Half-Life 2: Delay? Maybe, Playable? Yes [Oct 07, 2003, 4:42 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
New delay for
Half-Life sequel on BBC News (thanks Eraserhead) has a quote from Christophe
Ramboz of Vivendi Universal Games on the Half-Life 2 source code theft that
takes a completely different direction than the talk of four month delays found
in a different article (story), as they have him saying:
"Vivendi Universal Games is only the distributor of the product, which is
produced by the US studio Valve and so it will up to them to make an
announcement." Meanwhile, Thieves
steal playable version of Half-Life 2 on CNN Money contradicts reports that
downplay the amount of code stolen, choosing to reveal that the Source
source thieves "also stole enough game maps and other components to put
together a playable build of the game. Today, five days after the first leak,
they have released that build."
being able to quickly react to specific problems is not the same as having the code available for people to look through to try and find problems. Try this: it's like having a car with an engine that is designed to be possible to very easily disconnect, slide out and replace parts from it. Normally, your competitor (the hackers) are trying to sabotage bits of the engine blindfolded, and have to work by touch on your design. When they find something they can abuse, you can slide the engine out and very quickly fix the problem they're abusing. Having the source leaked is like the hackers being able to see your original engine designs. They can much more easily find the weak spots than simply by feeling for them with their fingers.
By the way, I believe that even distributing / downloading /possessing the stolen sourcecode and other resources is illegal. I refer everyone to: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/08ipma.htm
The only contestable part as far as I can see is that it requires it to be done knowing the economic benefit of another or harm of the owner. I think any reasonable lawyer could argue this [harm] in court, regardless of what anyone here personally thinks about how Valve was or was not harmed - lacking moral judgement is only a defence in court if you're psychologically incompetent as far as I know.
PS. Source code is not the same as compiled code, which is what would have been accessible for Steam to change.
This comment was edited on Oct 13, 11:38.
By the way, I believe that even distributing / downloading /possessing the stolen sourcecode and other resources is illegal. I refer everyone to: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/08ipma.htm
The only contestable part as far as I can see is that it requires it to be done knowing the economic benefit of another or harm of the owner. I think any reasonable lawyer could argue this [harm] in court, regardless of what anyone here personally thinks about how Valve was or was not harmed - lacking moral judgement is only a defence in court if you're psychologically incompetent as far as I know.
PS. Source code is not the same as compiled code, which is what would have been accessible for Steam to change.
This comment was edited on Oct 13, 11:38.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 23 June 2025, 17:47.