Battlezone Forums

Nielk1 wrote:Actually, its SCIENCE, not ART.

You and Spock are a lot alike. Anyone who is not in line with your agenda is evil and must have some nefarious agenda of their own, even if you cant identify it.

One again, you talk as if you know something, or in this statement, someone you never spoke to.
You make far too many assumptions.

Now, what is my agenda since you know it all.

I take it my questions will be conveniently lost/ignored?

You're agenda is to have 1.5 called a mod so that you can say BzE is equal or better than it. You also wish to do this to stick dirt in the eyes of the Spock crowd.

You still fail to find mine.

I must note that it is irrelevant how source for something is secured, it is the license that mattes. You keep saying that because of how the source was secured it is illegal, but you fail to understand the fact the computer data is not governed in the same fashion as material objects. Frankly, your understanding of basic law is shockingly dreadful and your predisposition to default to personal attacks or ignoring others when you can't correctly defeat what is pointed out to you is just sad.

Nielk1 wrote:You're agenda is to have 1.5 called a mod so that you can say BzE is equal or better than it. You also wish to do this to stick dirt in the eyes of the Spock crowd.

You still fail to find mine.

I must note that it is irrelevant how source for something is secured, it is the license that mattes. You keep saying that because of how the source was secured it is illegal, but you fail to understand the fact the computer data is not governed in the same fashion as material objects. Frankly, your understanding of basic law is shockingly dreadful and your predisposition to default to personal attacks or ignoring others when you can't correctly defeat what is pointed out to you is just sad.

Wait a min. 1.5 makes changes to the retail game thus it's a modification so how can you say it's NOT changing the retail game?

It doesn't matter if anyone thinks one version is better or not, that is an opinion, not an agenda.
If i wanted to "stick dirt in the eyes of the Spock crowd" then why am I contributing to 1.5.

Find your what?

Ok, looking at your statement "I must note that it is irrelevant how source for something is secured, it is the license that mattes."

So you imply if you can walk into a store and grab something and walk out without paying for it it's irrelevant how you obtained it?

I asked you to post up the licenses for these so called patches, i still have yet to see them.

IP copyrights are for 90 years.

Apollo wrote:Wait a min. 1.5 makes changes to the retail game thus it's a modification so how can you say it's NOT changing the retail game?

Yes, like a patch does.

And patches don't need independent licenses because they apply to the game itself, for which the user has a license.

If a patch didn't modify anything, it wouldn't exist. Face it, you want 1.5 to be a 'mod' so BzE can be equal to it. That does not preclude you from being involved in 1.5 like you claim it would. You are spinning such complex lies for such a simple and clear cut situation.

Stop it, it is just sad.

1.5 exists to replace the prior iterations of the game. It is an iteration on said game. It fixes bugs and replaces outdated technologies and it attempts to do minor asset updates.

And further more, if all 1.8 did was change ODFs and it was meant to 'replace' the prior iterations, it's a patch too (just a community balance patch that isn't very good). The simple fact is that patches do not have a legal meaning like you wish they did. A patch is simply an iteration, normally on the codebase but not always, that updates content in a way meant to replace the original and that requires to be set upon the original to function. That is why patches don't need a legal standing.

Nielk1 wrote:And patches don't need independent licenses because they apply to the game itself, for which the user has a license.

I'll just go a round again with you on this, A patch from the copyright holder doesn't need another license as the game contains the license the end users paid for but in this case, as you well know, NO ONE paid for it, there is NO license, it is ILLEGAL.

The way you talk, if you riped copyrighted material and put it on TPB and called it a patch there's nothing wrong with it, copyrighted IP means nothing, you claim all rights to other peoples IP.

That's why I've always called it an unofficial 1.5 patch and point out on my Battlezone page that Activision does not endorse or support the patch.

Wow, N1, Apollo, you guys making it soooo complicated.

See, for me, its dramatically simple:

Ultraken wrote:That's why I've always called it an unofficial 1.5 patch and point out on my Battlezone page that Activision does not endorse or support the patch.

Ken says its a patch, its a patch.

Apollo wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:And patches don't need independent licenses because they apply to the game itself, for which the user has a license.

I'll just go a round again with you on this, A patch from the copyright holder doesn't need another license as the game contains the license the end users paid for but in this case, as you well know, NO ONE paid for it, there is NO license, it is ILLEGAL.

Umm... I made a "showoff your Bz CDs" thread at '.net' forums and there were a lot of pictures with timestamps. No one paid for it is a misrepresentation because apparently a ton of people still have their licenses.

My $0.02.

these annoying conversations about copyright are always annoying, anyway, BZ engine has the same codes from MW2/MW2Mercs and Heavy Gear 1 engine?

It has very little MW2 in it. (wish it had mech code)

xGurenx your mixing up the retail game in a conversation about the newly made executables which are not under a license.

why is apollo just ranting more bout bz 1.5? its not kens fault that bz1 1.5 is just better =P

DuoRanger wrote:these annoying conversations about copyright are always annoying, anyway, BZ engine has the same codes from MW2/MW2Mercs and Heavy Gear 1 engine?

lier

Apollo wrote:xGurenx your mixing up the retail game in a conversation about the newly made executables which are not under a license.

Nielk1 wrote:And patches don't need independent licenses because they apply to the game itself, for which the user has a license.

... And it's on the original retail CD.

Nielk1 wrote:1.5 requires the base game. Or at least, it is supposed to to be legally allowed.

... And guess where you can get the base game? The retail CD.

Also, the newly made patch executable needs the components from the CD, which the CD I and others have is retail, to make the executable work otherwise Bz derps.

Ultraken wrote:That's why I've always called it an unofficial 1.5 patch and point out on my Battlezone page that Activision does not endorse or support the patch.

So... As long as the player (whoever they may be) still owns that retail CD, which has the user license, the 1.5 patch they install to their computer is legal but not official.

Am I right?

It's funny how the bze and bz2players like the post up lies about 1.5. Oh well a lier is a lier.