the C&D in place, that's grounds for litigation.
Come on, there's plenty of people (past and present) involved with this title. ...including the beta testers.  So please explain, if some anonymous person "leaked" the current development build, how you expect anyone to associate blame in court?  They cannot simply throw out a blanket accusation and fine/jail everyone associated with the project; especially a project that was legally granted a limited non-commercial license in the first place.  Don't be ridiculous.  The only thing that could happen is Activision might care enough to send another threatening/angry letter and everyone would deny that they were the ones who leaked it and that's as far as it would go.

Also, as Xizer said, Activision wouldn't bother to take this to court.  The latest game in the King's Quest series is 12 years old, with no new work on the horizon, and the point-and-click genre in general has been completely dismissed by the big players in the industry, such as Activision.  With the exception to selling a nearly (sadly) worthless brand like Sierra... the IP holds no real value to them.  I think they'd have trouble both convincing themselves and share holders that there is any sense in throwing funds at pursuing litigation on this; especially in this market.  Further, they'd have a difficult time not only proving worthwhile value of the brand (i.e. the "loss" caused by releasing The Silver Lining), they would also know that they won't see a penny of it.  Even if they cared enough to take this to court, even if they could prove exactly who did it, and even if they could show some worthwhile loss to revenue... the defendant would never have enough to pay judgment and simply file bankruptcy.  Activision would still be left holding the bill.

Allow me to illustrate Activision's position here, since they are the current owner of the IP in question.

What is Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.  Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

Although many of the legal principles governing intellectual property have evolved over centuries, it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used, and not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the United States.

The British Statute of Anne 1710 and the Statute of Monopolies 1623 are now seen as the origin of copyright and patent law respectively.

What is Copyright?

Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work. Copyright is described under the umbrella term intellectual property along with patents and trademarks.

The Statute of Anne 1709, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", is now seen as the origin of copyright law.

Copyright has been internationally standardized, lasting between fifty and one hundred years from the author's death, or a shorter period for anonymous or corporate authorship. Generally, copyright is enforced as a civil matter, though some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.

What are the exclusive rights granted to Copyright Holders?

Copyright initially only granted the exclusive right to copy a book, allowing anybody to use the book to, for example, make a translation, adaptation or public performance.  At the time print on paper was the only format in which most text based copyrighted works were distributed. Therefore, while the language of book contracts was typically very broad, the only exclusive rights that had any significant economic value were rights to distribute the work in print.

The exclusive rights granted by copyright law to copyright owners have been gradually expanded over time and now uses of the work such as dramatization, translations, and derivative works such as adaptations and transformations, fall within the scope of copyright.

With a few exceptions, the exclusive rights granted by copyright are strictly territorial in scope, as they are granted by copyright laws in different countries. Bilateral and multilateral treaties establish minimum exclusive rights in member states, meaning that there is some uniformity across Berne Convention member states.

The print on paper format means that content is affixed onto paper and the content can't easily or conveniently manipulated by the user. Duplication of printed works is time-consuming and generally produces a copy that is of lower quality. Developments in technology have created new formats, in addition to paper, and new means of distribution. Particularly digital formats distributed over computer networks have separated the content from its means of delivery. Users of content are now able to exercise many of the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners, such as reproduction, distribution and adaptation.

What can be Copyrighted?

The type of works which are subject to copyright has been expanded over time. Initially only covering books, copyright law was revised in the 19th century to include maps, charts, engravings, prints, musical compositions, dramatic works, photographs, paintings, drawings and sculptures. In the 20th century copyright was expanded to cover motion pictures, computer programs, sound recordings, dance and architectural works.

However, copyright does not protect ideas, only their expression. In the Anglo-American law tradition the idea-expression dichotomy is a legal concept which explains the appropriate function of copyright laws, which are generally designed to protect the fixed expression or manifestation of an idea rather than the fundamental idea itself.


Ok so what does this all mean in regards to The Silver Lining?  It means Phoenix Online Studios (the development team) does not have the legal right to develop the game.  They are not the owners of the IP... nor are they the owners of the copyright.  The only way they can develop The Silver Lining is with the express permission of the copyright and IP owner (which is Activision at this point). 

