Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: GuestIf it was a clean-room implementation there wouldn't be as much of a problem, however this was reverse engineered directly from the binaries it seems. That's a bit more of an issue as far as countries with dmca style laws go.

There was a point in time where reverse engineering was perfectly legal. I'm not sure if it is at this point. But for the most part there has to be some form of being able to read the data files to be able to recreate the game, and the term reverse engineering could technically be pinned to that. Pretty sure they weren't full on creating the engine through such means, were they?

I think the 'brings more sales' argument is shot down by sales, as they'd rather sell you new games instead of people being able to buy cheap old games. Plus with it being opened, they're afraid new content will be created for the old games, again hampering sales of new games.

Basically anti-consumer, pro-company thoughts.

Depends on if there are clauses against reverse engineering in the EULA of the original game since it was declared in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies,_Inc. [External Link] that such an EULA override the copyright law that expressly permits reverse engineering. However it has also to be said that Baystate did sell a competing application to Bowers and reverse engineered Bowers application to add new features to their own so that case is not 100% comparable with this situation.

However defending your position in court even if you are 100% sure that you will win is extremely expensive in the US so many smaller entities will not defend themselves even when they are in the right paving the way for big corporations to bully their way through the court system.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: DaiKaiser93

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: IggiThis is Deep Silver as the publisher. I wouldn't expect them to support anything besides Steam...

They're also the publisher of Wasteland 3 and yet the Linux/macOS versions are on GOG...

The Linux versions for the Saint Rows games and the first 2 Metro games are still missing from GOG.

Yeah I know, it's a pity. But just to say Deep Silver itself isn't the cause. But yeah I'm afraid it will ending like the "Desperados III case".
And if that's the case for Metro Exodus too, seriously... too bad they choose the "wrong" publisher but I won't buy the game.
It's just not right, don't sell your game on a store if you just don't want to support all versions.
It's normal to lack the Linux version on EGS, but not on GOG, there is no excuse.

Well there is an excuse, adding a store is way more than just press a button, and that is for every single update you later do for your game as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: F.UltraNot trying to defend Google here (I have no love for them) but the problem on Youtube is the DMCA itself and not Google/YouTube. As a provider you are not allowed to judge if a DMCA request is valid or fraudulent, you have to obey the request at all times.

Yes and no.
YouTube only has to enable such tools for the industry because they are reliant on ad revenue from the industry. Other services that function without ad revenue are much friendlier towards content creators and not so much towards others.

Of course, there are some legal concerns about copyright here, but those would not have to be ruled in favor of the plaintiff by default as is the case on Google. It is absurdly easy to file a DMCA request, but next to impossible to fight it, even if it is nonsense - every content creator can sing you a song about this.
It should be exactly the other way around.

That anyone can just file such a claim and the video gets taken down immediately is totally bonkers.

I think that you are mixing the DMCA with the "find copyrighted materials" tool that YouTube provides the music industry, they are two different things (although connected in a way).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EagleDelta

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: kerossinGoogle is great at coming up with new tech solutions and running systems at a global scale but boy do they suck at supporting their customers. We've seen this countless on YouTube with dubious DMCA claims taking down channels and only after a big enough uproar do things get looked at by someone at Google.

At this rate Google will make the owner of https://killedbygoogle.com/ [External Link] bankrupt because of constantly having to upgrade the hosting plan to accommodate all the dead Google projects lol.

Also, Liam makes a good point about relying on one provider for a lot of things. While it is convenient having one account but the risk of losing everything is too high. At the very least moving your email to a different provider might be good enough since email is used as a recovery method for most services so you could also lose access to other non-Google accounts if Google decides to terminate your account.

Not trying to defend Google here (I have no love for them) but the problem on Youtube is the DMCA itself and not Google/YouTube. As a provider you are not allowed to judge if a DMCA request is valid or fraudulent, you have to obey the request at all times.

They aren't required to obey any DMCA requests, there are no direct legal ramifications to ignoring DMCA requests. That said, if those requests ARE valid and they refuse to follow them, then Google/YouTube becomes liable in a civil suite for any damages. All DMCA does is remove liability for lawsuits/damages for copyright violations.

My interpretation is that if they don't obey all DMCA requests they loose their OSP status for all future requests and not just that single DMCA according to title II:

DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent (a "notice and takedown" process). OCILLA also includes a counternotification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users' identity.

Too me that is legal ramifications that means that Google's only choice is to either obey every single DMCA takedown or close down shop completely.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kerossinGoogle is great at coming up with new tech solutions and running systems at a global scale but boy do they suck at supporting their customers. We've seen this countless on YouTube with dubious DMCA claims taking down channels and only after a big enough uproar do things get looked at by someone at Google.

