If it's true that they're claiming copyright on gameplay concepts... that's some serious bullshit.
Take anything Wardel writes with a large helping of salt. He lies, a lot.
Be that as it may, they're the one's saying it:
We don’t claim to have a copyright on all interstellar travel, but we do have a copyright on the specific way we expressed interstellar travel in Star Control II.
Another shitty result of this fight: I now feel torn between gameplay being legally acknowledged as art, and gameplay concepts being locked up for a hundred years.
(Edit: Though I still blame that philosophical dilemma entirely on the shitheels who wrote our copyright laws.)
That's an interesting copyright hill to die on. I'm pretty sure Starflight and Starflight 2 would like to know more about how Star Control 2 has a lock on that particular expression of interstellar travel.
Seriously.
Also, someone should make a new Starflight.
Star Control 2 was something special. Something very special. And even though it is mired in legal disputes, I think Star Control: Origins is pretty damned amazing.
But I always considered Starflight to be similar but more complex/mature sprawling space adventure in the same vein. Star Control's roots were an arcade game. Starflight, though...
...I just really want a new Starflight.
Also a new Buck Rogers game. I never did beat Matrix Cubed, but still.
Also more Star Trek point-n-clicks like 25th Anniversary. I will never forgive the universe for two things: Secret of Vulcan Fury getting cancelled and Fox's John Doe getting cancelled.
Uhh, I guess I trailed off topic.
The first Mass Effect also takes a whole lot of inspiration from Starflight.
Really? I did not know this.
Casey Hudson said it was a key inspiration, and the way you explore the galaxy has a lot of similarities.
If it's true that they're claiming copyright on gameplay concepts... that's some serious bullshit.
Take anything Wardel writes with a large helping of salt. He lies, a lot.
Be that as it may, they're the one's saying it:
We don’t claim to have a copyright on all interstellar travel, but we do have a copyright on the specific way we expressed interstellar travel in Star Control II.
Another shitty result of this fight: I now feel torn between gameplay being legally acknowledged as art, and gameplay concepts being locked up for a hundred years.
(Edit: Though I still blame that philosophical dilemma entirely on the shitheels who wrote our copyright laws.)
That's an interesting copyright hill to die on. I'm pretty sure Starflight and Starflight 2 would like to know more about how Star Control 2 has a lock on that particular expression of interstellar travel.
Seriously.
Also, someone should make a new Starflight.
Star Control 2 was something special. Something very special. And even though it is mired in legal disputes, I think Star Control: Origins is pretty damned amazing.
But I always considered Starflight to be similar but more complex/mature sprawling space adventure in the same vein. Star Control's roots were an arcade game. Starflight, though...
...I just really want a new Starflight.
Also a new Buck Rogers game. I never did beat Matrix Cubed, but still.
Also more Star Trek point-n-clicks like 25th Anniversary. I will never forgive the universe for two things: Secret of Vulcan Fury getting cancelled and Fox's John Doe getting cancelled.
Uhh, I guess I trailed off topic.
The first Mass Effect also takes a whole lot of inspiration from Starflight.
Really? I did not know this.
Casey Hudson said it was a key inspiration, and the way you explore the galaxy has a lot of similarities.
If it's true that they're claiming copyright on gameplay concepts... that's some serious bullshit.
Take anything Wardel writes with a large helping of salt. He lies, a lot.
Be that as it may, they're the one's saying it:
We don’t claim to have a copyright on all interstellar travel, but we do have a copyright on the specific way we expressed interstellar travel in Star Control II.
Another shitty result of this fight: I now feel torn between gameplay being legally acknowledged as art, and gameplay concepts being locked up for a hundred years.
(Edit: Though I still blame that philosophical dilemma entirely on the shitheels who wrote our copyright laws.)
That's an interesting copyright hill to die on. I'm pretty sure Starflight and Starflight 2 would like to know more about how Star Control 2 has a lock on that particular expression of interstellar travel.
