Hacker News Reader

Comment by KronisLV | Hacker News Reader

> the people that just put out a cute site and stay low tend not to attract lawyers

Some lawyers are extremely litigious.

This might be daydreaming and wholly unreasonable, but I think that it should go like this: “As a developer/publisher you either provide a product available for purchase for a reasonable price (not larger than release price, adjusted for inflation) OR you are not allowed to take down game preservation efforts.”

Can’t afford to patch the game for vulnerabilities in the code or host servers? That’s okay, the community will do that for you after they reverse engineer it.

But that’s not the world we live in. Personally I think that even projects like SPT-AKI are okay.

View on HN

> As a developer/publisher you either provide a product available for purchase for a reasonable price (not larger than release price, adjusted for inflation) OR you are not allowed to take down game preservation efforts.

i worked at a place where to get anything done, you had to demonstrate "Business Impact": is what you're about to do going to actually help revenue? if not, move on to something that does

i agree, a suit should only be taken seriously if the company can demonstrate that they are actively losing revenue because of the game preservation effort, otherwise toss it in the bin

why are big name businesses wasting money on litigating against small sites that dont actually impact them anyway? perhaps if they knew that their lawyers were wasting time chasing frivolous suits and actually costing their company's good will, while not actually giving their business impact...

> why are big name businesses wasting money on litigating against small sites that dont actually impact them anyway? perhaps if they knew that their lawyers were wasting time chasing frivolous suits and actually costing their company's good will, while not actually giving their business impact...

Because the lawyers can for example, argue that their current games can be future targets of unauthorized recomp'd redistributions that will impact the sales of the business.

Nintendo also sells and offers old games digitally and they have the correct rights in redistributing them which this still counts as a "actively commercial game" even if it is old.

These companies don't care about ripped and recompiled games if it is done for private use. They only care if the game and its assets are redistributed in an unauthorized manner.

> But that’s not the world we live in. Personally I think that even projects like SPT-AKI are okay.

It costs EA nothing and their owners have funds from sources that make the cat-and-mouse game expensive for the reuploaders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com