Slashdot Mirror
Pirated App Sold On Mac App Store
iDuck writes "When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts game, Lugaru HD, on the Mac App store, they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double. A counterfeit version of the software is currently available on the app store at a much lower price point under the name Lugaru. The best bit: as yet Apple have not responded to Wolfire's emails to rectify the situation. While the source to the game was GPLed, 'the license made it very clear that the authors retained all rights to the assets, characters, and everything else aside from the code itself.'"
That they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double shortly after the release of the game. Not before, though. Before it was inexcusable ;).
It does sound awkward but factually it should be correct.
the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yarrr, ye'v been pushed down the page, ye scurvy dog! Yarrrr!
the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.
I think you mean DHS's ICE division. They're the guys running around seizing domain names for little to no reason.
My work here is dung.
Action 1: Wolffire Games Releases Lugaru HD
Action 2: Some time passes
Action 3: Wolffire Games thinks they're seeing double
Action 4: Because of the rest of the article, Action 3 may be forgiven.
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The real issue in this is how this will affect the public opinion on free software. It will not be good.
The public won't notice. As usual.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.
Let's parse it:
"When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games" - this gives the epoch when the rest of the sentence happened, it was all at the same time as the game was released
"'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store," - this is a more detailed explanation that tells us what game was that and where it was released
"shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double" - this is a more detailed explanation of the time, it all happened shortly after the time when they could be forgiven
" . " - oops, this sentence no verb and no subject.
No, it's perfectly kosher to have GPLed source code but non-GPLed game data.
See the various Quake GPL releases - it has NEVER been legal to use that GPL code to play the original game unless you legitimately owned the data.
It took quite a while before "standalone" games were created based on the Quake1/2/3 GPL release code, in these cases ALL of the game data was replaced with new (typically Creative Commons-licensed) data.
I don't think anyone would have an issue here if the Lugaru HD engine were being used with all-new artwork. The problem here is that the Lugaru HD artwork/data is being re-released by the pirates at a much lower price, and Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Say what? There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling your software, or software written by someone else and released under the GPL (as long as you don't change the licence and make the source available).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The GPL does not have maps and art just game code. You need to buy the maps and art.
I've seen too many stupid comments about this today and yesterday, so I'm going to clarify a few points:
1. The SOURCE CODE to the EXECUTABLE was released as GPL.
2. GPL DOES, in fact, allow you to sell your build of that executable.
3. While they did distribute the assets (textures, models, sound, etc.) with the source code, those assets WERE NOT distributed via GPL.
4. GPL is for source code, not assets. For that, you're looking at a creative commons type license for something similar.
5. The assets were distributed with a "you can do anything BUT SELL IT" license
Meaning, as they charge $2.00 for it, Lugaru (non HD) is in blatant copyright violation. Never mind, using the name is probably a blatant trademark violation.
I think a lot of games (especially indie type titles) could benefit from going open source, while keeping tight hold on their assets. Sell the textures, models, and sounds, and give the source away. If someone wants to "steal" your game, they're going to have to build the rest themselves from scratch. It would help both in keeping tiny titles like that away from falling into the abandonware pit (especially if it's incompatible with modern OS's), and helping aspiring game devs in understanding how game logic works.
They'll confiscate Apple.com and put an end to this nonsense.
That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.
Selling it under a different license or without complying with the GPL (eg: no source code, misrepresentation...) that is. Selling GPL softwares is fine. It is "pirated" because the assets (eg: model, texture and sound) are not GPL and cannot be redistribued the same way, if at all. To make a legit derived work all the game contents should be redone from scratch.
There is noting foolish about releasing source code of any commercially distributed software. OP is a troll, and a idiot.
On the other hand, there is no m in "be". :)
That's awesome. Thanks! I knew that I was going to make some mistake in there...
There ought to be some law saying that every post criticizing spelling or grammar is guaranteed to have a spelling or grammar error!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
There is. It's called Muphry's Law :)
Apple doesn't seem to feel accountable to anyone any more. This is another great example where they don't even think they have to answer their email messages.
It's very simple, actually. Apple will not and should not react to just a claim in an e-mail. What the copyright holder has to do is to send a DMCA takedown notice in the correct form. They have to state that they are the copyright holder, that the other copy on the store is infringing on their copyright, and they have to give the correct contact information that allows them to be identified. This was published on slashdot many times when someone tried to suppress information through an overzealous DMCA takedown notice. There are rules that the copyright holder has to follow, and if they are not followed then the website need not and should not take down the allegedly infringing work.