Seriously.
Also, someone should make a new Starflight.
Star Control 2 was something special. Something very special. And even though it is mired in legal disputes, I think Star Control: Origins is pretty damned amazing.
But I always considered Starflight to be similar but more complex/mature sprawling space adventure in the same vein. Star Control's roots were an arcade game. Starflight, though...
...I just really want a new Starflight.
Also a new Buck Rogers game. I never did beat Matrix Cubed, but still.
Also more Star Trek point-n-clicks like 25th Anniversary. I will never forgive the universe for two things: Secret of Vulcan Fury getting cancelled and Fox's John Doe getting cancelled.
Uhh, I guess I trailed off topic.
There was a crowdfunding campaign for Starflight 3. Even though they were down in the funding and I desperately wanted it to succeed (while not spending beyond my current environmental scientist means), I wasn't going to start advertising it here and risk the ire of the mods.
They got halfway to reaching their funding goal...but couldn't make it (they even appealed to Elon Musk saying that if he backed it the rest of the way across the finish line, they'd add a new alien race named the "Elons").
That's an interesting copyright hill to die on. I'm pretty sure Starflight and Starflight 2 would like to know more about how Star Control 2 has a lock on that particular expression of interstellar travel.
What isn't is the uncanny resemblance in art design between the two, especially when they directly changed the appearance from previous designs to be more like SCII - consider the following:
I don't think there's any valid moral argument for holding a 25+ year monopoly on that particular artistic expression of hyperspace travel.
Remember, also, that derivative works are protected in copyright law. I would consider the artistic expression of hyperspace present in Origins to be derivative of the original. It's not exact. It's an updated, aesthetically improved derivative of the original.
I have yet to find anything compelling in P+F's arguments against Origins. And frankly I despise the idea that the "idea" of Star Control 2 could not be remade without all this legal quagmire garbage after 25+ years of almost-stagnation. If the laws rule against or contribute to the loss of Star Control Origins, my opinion is that the laws are not operating properly.
The goal of copyright law, as set forth in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That is not fucking happening here. Especially if Stardock loses.
And I am not absolving Stardock of some of their actions. Origins is a good game. P+F are probably making a good game. They should both exist.
Wardell brought this upon himself; from his behavior, he won't let another Star Control exist that isn't his; if there can only be one, it should be the original's one. They would have let him do his own thing, with their own settlement, but Wardell wouldn't stop throwing a hissy, and frankly, he has been altering his game in multiple ways to infringe on SCII since the kerfuffle began; it wouldn't have been expressed that way otherwise. Why he did that is... frankly beyond me, as it has hurt him in the case already, but he has repeatedly attempted to flex on their IPs, and I understand that this is basically how you counter that move.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
That's an interesting copyright hill to die on. I'm pretty sure Starflight and Starflight 2 would like to know more about how Star Control 2 has a lock on that particular expression of interstellar travel.
What isn't is the uncanny resemblance in art design between the two, especially when they directly changed the appearance from previous designs to be more like SCII - consider the following:
It becomes rather damning evidence of a willful infringement, rather like the Arilou.
Yes, I've played Origins. I know what hyperspace travel looks like. It's similar to Star Control 2's method of travel. Is it a straight lift of Star Control 2's method? No. Is it (as Drez put it) derived from SC2's method? Absolutely.
As for the Arilou, do we really need to go over it again how the LGM trope is one of the oldest alien designs in existence?
In all honesty, it sounds like no matter what it does for any future games, you're just firmly in P+F's camp. Let them kill any other Star Control game from a company that owns the license (if only for Star Control 3 and the name), and let them sit on the franchise and not do anything with it for the rest of their lives. I'm sure we'd all be happy playing SC2 and not seeing another game in the setting, right?
