> No,that’s impractical and wouldn’t best meet what you really want.

> the sole reason I can think of Blizzard going after legacy servers is because their lawyers told them that there would be legal consequences if they didn’t.

In that case there would be no financial damages to Activision/Blizzard. Generally speaking, fair use of copyright material is usage which does not result in profit for the individual/group using it, nor financial damages to the “owner” of the IP.

Oh yeah. I know how it goes.

> I think there’s a lot more going on behind subscriber numbers than you or even I think and I don’t think it could be so easily chalked up to “lol, wow sucks now bring back old content”

That could be. A single product, which tries to please everyone, tends to please no-one. I don’t think you can make a one size fits all product, which is why legacy support is so useful. It’s really not the same product.

I said “ignoring the issues with IP laws in general,” not “ignoring IP laws.”

I refuse to support a company with business practices like these. It has nothing to do with having to pay.

WoW is bleeding subscribers left and right.

Fine. Then don’t play on legacy.

Oh they actually did. Or did you ignore the video? “You don’t want that. You think you do, but you don’t.”

I was playing for about two weeks when Nostalrius went down, and while I was on the verge of getting an account with Blizzard, to try the latest version of WoW, I really have no emotional ties to the game. So no, it is not just about what I want. And if that’s the best response you have, then you can go waste someone…

> Last I remember, Wow currently has maybe 4-5 million subscribers? At the end of an expansion’s lifecycle that I could see probably doubling by August. 250,000 people is small, even if you factor in part of the population that wants it but hasn’t signed the petition.

When did Kotaku become a mouthpiece for Activision/Blizzard?

Ignoring the issues with IP laws in general, a large number of people have voiced their desire to see legacy support for World of Warcraft. Yet those at Blizzard go as far as telling their customers that said customers do not actually even know what it is…

No. You cannot steal one’s identity. The expression can be used idiomatically, but not literally. One assumes the identity of another. But you do not steal it.

> You pretty much answered yourself here. There ARE huge fines and possible jail time involved which make’s blizzard’s content an excludable good.

Does the use of intellectual property by one person reduce the availability of that intellectual property? No. Can you exclude people from accessing intellectual property? Not without massive government threatening people with huge fines, jail time, etc. So non-rivalrous? Yep! Nonexcludable? Yep! So yes; it’s a public…

> One oft-cited example (of a legitimate purpose) are emulators for consoles long-forgotten. Since the device is no longer in production but the cartridges exist, there is a legal gray area in which reverse-engineering the consoles playback functionality is perfectly fine.

ReactOS seems to be written to be “Windows-isque”. To provide all the base functionality of Windows, without actually being based on Microsofts exact code.

Sorry, but ReactOS and WoW emulators are doing the same thing. They are providing a clone of another product. In the case of ReactOS, it is a clone of Windows,…

Intellectual property is a public good, and one that the government tries to force into a private good. One cannot own an idea. If you think about it for a while, you might realize that. Property can be private or public. It does not have to have a specific owner. Everyone owns public property. Someone can be granted…