Since Copyright and IP law covers artistic work (which is what a game is), it is illegal for any individual or group of individuals to create a work based on something they do not own the rights.  In a lot of cases, it is possible to get permission from the copyright/IP owner to make a derivative work (which is what happened back in 2005 when POS was granted a limited non-commercial license), but that is no longer the case.  Hence the C&D. 

As for the argument about leaking the game... the same forensic analysis tools used to catch that aussie pirate can be applied to anything done on the internet.  Yes there are measures to circumvent those tools... such as IP spoofing and proxys, but that does not make you anonymous.  Every single communication between your computer and your ISP is logged.  So even if you're utilizing an IP spoofer to send information to a proxy server in Timbuktu which is then routed to a proxy server in Bangladesh which is then routed to a secure connection in Russia which does not keep logs, the initial connection between your computer and your ISP is logged.  You can't dismiss that.  Unless you have a contact inside of the ISP or a way to access the ISP's logs, that log is like a giant Eye in the Sky monitoring you.  Given enough time and enough resources, a spoofed IP address routed through proxy servers can eventually be traced back to the originating IP address.

And the suggestion of using an open WiFi connection is ludicrous in the extreme and shows a certain degree of desperation that should be alarming to anyone who is willing to recommend such a course of action.

It has been said that leaking the game would be of "questionable legality".  That should be the end of the conversation right there.  If a course of action is considered legally questionable, then perhaps the course of action shouldn't be considered.

And even if your right... a bankruptcy sits with you for years (10 years in the United States I believe).  Are you seriously suggesting the development team take the chance of possibly tarnishing their credit records for up to 10 years just so you can beat "The Man" at his own game?

Talk about selfish and short-sighted...
 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

Xizer

QuoteAs for the argument about leaking the game... the same forensic analysis tools used to catch that aussie pirate can be applied to anything done on the internet.  Yes there are measures to circumvent those tools... such as IP spoofing and proxys, but that does not make you anonymous.  Every single communication between your computer and your ISP is logged.  So even if you're utilizing an IP spoofer to send information to a proxy server in Timbuktu which is then routed to a proxy server in Bangladesh which is then routed to a secure connection in Russia which does not keep logs, the initial connection between your computer and your ISP is logged.  You can't dismiss that.  Unless you have a contact inside of the ISP or a way to access the ISP's logs, that log is like a giant Eye in the Sky monitoring you.  Given enough time and enough resources, a spoofed IP address routed through proxy servers can eventually be traced back to the originating IP address.

And the suggestion of using an open WiFi connection is ludicrous in the extreme and shows a certain degree of desperation that should be alarming to anyone who is willing to recommend such a course of action.

It has been said that leaking the game would be of "questionable legality".  That should be the end of the conversation right there.  If a course of action is considered legally questionable, then perhaps the course of action shouldn't be considered.

And even if your right... a bankruptcy sits with you for years (10 years in the United States I believe).  Are you seriously suggesting the development team take the chance of possibly tarnishing their credit records for up to 10 years just so you can beat "The Man" at his own game?

Talk about selfish and short-sighted...

It's called SSL encryption buddy. A bunch of packets sent to an IP address somewhere doesn't prove anything. Your ISP couldn't see what you uploaded. Besides, there's no way Activision could get an ISP's logs anyway. They'd have to have evidence of infringement and get a court order AFTER identifying an IP address which would have to be retrieved from some server in Russia assuming said server kept logs of what IP addresses connect to it. This would all be necessary before they could even get an ISP to turn over their USELESS logs of SSL encrypted packets. Two words: Completely. Untraceable. I don't think you uunderstand how the Internet works if you can't grasp this concept. Besides, worried about your ISP knowing what you're doing? Great! Trot out the laptop, head downtown, and hit up an open Wi-Fi before you send your encrypted s***. Let's see them figure out who that belongs to. ;)