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Wardell is the one trying that, not them, considering the threats he's made against preexisting SC forums and his attempt to seize the UQM project by trickery. He went goosy when they wouldn't work with them, and Atari sold him a pig in a poke, which proved to be a cat; and tried to intimidate IP out of them to cover this business failure. He failed when his target proved to be better resourced, and better contracted then he expected - though he ought to have known that. They offered to let him just do his own thing, and them do theirs, so long as he didn't use their names to flog his stuff.
He refused, much to his own growing cost.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Both P+F and GOTP; he was treating GOTP like a product he owned, to the point of literally using as a part of 'multiverse' ad copy, and was trying to make noises about them officially working with him, which was bull that might have made trouble with their boss, Bobby Kotick and them, which would not be pleasant to deal with atop it.
Also, do you know what Stardock's settlement was, after a long list of provocations that seem to have been a deliberate attempt to pick a fight, after he was a silly goose that only succeeded in buying the IP from the ME:A of the 90s rather then the meat, for 350k or so?
Hand over the IP and 225K or so, reliquish their names on the game, and don't do anything like it for 5 years. Wardell has acted in bad faith from the beginning and weaponized his IP in this fight where it wasn't lazily copying UQM; aside from trying to use it while it was still in the air - a silly and goosy move that the judge has mocked him for as hard as her position allowed - he was also trying to pressure them with various trademark claims, as well as the attempt on UQM. Wardell was throwing punches, and now the judge has said it's free game to return fire.
Wardell has lied repeatedly, he has refused reasonable settlements, he has threatened to dox members of the community and threatened forums for that community. If P+F are going to play hardball and possibly crater Stardock in this, it was after repeated low blows by Wardell, a man with a history of using the legal system as a cudgel for petty revenge and covering his own acts.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
It's also worth noting that Stardock were advertising DLC for Star Control Origins explicitly containing the Arilou and Chenjesu by name, which were definitely yanked directly from Star Control 1.
As I said, they were weaponizing the game; they made it a weapon, P+F are treating it as such. Edit: And there was the bio data buying wierd eye traders that were literally called Melorme in concept art. Blasted thing has too many similarities to be homage or inspired, this has crossed the line into plagiarism.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Actually, at this point, it isn't kosher because Wardell is using stuff that was explicitly excluded from the stuff he brought. The similarity of the plot, the similarity of the design and mechanics... in the context of a game by someone in a lawsuit - more an attempt at legal intimidation using a model Wardell tried previously in a sex harassment case - over the disposition of important IP after the purchase of a licence which actively excluded the material he brought that is in question, and that has been involved in willful encroachment such as filing trademarks on IP that explicitly was counted under the Reiche stuff?
It doesn't get benefit of the doubt and assumptions of good faith which games made under different circumstances would get, after the behavior of the company that developed it elsewhere.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Since the window to do so may be narrowing, I finally made some time to play Origins this weekend. Really digging the new races, but I haven't made time to figure out all the new ships in the Fleet Battle mode; so I've just been hoarding them. The stand-out hits so far are the Tywom and the space fish. The latter almost feel like cheating against certain opponents. Like I ran into a
Yuggoth and they just ate it. It appeared to be some big scary one-off thing that would have a story attached to it, but it couldn't do anything about my space fish.
The squid ships are, amusingly, one of the harder counters to the fish. They wouldn't talk to me while one was in the fleet, so I just let them fight it until it died and, several schools later, I had to just let them kill it.
Fast travel is great. No strip mining of planets to gas up for the next outing, and the fact friendly colonies will fill you up for free helps a lot as well. Not that I've had RU issues, a tank of gas costs one good planet or fight, and you primarily spend it on nice-to-have ship upgrades (the availability of which have been doled out at a decent pace with story / exploration progress).
he was treating GOTP like a product he owned, to the point of literally using as a part of 'multiverse' ad copy,
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool. I'm enjoying that handwave and where the might be going with it.
Has anyone checked out the episodic DLC campaign? Is it worth $20 as-is? It seems like there's no guarantee it will actually wrap up given the legal state of things.
