Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Apple Games

Pirated App Sold On Mac App Store 334

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the pay-better-attention dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pirated App Sold On Mac App Store

Comments Filter:
  • Unwise GPL (Score:1, Informative)

    by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:30AM (#35089878)

    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.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:32AM (#35089900) Journal

    the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.

    I think you mean DHS's ICE division [ice.gov]. They're the guys running around seizing domain names for little to no reason [slashdot.org].

  • Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@co[ ]ll.edu ['rne' in gap]> on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:43AM (#35090014) Homepage

    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.

  • Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tim C (15259) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:43AM (#35090018)

    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).

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:48AM (#35090082)

    The GPL does not have maps and art just game code. You need to buy the maps and art.

  • by MukiMuki (692124) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @10:51AM (#35090112)

    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.

  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday February 03, 2011 @11:07AM (#35090266)
    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.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sockman (133264) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @11:15AM (#35090350)

    No, he didn't.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law [wikipedia.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 03, 2011 @11:31AM (#35090558)

    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.

  • Re:Unwise GPL (Score:4, Informative)

    by lattyware (934246) <gareth@lattyware.co.uk> on Thursday February 03, 2011 @11:35AM (#35090608) Homepage Journal
    Because you gave them permission to do so.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday February 03, 2011 @01:29PM (#35092070)

    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).

I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.

Working...