oberonqa

#123
Quote from: Xizer on February 28, 2010, 11:29:18 PM
QuoteAs for the argument about leaking the game... the same forensic analysis tools used to catch that aussie pirate can be applied to anything done on the internet.  Yes there are measures to circumvent those tools... such as IP spoofing and proxys, but that does not make you anonymous.  Every single communication between your computer and your ISP is logged.  So even if you're utilizing an IP spoofer to send information to a proxy server in Timbuktu which is then routed to a proxy server in Bangladesh which is then routed to a secure connection in Russia which does not keep logs, the initial connection between your computer and your ISP is logged.  You can't dismiss that.  Unless you have a contact inside of the ISP or a way to access the ISP's logs, that log is like a giant Eye in the Sky monitoring you.  Given enough time and enough resources, a spoofed IP address routed through proxy servers can eventually be traced back to the originating IP address.

And the suggestion of using an open WiFi connection is ludicrous in the extreme and shows a certain degree of desperation that should be alarming to anyone who is willing to recommend such a course of action.

It has been said that leaking the game would be of "questionable legality".  That should be the end of the conversation right there.  If a course of action is considered legally questionable, then perhaps the course of action shouldn't be considered.

And even if your right... a bankruptcy sits with you for years (10 years in the United States I believe).  Are you seriously suggesting the development team take the chance of possibly tarnishing their credit records for up to 10 years just so you can beat "The Man" at his own game?

Talk about selfish and short-sighted...

It's called SSL encryption buddy. A bunch of packets sent to an IP address somewhere doesn't prove anything. Your ISP couldn't see what you uploaded. Besides, there's no way Activision could get an ISP's logs anyway. They'd have to have evidence of infringement and get a court order AFTER identifying an IP address which would have to be retrieved from some server in Russia assuming said server kept logs of what IP addresses connect to it. This would all be necessary before they could even get an ISP to turn over their USELESS logs of SSL encrypted packets. Two words: Completely. Untraceable. I don't think you uunderstand how the Internet works if you can't grasp this concept. Besides, worried about your ISP knowing what you're doing? Great! Trot out the laptop, head downtown, and hit up an open Wi-Fi before you send your encrypted sh*t. Let's see them figure out who that belongs to. ;)

A search warrent does not require a copy of the data transmitted... only a log of the originating IP address and the destination IP address.  Since it wouldn't be too terribly out of the question for Activision to find out where the development team lives, they could file a civil suit against a member of the development team (in this case, let's say the lead programmer).  Once the civil suit has been initiated, the plaintiff (Activision) could then file a motion to obtain a copy of the lead programmers ISP logs as a part of the discovery phase of the suit.  They could then cross-reference those logs to identify other team members IP addresses and IP addresses from torrent sites (torrent trackers also keep logs I might add).

SSL Encryption also requires a handshake certification server-side.  You can't just click a button on your browser and put it in SSL mode.  

Going downtown to the public library is also sketchy at best... because then your using government property (in this case, the libraries internet access) to commit a crime.  Oh yes indeed... now instead of facing a civil suit, the person in question also gets slapped with a criminal suit.

Your quest to beat "The Man" is most interesting... but there are so many holes in your logic it's astounding...

And it's also a moot point.  The development team is comprised of people who possess a high degree of moral integrity and I know they would not stoop to legally questionable activity.  As for the beta testers... they were all hand picked and signed non-disclosure agreements before they began their duties as beta testers.  If one of them breeched that agreement by leaking the game, they would be exposing themselves to a breech-of-contract suit by POS.  

I don't see that happening...
 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

Jeremy


Xizer

QuoteA search warrent does not require a copy of the data transmitted... only a log of the originating IP address and the destination IP address.  Since it wouldn't be too terribly out of the question for Activision to find out where the development team lives, they could file a civil suit against a member of the development team (in this case, let's say the lead programmer).  Once the civil suit has been initiated, the plaintiff (Activision) could then file a motion to obtain a copy of the lead programmers ISP logs as a part of the discovery phase of the suit.  They could then cross-reference those logs to identify other team members IP addresses and IP addresses from torrent sites (torrent trackers also keep logs I might add).

This once again displays such an incompetence at understanding how the Internet works. First of all my suggestion for a fool-proof way of leaking the material onto the Internet to be spread around doesn't involve torrents at all, and secondly, it's beyond hilarious that you think The Pirate Bay is going to hand over logs to any authorities.

