Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.UltraAnd to quote Papenhoff for the third time since you keep ignoring it: "So what we typically do is work with the output of the decompiler and massage it back into readable C++." - that is his own words - not mine - and it's from those that I base my comments on that it looks like they indeed did commit copyright infringement.

Isn't that basically the equivalent of taking the original Aramaic version of the Bible, that Rockstar had the King James Version, then dumping it into a translator, then cleaning up the code for modern English? (sorry been on a 'History' channel kick).

Sure, and if the bible was still in copyright that would almost certainly be illegal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well anyway good for them. Both for successfully doing it, and for taking a second look at the situation, which can be psychologically difficult.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For really totally reliable delivery I'm thinking catapult.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Gotta admit it takes me a bit of squinting to tell the difference. Look at the girl's skirt and you can kind of tell, but I'm not going "OMG, it was so bad before and it's so grt now!!!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: STiAT

Quoting: slapinThey managed to create their own code in C++ working in the same way as GTA code.

This can be argued, since they did decompile it and use the decompiled code with tools to get code that behaves like the original. Ofc there is more involved than just that, but it's basically using the original code, decompiling it and using tools to get manageable C++ code and work from there - and that can certainly be argued as copyright infringement.

Personally, if they never framed it the way of decompiled code but a green field approach, they'd probably have a better ground at court.

Yeah, I think for instance if someone wrote a book and encrypted it and all you had was the encrypted book, and you could decrypt it but very imperfectly, and so you did that, and then reconstructed a book trying for your best guess at what the wording was originally like, and published that--you'd be violating copyright.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slapinAs I understand new world, corporations split the "markets" between them and became upset someone got to their territory. The claims is so anti-market and anti-capitalistic as whole so I wonder what is going on.

Anti-market perhaps, although markets have always had a lot less of the whole freedom fairy dust than many people are led to believe. Anti-capitalistic, no. We think of markets and capitalism as being near-identical, but they aren't. Capitalism as such has little to do with markets, let alone free ones--monopoly is the objective of every capitalist who gets far enough. The fundamental points that make capitalism a system distinct from other systems is private individuals invest money (capital) to get a profit, employing wage labour to cause the profit to happen. Usually, that involves selling something to someone in something you could call a market, but sometimes it involves outright stealing, sometimes it involves direct selling solely to government as in US defence procurement, sometimes it involves the company store in the company town, where the miners or whoever buy your stuff at your price or they starve. All still capitalism, just not very markety. You can definitely have both markets without capitalism, and capitalism without markets.
(You can also have capitalism without the limited liability corporation)

You (same as politicians) mixing capitalism - private ownership, free market with corporativism - that think you talk about. Its distict thing.

As far as I can figure out what you're saying . . . no.
This isn't really up for debate. Economics has a history which involves various ideas and terms being defined. Economics itself is often bogus in that they do bad logic to get false results while using the terms, but the terms are still defined in a particular way. Going Humpty Dumpty and having you or your political faction redefine the terms to mean something else is like deciding you want "acceleration" to mean something other than "change in velocity over time". It's just wrong.

I explained a bit about what a couple of terms mean. That is in fact what they mean, because that's what the classical economists who invented them used them to mean, and the economic tradition, when it still pays attention to them seriously, still uses them to mean that. Confusion happens because they get used loosely a lot, or for propaganda purposes. People also redefine capitalism a lot to try to wiggle out of cognitive dissonance: "Capitalism is great . . . but the economy is vile . . . how to reconcile?! --> capitalism must be something we're not doing!"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So what I'm wondering is, what happens if the court finds that
1) The defendants are actually guilty of copyright infringement, but
2) Far from causing "irreparable harm", the reimplementation has actually added to Take-Two's profits and, at least until they started attacking it, enhanced their brand and reputation?

On a side note, does anyone else find it kind of amusing that someone's doing a stickler-for-the-details lawsuit over a game that glorifies and indeed is entirely about violent lawbreaking?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slapinAs I understand new world, corporations split the "markets" between them and became upset someone got to their territory. The claims is so anti-market and anti-capitalistic as whole so I wonder what is going on.

Anti-market perhaps, although markets have always had a lot less of the whole freedom fairy dust than many people are led to believe. Anti-capitalistic, no. We think of markets and capitalism as being near-identical, but they aren't. Capitalism as such has little to do with markets, let alone free ones--monopoly is the objective of every capitalist who gets far enough. The fundamental points that make capitalism a system distinct from other systems is private individuals invest money (capital) to get a profit, employing wage labour to cause the profit to happen. Usually, that involves selling something to someone in something you could call a market, but sometimes it involves outright stealing, sometimes it involves direct selling solely to government as in US defence procurement, sometimes it involves the company store in the company town, where the miners or whoever buy your stuff at your price or they starve. All still capitalism, just not very markety. You can definitely have both markets without capitalism, and capitalism without markets.
(You can also have capitalism without the limited liability corporation)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm not sure if I'd like the game as such, but they're definitely having fun with the 50s flavour.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: The_Aquabatit's better to run ARK on proton.. it's that bad seriously

Yep, the graphical fidelity under Linux is appalling. They must be running this under Proton on the Stadia farms.

Nobody is running Proton on Stadia. dxvk/vkd3d native sure, but not wine / proton.

That was my understanding. So has anyone tried it on Stadia? Because if it's feature-complete graphically with the Windows version, then either we're wrong and they're using Proton somehow, or they've written a new renderer and just not bothered applying it to their atrocious Linux desktop build on Steam.

My guess is they just did what others have done and just outsourced the port to another company like QLOC or similar.

To be fair, in their case that would probably have a much better chance of success than doing it themselves.

View this comment - View article - View full comments