Battlezone Forums

Don't suppose anyone's going to start a court case just to prevent Bz1 having a 5th player though....

Yeah, this isn't going to court any time soon...

Illegal under the DMCA or not, the entire argument is skewed by the fact that Ken is Ken. You can argue the toss for years and never get anywhere without professional legal input (which I would advise strongly against purely to remain on the safe side). You could even argue that the entire DMCA clause is excepted because 1.5 is still in testing.

Really these two arguments come down to the same answer; nobody really knows.

Battlezone also predates DMCA being signed into law by over half a year, if it matters.

Also keep in mind we're talking about a game that's been out of print for well over a decade.

This whole discussion really doesn't matter for the reasons you listed Ken. This is more philosophical discussion rather than a practical one...

Eddy

I think Apollo's summary is the most clear and concise and doesn't attempt to cloud the issues with convoluted legality and/or technical incongruity.

Eddy wrote:This whole discussion really doesn't matter for the reasons you listed Ken. This is more philosophical discussion rather than a practical one...

Eddy

However, there may always be that overzealous produce stocker that sees you eat the grape.

And you can always give the grape back... in a slightly altered form.

Eddy wrote:And you can always give the grape back... in a slightly altered form.

It would have that new smell and taste.

Apollo wrote:

Eddy wrote:And you can always give the grape back... in a slightly altered form.

It would have that new smell and taste.

Unable to not crack wise--

Nugrape, dictated not read?

Eddy wrote:And you can always give the grape back... in a slightly altered form.

I prefer eating it, or exchanging it for a watermelon.

Ultraken wrote:Battlezone also predates DMCA being signed into law by over half a year, if it matters.

I don't think it does. All the newish draconian copyright law goes above and beyond.
Doesn't matter if it was created before or after DMCA. If they're willing to clawback public music that's been public for decades then you can bet a 14 year old game counts too.

They're also trying to make selling your ipod illegal in the U.S....as insane as that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862Bbj ... ture=plcpv

AHadley wrote:Ken is not facilitating piracy; no-cd patches are legal if you own the game, as shown by the first post in this page.

The only way having 1.5 would be illegal is if somebody who had not paid for the game downloaded it; even then, it is not Ken's fault that they pirated a copy (likely from an installer downloaded from one of two particular websites) and it is thus not his problem.

Ah yes, if you own the game. Seeing as full 1.4 and 1.5 patches are easily available on most BZ sites, I'd say it'd be hard to determine whom among the player base actually is using their stock CD.

In the end I don't think it matters, and personally I don't even care.

Neither Activision nor Atari are likely to start issuing written notices or cease and desist orders on a game neither can claim full ownership over or make a decent profit on.

They're also trying to make selling your ipod illegal in the U.S....as insane as that is.

Why not go the whole way and make it illegal to read a book you have not paid for yourself too?

The no-reselling law isn't going to pass, and even if t does, theres no way it would be enforceable.