But anyways, now that we've firmly established that it would be a piece of cake to leak this sh*t and avoid anyone tracking you down (well, I have, anyway. You've displayed a gross misunderstanding of how the Internet works... but whatever. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads my posts will think to themselves "welp, that guy knows what he's talking about." Then they're going to read posts like yours and go "Ugh... *facepalm*... why does this Xizer guy even try arguing with these people? lol), this begs another question: since when does obeying laws created by corrupt old white guys sitting around talking about how they can best exploit the underclasses and remain fatcats make you a person of higher moral integrity? And how do you determine whose laws are more worthy of following than others?

Like, do you agree with every law ever passed in the world? Do you think people who obey Uganda's upcoming anti-gay law which says citizens must turn in people they suspect of being homosexuals to the state for them to face execution are of a higher moral integrity than those who break the law and protect their fellow citizens from an evil government?

Saying that someone who obeys laws has a higher moral integrity than someone who thinks for themselves and selectively ignores sh*tty laws is absurd...  ::)

Haids1987

Oberonqa has a petition up.  Everyone needs to go sign it!
STATUS:
-Drinking water
-Checking the forum. 

Perpetually. ;D
Erica Reed is Katie Hallahan.
Leader of the "I <3 Doon" Fanclub

oberonqa

 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

Haids1987

Gotta go to bed now.  Good luck, all, with your individual endeavors in saving this incredible game.  Until tomorrow...
STATUS:
-Drinking water
-Checking the forum. 

Perpetually. ;D
Erica Reed is Katie Hallahan.
Leader of the "I <3 Doon" Fanclub

Tage7

#129
Quote from: Xizer on March 01, 2010, 12:15:12 AMthis begs another question: since when does obeying laws created by corrupt old white guys sitting around talking about how they can best exploit the underclasses and remain fatcats make you a person of higher moral integrity? And how do you determine whose laws are more worthy of following than others?

Like, do you agree with every law ever passed in the world? Do you think people who obey Uganda's upcoming anti-gay law which says citizens must turn in people they suspect of being homosexuals to the state for them to face execution are of a higher moral integrity than those who break the law and protect their fellow citizens from an evil government?

Saying that someone who obeys laws has a higher moral integrity than someone who thinks for themselves and selectively ignores sh*tty laws is absurd...  ::)

Being someone who previously spoke about moral integrity, I'll offer a point of view.

Whether a law is correct or not is all subject to interpretation. For example, I interpret anti-gay laws as incorrect. However, I interpret laws that protect intellectual property as correct. I interpret the lack of laws allowing the execution of rapists as incorrect. I interpret the laws enforcing safe driving as correct.

As such, you and I may never reach an agreement upon whether the law protecting intellectual property is correct or not.

If I was the IP holder of the King's Quest franchise, I would have continued to uphold the non-commercial license granted to the POStudios team since they have no plans of selling it. On the other hand, if they were trying to make a profit off of my game, I certainly would revoke the license.

While Activision had the right to revoke the license, it's common sympathy that doing so on a non-profit project is a jerk move.

Getting back on topic, I would certainly say anyone who abides by the laws I agree with have higher moral integrity. You might say otherwise. There is no set-in-stone proof of moral integrity. Morality is all opinion.

Tony

So Blizzard/Activision now gets their jollies by killing off independent games? Fat chance this hardcore gamer will pick up any more titles produced by that hypocritical institution..

I am more than happy to vote with my wallet..

Animan

"The Silver Lining" aka KQIX was created as a work of love and devotion by a wonderful group of talented individuals. They worked for many years and through great adversity to very nearly release a new installment of a game that is a legend in the realm of computer gaming.

This talk of underhanded sneaking around to shove it into websites of ill repute does not fit with the individuals at Phoenix Online. If they release a game, I think they would want to present it with pride and share their accomplishment with everyone interested. I'm sure they would be modest, but quietly enjoy receiving all the respect due to them.

