Is EA(I assume they're the current IP holder of the game) losing sales from this in order for the violation to be noteworthy?
I assume there's not a huge untapped customer base for this particular game that were rushing out to buy it but stopped because it's also available online for free.
Nevertheless, i expect just like Nintendo, their lawyers will send a C&D just to defend the IP and trademarks on the basis of "use it or lose it".
There doesn't always have to be a monetary loss to win a copyright suit, perhaps unlike with a breach of contract ruling.
Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right.
A similar notion has been common even among cases involving open source licenses, where developers were able to claim non-monetary damages from violations.
From Jacobsen v. Katzer:
> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge.
The first RTS I played as a kid. I played it again about a year ago, fantastic game.
Copyright infringement of the game assets right here
Is EA(I assume they're the current IP holder of the game) losing sales from this in order for the violation to be noteworthy?
I assume there's not a huge untapped customer base for this particular game that were rushing out to buy it but stopped because it's also available online for free.
Nevertheless, i expect just like Nintendo, their lawyers will send a C&D just to defend the IP and trademarks on the basis of "use it or lose it".
There doesn't always have to be a monetary loss to win a copyright suit, perhaps unlike with a breach of contract ruling.
Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right.
A similar notion has been common even among cases involving open source licenses, where developers were able to claim non-monetary damages from violations.
From Jacobsen v. Katzer:
> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge.
this is such an unhelpful and unproductive comment.
This is a great port, and seeing the game and graphics brings back memories. Thank you for doing the port.