At this rate Google will make the owner of https://killedbygoogle.com/ [External Link] bankrupt because of constantly having to upgrade the hosting plan to accommodate all the dead Google projects lol.

Also, Liam makes a good point about relying on one provider for a lot of things. While it is convenient having one account but the risk of losing everything is too high. At the very least moving your email to a different provider might be good enough since email is used as a recovery method for most services so you could also lose access to other non-Google accounts if Google decides to terminate your account.

Not trying to defend Google here (I have no love for them) but the problem on Youtube is the DMCA itself and not Google/YouTube. As a provider you are not allowed to judge if a DMCA request is valid or fraudulent, you have to obey the request at all times.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeSo a 'greater good' thing really shouldn't be patentable, or yes it is fine as long as it is an open patent.
Like I said before, the patent system is not at fault here. There needs to be a method for inventors to be able to get rewarded for their invention. Otherwise no one would ever invent things except by accident.
The cost to actually get a patent makes it unavailable for someone making something in their garage. So they have to go to a company most of the time to get it done, and then the company owns it and the inventor usually gets screwed.
They need to change the fees and the process.
Either way, "we put paddles on the bottom of a controller" should not be a patent...

Yeah it's very strange that Valve wasn't successful in invalidating the patent, or perhaps they never tried that route, very few details of the case so far.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SeegrasI didn't write what you quoted as mine.

Quoting: F.UltraI have a problem following your reasoning here, development of a vaccine costs the pharmaceutical company billions. Giving them a time limited monopoly of said vaccine (aka the patent) is how we the society ensures that the pharmaceutical companies does invest these amounts. Talking about psychopathy here is just utter nonsense.

First off, we have a problem with pharmacy inflating these costs by a factor of 10, by including marketing and so on. And they've been doing this for decades.
https://www.thebodypro.com/article/r-d-really-cost [External Link] -- 70 million instead of 700 in 2001. There are more of these papers out there, and they all get to the same conclusion, R&D costs get inflated by roughly a factor of 10. So it's not billions, but millions. See also the article I linked to.

Second, you can't just reproduce these things, even if they're (like the modeRNA vaccine) completely open. Usually competitors need around 3 years to catch up. And that's way enough time to recoup the R&D costs.

Finally, I don't see why I should constantly repeat arguments scientists have already made, and correct your mis-assumptions, just because you're too lazy to read the papers:
http://dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm [External Link] (and read that chapter about pharmaceuticals here http://dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.9.m1004.pdf [External Link])
https://www.researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/ [External Link]

It seems like that I accidentally kept the wrong author when I trimmed the quote down for readability (aka the post that I did responded to contained a quote by you and I deleted the wrong author from the whole quote). Sorry about that!

The argument that I had was not for drugs but for vaccines in particular and $70M wouldn't even get you through the 3 trail phases. BARDA alone awarded Moderna $955M to speed up development of it's Covid-19 vaccine.

However, even if the full R&D cost plus all trials was only $70M then how is that an argument that they should just release it for free to all their competitors the same second they had developed it?

Please note that this is not an argument that patents are "the best thing ever", nor "the only solution" or that patents should be as long as 25 years and so forth. It was just an argument for why a company that have invested money in developing a vaccine could not just release it for free or be labelled as psychopathic. Nor is it an argument against letting drug companies in 3d world countries getting free access to such vaccines.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: SeegrasIn chemistry and pharma aren't working either. The fact that a lab creates a vaccine and is not immediately available for every other lab to palliate with a disease, whether that is a solving erectile dysfunction or a pandemic, but rather they can prevent others from doing the same, or getting rich by leasing the patent, is utterly annoying. It could only come from the mind of a psychopath.

I have a problem following your reasoning here, development of a vaccine costs the pharmaceutical company billions. Giving them a time limited monopoly of said vaccine (aka the patent) is how we the society ensures that the pharmaceutical companies does invest these amounts. Talking about psychopathy here is just utter nonsense.

That's a way we the society ensure that. It's not at all the only way. For instance, Moderna's development of a Covid vaccine was financed entirely up front by the US government--they didn't spend a dime of their own money and indeed made a profit before they'd ever started manufacturing. Then they were given a patent as well, but I don't see what the point of that was.

It's kind of an odd approach generally. I mean, most people who defend the patent system for pharmaceuticals concede that the big pharma companies don't really do a whole lot of original basic research--that's mainly public sector and pharma mostly piggybacks off the public sector ideas. What pharma does is lots of clinical trials, which cost a lot of money. OK, fine, for clinical trials to be done, money has to be spent, but what should that have to do with patents? It's a fairly mechanical process that doesn't involve coming up with original ideas, so why should our method of compensating it pretend that it does?