-Note to Xizer troll - your point is made, you are a thief and a cheat without morals. Your arguments are shallow and self serving. All you want is a free game and a theater to brag in on how you can upload a file with some anonymity. If someone else gets sued it's not your problem. By the way ... comparing human rights issues (gay rights in Uganda) to a cease and desist letter over a legally owned IP is just stupid.

I don't see why you are interested in a game that actually is based on Honour and Decency and generalized Goodness.

My best wishes and support to the Phoenix Online team.

Xizer

f*** you buddy. Calling my tactics thievery and underhanded is beyond bullshit.

Doing things against Activision's wishes will always be the righteous path. It is a godawful company that deserves to be taken down in anyway possible, up there with Goldman Sachs and Blackwater/Xe.

I view my behavior as a noble resistance movement, and I have countless millions on my side. You, on the other hand, only have the corporate lap dogs that continue to exploit the third world on your corrupt side.

Also, because your dumb ass cannot read... I have offered to host the materials myself as well as help leak it so... putting myself in the line of fire doesn't exactly seem self-serving to me.

king

I think I am going to boycott <a href="http://www.activision.com/index.html">Activision</a> games and suggest my friends do so too If they don't give you back you rights to make this game.  I think we deserve to play the game.

I am sorry to hear that you cant make the game anymore.  I am a programmer and know what goes into making a game D:

crayauchtin

I have to agree that talking about leaking the game is ridiculous at this point. First of all, petitions and letter-writing campaigns are a) perfectly legal, b) have worked countless times in the past, and c) can spread beyond the few hundred fans on these forums with an incredible ease. If that seems to fail, a boycott could be begun -- another action which could easily be spread as few people will like supporting a corporation that is so greedy it doesn't listen to petitions. Furthermore, creating negative press for Activision is going to make them worry as they've had quite enough of that lately (between lawsuits and foolish comments made about console gaming, the last thing they need is their fans in an uproar and having that publicized.) There are many options open to us still, is breaking laws and hoping for the best really the method you want to use? If so, it's possible you're not actually here to help.

I will say, however, I did a little bit of digging and so far, I've found no legal support for Activision's demands that the forums be removed. In fact, it seems as though they have violated OUR legal rights asking that such a thing be done, and we could probably engage them in legal action for doing so. (Granted, this was only a little bit of digging, so I could still be wrong.)

Anyways, the primary reason for my posting is this: Oberonqa's online petition is written superbly -- the problem, however, is that online petitions do not hold as much sway as an offline one. I would like to propose that we use the writing of Oberonqa's petition (and this of course requires his permission) and send it out the way that the 2005 petition was handled. I think that a large box of signed petitions that is snail mailed to their office is likely to make a larger impact.
"If your translation is correct, that was 'May a sleepy hippopotamus lie down on your house keys,' but you're not sure. Unfortunately, your fluency in griffin-speak is too low."

We're roleplaying in the King's Quest world: come join in the fun!

Anon

If you're serious about saving this project...there are ways. It's actually possible to comply with takedown notices while still working on a project, and there are many ways of hosting pages on the Internet such that their source is literally untraceable, and hosting things in way such that the law can't touch you.

Put it this way: people who run scam sites, phishing sites, carding forums and child pornography groups can do so for years, with major law enforcement agencies after them, yet relatively ittle incident. It's not as hard as you might think - the biggest challenge by far is for people actually trying to make a profit from their "operations" in such circumstances. The idea that you need to be a hacker or have a botnet to host something securely is a myth, plain and simple.

But the real question isn't feasibility, it's whether you actually want to continue this project or not. The last team I contacted who were in this position weren't interested, and seemed to have made the whole thing up as a cover-up for not being able to finish their (ludicrously over-ambitious) project, and from what I've heard from people, this is apparently not an uncommon occurence. Sorry if I sound like a cynic, but the person who mentioned this earlier in the thread was not lying. =/

Whatever your decision, at the very least list your C&D and circumstances on chillingeffects.org, especially if you're going to fight this claim in court. The EFF specializes in giving advice (including legal advice) to people who have been on the recieving end of copyright and other censorship laws (and, unofficially, developing methods for circumvention thereof ;) ).