Once a proper DMCA notice is sent, Apple will have to take down the infringing work in a reasonable amount of time (less than 24 hours) or be on the hook for copyright infringement itself (if there was copyright infringement in the first place). In addition, they have to send the contact information to the alleged infringer, who can either accept this, or demand that the software is put back on the store, which they would do if they think there is no copyright infringement and they are willing to go to court about it. If that happens, then Apple is off the hook, and we can be sure there will be a court case.
Thats not a malformed URL, its a perfectly valid one - the trailing dot makes the domain a fully qualified one under RFC 1738. Its your filter program that is the faulty one here.
Go fuck yourself you pedantic asshole.
Don't you mean go and fuck yourself you pedantic asshole?
You should submit this info to the makers of Dan's Guardian so they can fix their software to handle all properly formed URLs.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
As much as everybody hates DMCA takedown notices around here, it seems like that would be the proper avenue for this sort of thing. It's certainly not an abuse of the DMCA in this case. Apple would likely respond relatively quickly so they don't lose their safe harbor.
~moofbong
If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?
Every story I see on Slashdot about copyright, so-called file sharing, the .*AA, etc. people complain that Intellectual Property (IP) is not real property and no one is losing anything when IP rights and copyrights are violated. But, the "assets" everyone is talking about are IP. If it is not wrong to redistribute the IP of others, why is this wrong?
Really, this just highlights the hypocrisy of so many Slashdotters and FLOSS supporters of "file sharing".
No, he didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
Thank you my good man for correcting this young fellow with such a high ID number. I'm not english at all and was very curious at your suggestion, but I knew that the internet would settle your disagreement once and for all, for it seems that "In American English go is sometimes followed directly by a bare infinitive" (source).
No, I'm not drunk.
You're incorrect. A price is a pure scalar; any price is as much of a price as any other. $.03, $1.95, $43.00 are all equally prices, and all different. Price points are positions in the price spectrum. $0.99 is price point, and it is a price point shared with $0.95. $0.65 is less of a price point, or you could say it was a less relevant price point.
Granted, some people use the terms incorrectly, saying price point when they should be saying price. Price point is only really relevant when talking about multiple prices or multiple products.
Because you gave them permission to do so.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Investigating before responding != supporting. From the sound of it, only a few days have passed - and I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed off if the OTHER guy e-mail Apple first and Apple immediately pulled his app without an investigation.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically states that you certify that you have the rights to publish anything you submit
Yes, that's what I said. Thanks!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Forgive him, He graduated from the University of Michigan and not a real college like Michigan State or Notre Dame.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You're being dense, the review checks if the app is within the rules, one of the rules is "you have to have the rights to distribute this".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Absolutely wrong. You're very misinformed.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/20/commodore64-iphone-app-finished-denied-by-apple/
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2008/09/13445/
http://www.iphonefreak.com/2011/02/sony-reader-denied-app-store-debut.html
http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone-medical-app-denied-510k/
http://gizmodo.com/5611169/why-the-hell-did-apple-pull-camera%252B-from-the-app-store
Google around, you'll find a million similar cases. Developers hear that their apps will be fine, and then at the last minute they are denied and not told why. It takes them alot of calling and emails to Apple and takes months before they can even find out why.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
unless your 'consignment' store is a pawn shop in Florida... if your house is broken into and you subsequently find your items in a pawn shop you must buy them from the pawn shop if you want them back - and the pawn shop is not liable
This is untrue in the vast majority of the country. Pawn shops in most states have a legal responsibility to actively try to prevent stolen items from being sold and, their possession of your property, regardless of is they paid for them, does not transfer legal ownership to them, since they paid someone who did not own the goods. In almost every state pawn shops have to return stolen goods to the rightful owner and eat the loss. The police generally confiscate goods for the investigation then return them to the original owner. If the police do not do this, some pawn shops will try to claim payment from you. This is when you go to small claims court or (if valuable enough) file suit against the pawn shop. They will lose if you can show the goods are in fact probably the ones stolen from you (you don't even need beyond a reasonable doubt for a civil case like this, just probable).
Why do we even want Apple to respond? Do we really want Apple to police this? Just send your lawyer after this other "author".