Ohhhhh, okay. Sorry. I never played that game, so the reference totally sailed over my head. Makes sense now!
No worries. All this stuff dates back so far sometimes I forget that games like Archon are ancient history to most gamers today.
I’m also a relative gamer-baby, though I did spend an inordinate amount of my youth playing SC1 on the Genesis and replaying SC3 on my old Win95 machine :)
Just fyi, Greg just got married (within a few days of that post). So he may have simply been reading that article and thinking it was good news for them while celebrating his own good fortune. He doesnt necessarily have any inside information.
Oh, I didn’t think he’d have inside information. I just figured it’s good to know that he is still supportive of P&F after the injunction. (And yes, I know he also supported their copyright claim, etc., so it’s not a surprise, but still good to know that people who were actually involved in the creation of SC2 support P&F, and I don’t think the tweeted comment was noted before in this thread.)
Ah gotcha! yeah for sure he is 100% supportive of his ex colleagues. No doubt. He also happens to be one of the nicest men in games development. Great guy.
Regarding look-and-feel, I stumbled on a game that seems pretty egregious. I don’t know if Bullfrog ever sued these guys, but they could have, right??
For those of you who hate the DMCA, I think you are looking at it from completely the wrong angle.
As someone above said, the DMCA is not really designed for copyright owners or infringers. It is designed to protect ISPs/hosts.
If you think about it more as a process that allows people to actually host third party content without being liable for infringing content (so long as they follow the process to take down such content), it makes a lot more sense.
It protects Steam, not Stardock or P&F.
It’s a very appropriate comparison as Paul Reiche designed both.
This is absolutely true.
It’s three posts above this one, just FYI.
That isn’t lost on us. The DMCA could have let hosts conduct more of a process in response to takedowns while providing hosts with just as much safe harbor. It’s law written or heavily influenced by media industry lobbyists.
I saw a funny quip from someone on twitter about how the takedown is totally against the spirit of the law since the law was designed to be used by companies against content creators, not the other way around.
Hosts don’t want to conduct a process. Hosts want a clear path to safe harbor.
Most real internet hosts do not want to have to engage in any process or fact finding. It adds costs and uncertainty. Let the third parties who actually are making counterclaims figure that out.
I realize Youtube doesn’t really care, but the law applies equally to hosts created by people who do care.
Oops! Sorry for the confusion!
Archon references are always appreciated. I was obsessed with that game in elementary school.
Thanks! I’m old enough to have played the old SC games but I never did…
If there was a badge in Discourse for “most times typed and deleted a response to a topic” I would CRUSH YOU ALL up in here.
That is all.