The word "pirates" does not seem to appear in the linked article.
Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
11–20 of 102 posts
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#12Pirates is way too heavy a term here. Canonical is large enough and the issue muddy enough that I don't think this is a warranted accusation. They're also shooting themselves in the foot, instead of coming to some kind of amicable arrangement they've now accused canonical of a serious crime which will lead to a response to that accusation rather than to a solution that would have been beneficial to all parties. If yo…
It seems they just wanted some exposure on what Canonical did (aka media justice). They weren't going to sue them or go after them in other ways.
Quote from Ed (http://www.formspring.me/EdmundM/q/406960226210700795): "its not a huge deal, i just dont like being made to look like an asshole so i made my reasons public."
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#13Please just link directly to the FormSpring rather than the blogified version. It gives all the relevant info. http://www.formspring.me/EdmundM/q/406945771976419136
No, it doesn't.
The "blogified" version also links to some related tweets that add some important context.
Of course someone interested enough could cobble everything together themselves, but the whole point of linking to a secondary source is to let someone else do the synthesis.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
seems to be more complex than that, they (Team Meat) wanted SMB in the store but never signed contracts, but canonical put it in the store anyway, so it isn't as if they just saw the game and decided they wanted it... it was a deal being discussed that wasn't completed. Negligent, but not malicious... http://www.formspring.me/EdmundM/q/406960226210700795
If the deal is not done then you DON'T put it in the Ubuntu Store, period Sign the papers first Of course, since Canonical did that, they should try an amicable solution.
No, it's still more complicated than that.
From Ed's posts, it was originally placed in the store as a promotion related to a Humble Indie Bundle.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the deal is not done then you DON'T put it in the Ubuntu Store, period Sign the papers first Of course, since Canonical did that, they should try an amicable solution.
No, it's still more complicated than that. From Ed's posts, it was originally placed in the store as a promotion related to a Humble Indie Bundle. http://www.formspring.me/EdmundM/q/406960226210700795
I had read this, it seems to all depend on what that "blanket statement" was
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#16Pirates is way too heavy a term here. Canonical is large enough and the issue muddy enough that I don't think this is a warranted accusation. They're also shooting themselves in the foot, instead of coming to some kind of amicable arrangement they've now accused canonical of a serious crime which will lead to a response to that accusation rather than to a solution that would have been beneficial to all parties. If yo…
>Pirates is way too heavy a term here.
Yes, please reserve such defamatory language for nine year olds who download music, and not innocent corporations run by billionaires who distribute copyrighted material for profit without compensating its owners.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#17Pirates is way too heavy a term here. Canonical is large enough and the issue muddy enough that I don't think this is a warranted accusation. They're also shooting themselves in the foot, instead of coming to some kind of amicable arrangement they've now accused canonical of a serious crime which will lead to a response to that accusation rather than to a solution that would have been beneficial to all parties. If yo…
Actually it's worse.
Canonical made pirates of their customers, too.
They downloaded and used a piece of software which they didn't have a license for.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#18While watching the video/trailer for the most recent Humble Bundle, I was put off by the games this time around.
The one mentioned in this article for example, looked like a basic Flash game. So as an outsider to this indie gaming world, I can understand why they might have superficially rejected it - it's probably a great game if you give it a chance.
Just thought that someone should point this out because the comments have so far been the opposite.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#19Pirates is way too heavy a term here. Canonical is large enough and the issue muddy enough that I don't think this is a warranted accusation. They're also shooting themselves in the foot, instead of coming to some kind of amicable arrangement they've now accused canonical of a serious crime which will lead to a response to that accusation rather than to a solution that would have been beneficial to all parties. If yo…
As shardling pointed out[0], the use of "pirates" was editorializing of the title by new user kotakufanb who apparently didn't observe the guidelines ("... please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait") as the word "pirate" appears nowhere on the article.
Re: Ed McMillen: Ubuntu Store Sold Super Meat Boy Without Permission, Has Yet To Pay
#20While watching the video/trailer for the most recent Humble Bundle, I was put off by the games this time around. The one mentioned in this article for example, looked like a basic Flash game. So as an outsider to this indie gaming world, I can understand why they might have superficially rejected it - it's probably a great game if you give it a chance. Just thought that someone should point this out because the comme…
I don't think that's the problem here. The problem the developers of the game have seems to be the fact that Canonical is claiming "the authors of Binding of Issac [sic] declined to make their game available" when the truth is they are the one who rejected the game. Put it plainly, they lied. To me personally, it felt like Canonical is trying to appear "open", while in fact they are controlling their own store's content, just like everyone else.