And as a method, it doesn't work terribly well. Vaccines don't typically make pharmaceutical companies a ton of money, so they don't spend that much money developing them. But vaccines are very useful in terms of public health. In fact, in terms of medicines, there is to some extent an inverse relationship between utility and profitability. Palliative treatments are more profitable than cures, since they can be sold again and again.
If you're a fan of "free markets" (which, OK, I'm not), patents are a massive distortion of those whether you're talking about the original Adam Smith et al. sense or the modern sense, since from Smith's perspective they create huge windfall economic rents and from the modern perspective they involve massive government intervention and from both perspectives they represent the literal creation of monopoly for the express purpose of distorting prices.
Those prices can get jacked up especially high because of the nature of medicine--how much will you pay the only person who can save your life? The highest profit will necessarily come at a price-point high enough that many won't be able to afford it. This is cruel and immoral. But there is also a substantial public interest issue. Bad public health has social and economic implications.
So between these issues, leaving it to the (patent-distorted) market to decide just which treatments and vaccines should be pursued is inevitably going to give you perverse outcomes where worse medicines are emphasized over better ones, and the medicines produced are undersupplied and overcharged for, leaving many untreated, and sucking unnecessarily huge amounts of money out of the broader economy, leaving pharmaceutical companies with huge windfall profits.

Those windfall profits are also a huge motivator to falsify the outcomes of clinical trials to make drugs look better and less risky than they are. This has caused tens of thousands of deaths. It would be better to just have companies that do clinical trials, have public agencies that decided which drugs should have trials done, and pay them to do them. The public agency's purpose would be to improve public health, not make a profit from perverse outcomes. So they wouldn't be motivated to avoid cures in favour of palliative treatments, nor to falsify results of clinical trials. Clinical trial companies would compete on price and accuracy. Then the drugs, once approved, could be handed over to generic drug makers who would manufacture them cheaply and, again, in competition rather than with a monopoly. And that's just one possibility. I'm sure there are plenty of other approaches that would be better than what we have for everything except letting big pharma siphon off windfall profits.

I agree completely with you, I believe that pharmaceutical research should be funded by government and the results not patented.

I simply replied back to the argument that companies funding everything in private should immediately release their findings for free or be seen as psychopathic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=Arehandoro]

Quoting: SeegrasIn chemistry and pharma aren't working either. The fact that a lab creates a vaccine and is not immediately available for every other lab to palliate with a disease, whether that is a solving erectile dysfunction or a pandemic, but rather they can prevent others from doing the same, or getting rich by leasing the patent, is utterly annoying. It could only come from the mind of a psychopath.

I have a problem following your reasoning here, development of a vaccine costs the pharmaceutical company billions. Giving them a time limited monopoly of said vaccine (aka the patent) is how we the society ensures that the pharmaceutical companies does invest these amounts. Talking about psychopathy here is just utter nonsense.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: randyl

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: MohandevirFunny... Thinking about it... 5 "random" (Yeah right!) gamers that seem to be unable to correctly read a EULA learned of the MFN which is closed behind an NDA between developpers and Valve... Who broke the NDA then? Will the plantiffs be able to produce the proof of the MFN without compromising the identity of the NDA leaker(s)? Because that could legally cost them a lot. Like it was said... Follow the money.

Did I get something wrong?

That one thing is no problem for the plaintiffs, if this goes to court then Valve will be forced to disclose the MFN to the court and to the plaintiffs during the discovery phase. So there is no need to produce who was the leaker, however the court could of course deem that this whole affair is nothing more than a fishing expedition to make the MFN public so the whole thing can die right there.

This is not accurate. There is no "MFN". An "MFN" isn't a contract in and of itself. There is a contractual agreement with an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) between Valve and the publisher. This may or may not be introduced, but it isn't an absolute given and the plaintiffs don't necessarily have the ability to include that. The fact that they didn't include it in the complaint, and the implication behind that, was discussed in the video.

The contract between Valve and the publishers/developers may have clauses or stipulations which give an "MFN" status and that has to be determined during the hearing. And then it has to be proven to be proven unfavorable to consumers. And then they have to prove that Valve and those publishers colluded to set prices to the detriment of the public while also harming those publishers who colluded to set prices.

The video linked earlier in the article is really worth watching. It helps clarify a lot and can eliminate some of our lay assumptions and understandings. A lot of the comments in this thread are emotionally based on what posters think should happen, but the court proceedings will be based on law and precedence.

I fail to see how you contradict me in any way?

edit: sounds like you have a problem with me using "MFN" for the Valve vs Developer agreement, I simply used that in haste due to the post that I quoted, the context should IMHO be clear however.

View this comment - View article - View full comments