wow, just wow. ubi soft steals crack and claims it as their own.

[Captain A]

ubisoft steals a Rainbow6 Vegas2 no-dvd-crack and claims it is a "patch".
Proof.

[placidchap]

Who cares.  They can call it their own because it was illegally made.  Unless the piracy group wants to come forward and claim their work, everyone should shut up.  That board is full of idiots.  "Now THATS French.." ..hardly, it is business plain and simple.  The French are not known for stealing peoples work and calling it their own.  People of the business world however..

[Kebrel]

Eh, its a little funny just cause how anti-piracy they are. Not some big deal though.

[BROJ]

Who cares.  They can call it their own because it was illegally made.  Unless the piracy group wants to come forward and claim their work, everyone should shut up. 

Before we get into this, I could care less about that board as well─so let's dodge that issue. I find error in your logic; let me apply your logic to an analogous situation: Let's say you spent three weeks on a fanart, with SE's logo in it(just because it looks stylish), depicting, say... a scenario with Serge and SE decides that since you used their logo and you don't have a patent they're going to steal your artwork for another game without crediting even your 'handle':"placidchap"─Would you be alright with that? I know I wouldn't.

[placidchap]

Well, for one it is a trademark, not a patent.  And by using SE's logo, you are infringing upon that trademark, as using that logo implies that it was made by SE, which it was not.  Drawing Serge alone would not necessarily be a copyright infringement, depending on its intended purpose.  The so called "piracy group" that made the crack apparently did so to bypass some security protection of the game.  From what I gather this breaks their terms and conditions regarding piracy and all that good stuff.  So, if Ubisoft wants to take it for their own, they can do so as I doubt the group would say "Hey that's our code!, Thief!"  and I also doubt a case of "stolen" programming code would hold up in court, or even if it did Ubisoft could counter sue the group in question for doing something illegal.  And I fail to see how your analogous situation applies.  So as I was saying, in the business world you take what you can, when you can if it is advantageous for you and especially if it unlikely you will get in trouble for it.

[BROJ]

Well, for one it is a trademark, not a patent.  And by using SE's logo, you are infringing upon that trademark, as using that logo implies that it was made by SE, which it was not. 

Trademark
For other senses of this word, see Trademark (disambiguation).
A trademark or trade mark is a distinctive sign or indicator of some kind which is used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to uniquely identify the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically comprises a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.

Patent
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a patentee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention.

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the invention.

Potato, Pototo... at any rate, I don't like repeating my self needlessly:

[...] let me apply your logic to an analogous situation:[...]

And if your nitpicking whether the fanart would receive a patent or a trademark; it would receive a patent. Because a patent is for protecting works produced by an entity and a trademark is to 'identify' works produced by an entity.

Drawing Serge alone would not necessarily be a copyright infringement, depending on its intended purpose.

Was that even stipulated? I think it went more like:

[...] Let's say you spent three weeks on a fanart [...]

The so called "piracy group" that made the crack apparently did so to bypass some security protection of the game.  From what I gather this breaks their terms and conditions regarding piracy and all that good stuff.  So, if Ubisoft wants to take it for their own, they can do so as I doubt the group would say "Hey that's our code!, Thief!"  and I also doubt a case of "stolen" programming code would hold up in court, or even if it did Ubisoft could counter sue the group in question for doing something illegal.  And I fail to see how your analogous situation applies.  So as I was saying, in the business world you take what you can, when you can if it is advantageous for you and especially if it unlikely you will get in trouble for it.

Piracy or not... if they breached their own contract─that nullifies it(any attorney at law would tell you that). They have no case against the 'pirates' and, therefore the 'pirates' would have the upper hand in court. Though they probably wouldn't get any money, Ubisoft would have to redo the patch.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Quite interesting...

but i don't feel like getting into copywrite law.  it's all such a sensitive subject.

[BROJ]

Quite interesting...

but i don't feel like getting into copywrite law.  it's all such a sensitive subject.

Meh... I'm just arguing for fun(please make a note of that, placidchap.).

[placidchap]

Hmm, I wonder if it really is a breach of contract?  They are the licensor giving the licensees' the license to install and play the game, as well as this "crack fix".  Are they really breaking the contract?  I assume the EULA tells those installing that they are not allowed to use such things, regardless of where you get it.  So even if Ubisoft gives those who own the game this crack, I don't think they are breaking their contract/EULA.  It is the people installing the crack, provided by Ubisoft that are breaking the EULA.  That is my take anyway, I am no lawyer.  Would think that scenario would not hold up in court, if Ubisoft tried to sue an individual for using that crack but I still think the piracy group would be crushed in the court of law.  And, yea I was having fun so don't worry about any ill will.  Although I still think it is a trademark and not a patent. So tomato....potato

[BROJ]

Neither am I a lawyer, but I think we can both agree that this is, at best, unethical and someone's gonna get their ass canned or severely reprimanded...