Twain28

Why this renunciation attitude?
There are at least a bunch of options for you developers to follow:

1rst: arrange some meetings with Activision boards. I mean, I know it'd be quite difficult to rise up to someone important but that's not an excuse for you not to try it. You worked your free time on this project, only to leave like this, in silence?

2nd: try to bargain a commercial licence with Activision. Since the first episode is actually done, the only cost, for them, would be the distribution online: they could try charging a small fee for the episode, and see if people would buy it. I don't think they're so stupid. (look at people like TellTale, they're bulding an empire only with pay-per-download games, split in episodes, and now they can afford Monkey Island licence!))

3rd: I know this might sound a little unhortodox, but....have you developers thought about changing a bit the game structure? People /location names, altering a bit the storyline not to risk copyright infringement, send it to activision for some kind of check, and then relase it as a different, original game? It'd be a good lot of work, but it might just be worth. Fan's are waiting for this since ages....

oberonqa

Quote from: crayauchtin on March 01, 2010, 01:21:01 AM
I have to agree that talking about leaking the game is ridiculous at this point. First of all, petitions and letter-writing campaigns are a) perfectly legal, b) have worked countless times in the past, and c) can spread beyond the few hundred fans on these forums with an incredible ease. If that seems to fail, a boycott could be begun -- another action which could easily be spread as few people will like supporting a corporation that is so greedy it doesn't listen to petitions. Furthermore, creating negative press for Activision is going to make them worry as they've had quite enough of that lately (between lawsuits and foolish comments made about console gaming, the last thing they need is their fans in an uproar and having that publicized.) There are many options open to us still, is breaking laws and hoping for the best really the method you want to use? If so, it's possible you're not actually here to help.

I will say, however, I did a little bit of digging and so far, I've found no legal support for Activision's demands that the forums be removed. In fact, it seems as though they have violated OUR legal rights asking that such a thing be done, and we could probably engage them in legal action for doing so. (Granted, this was only a little bit of digging, so I could still be wrong.)

Anyways, the primary reason for my posting is this: Oberonqa's online petition is written superbly -- the problem, however, is that online petitions do not hold as much sway as an offline one. I would like to propose that we use the writing of Oberonqa's petition (and this of course requires his permission) and send it out the way that the 2005 petition was handled. I think that a large box of signed petitions that is snail mailed to their office is likely to make a larger impact.

I would be happy to discuss options on doing an offline petition as well as an online petition....  shoot me a PM and we can discuss the options. 
 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

Anon

Quote from: Animan on March 01, 2010, 12:52:45 AMyour point is made, you are a thief and a cheat without morals.

Linus Torvalds once said "if you need to ask a lawyer whether what you do is right, then you are morally corrupt". You, sir, are a fool. your reasoning is that of a young old child - someone who has yet to develop the ability to conceptualize right and wrong as separate from the rules that surround them.

Your reasoning is that "law X says that anyone who breaks it is a thief, and you broke law X, therefore you are a thief", but your deep lack of understanding of morality shows through with your failure to consider in what way "law X" is being broken, and in what way that compares (or in this case, cearly does NOT) with the way being a thief is morally wrong.

The fact is that this law is being used wrongly, in a way that is completely out of tune with the concept of intellectual property and copyright. And, as such, I see no moral issue in breaking it, if that is feasible (and on the Internet, it is indeed easily feasible).

Xizer

Reminder to you people that this is ACTIVISION we're talking about. This  is not a company that gives a s*** what people think or listens to what its customers actually say. They are a magnet for bad press, and they do not care. One bit. May I remind you that:

Quote
http://kotaku.com/5482221/activision-terminates-fan+made-kings-quest-extension

After talks and negotiations in the last few months between ourselves and Activision, they have reached the decision that they are not interested in granting a non-commercial license to The Silver Lining, and have asked that we cease production and take down all related materials on our website

THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING TO ACTIVISION FOR MONTHS. Your little Internet petition isn't going to change anything. Activision doesn't give a f*** what you think.

The only option at this point is to give Activision the finger and leak that s*** or let 8 years of work go down the drain.