I wouldn't buy any of those SC:O keys anyway, there's a good chance that valve is giving the G2A treatment to any sold after the DMCA to avoid being dragged into Stardock's silly goosery, and it may cause Valve to revise how their key system works to avoid that risk again.
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool.
It would have been, except that it was a huge red flag for Wardell's future behavior in retrospect, and was a sign that he was going to move on their stuff; like a lot of thing in this case, stuff that would normally be cool in other contexts become very suspect when Wardell's observed behavior comes in. You simply cannot trust that goose, as has been shown, time and time again.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
I wouldn't buy of those SC:O keys anyway, there's a good chance that valve is giving the G2A treatment to any sold after the DMCA to avoid being dragged into Stardock's silly goosery,
I bought mine post-DMCA, will post if it stops working.
I wouldn't mind snagging a copy of the game considering it will be pulled off the market.
The half-off fire sale got me. Stellaris isn't going anywhere, except in the sense that it will probably be a whole new game (again) when it returns to the top of the Space Opera queue.
I wouldn't buy any of those SC:O keys anyway, there's a good chance that valve is giving the G2A treatment to any sold after the DMCA to avoid being dragged into Stardock's silly goosery, and it may cause Valve to revise how their key system works to avoid that risk again.
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool.
It would have been, except that it was a huge red flag for Wardell's future behavior in retrospect, and was a sign that he was going to move on their stuff; like a lot of thing in this case, stuff that would normally be cool in other contexts become very suspect when Wardell's observed behavior comes in. You simply cannot trust that goose, as has been shown, time and time again.
I'm curious to hear this, but why would a DMCA takedown of third-party retailers affect keys sold directly from the developer/publisher? Stardock isn't selling fraudulent Steam keys (as in keys acquired via fraud), so I'm not exactly sure why Valve would give Stardock-purchased keys "the G2A treatment" as the circumstances around them aren't even similar.
As for the whole attempting to trademark SC1/2/3 names (and even GotP), it makes sense if you step back and look objectively at it:
1) Stardock owns something
2) Paul and Ford own something
3) There's conflict on what each party owns
so, 4) File everything and let the courts decide, exactly, who owns what
Most charitable read is that this is a way to delineate what each party owns and can produce.
Least charitable read is Stardock is 'weaponizing' their license.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I wouldn't buy any of those SC:O keys anyway, there's a good chance that valve is giving the G2A treatment to any sold after the DMCA to avoid being dragged into Stardock's silly goosery, and it may cause Valve to revise how their key system works to avoid that risk again.
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool.
It would have been, except that it was a huge red flag for Wardell's future behavior in retrospect, and was a sign that he was going to move on their stuff; like a lot of thing in this case, stuff that would normally be cool in other contexts become very suspect when Wardell's observed behavior comes in. You simply cannot trust that goose, as has been shown, time and time again.
I'm curious to hear this, but why would a DMCA takedown of third-party retailers affect keys sold directly from the developer/publisher? Stardock isn't selling fraudulent Steam keys (as in keys acquired via fraud), so I'm not exactly sure why Valve would give Stardock-purchased keys "the G2A treatment" as the circumstances around them aren't even similar.
As for the whole attempting to trademark SC1/2/3 names (and even GotP), it makes sense if you step back and look objectively at it:
1) Stardock owns something
2) Paul and Ford own something
3) There's conflict on what each party owns
so, 4) File everything and let the courts decide, exactly, who owns what
Most charitable read is that this is a way to delineate what each party owns and can produce.
Least charitable read is Stardock is 'weaponizing' their license.
I'm curious why issuing a DMCA take down on the infringing product (when they do not have a competing product from which sales could be bled) is part of 4, since 4 should result in the proceeds of those sales going to whomever the court decides owned it.
I wouldn't buy any of those SC:O keys anyway, there's a good chance that valve is giving the G2A treatment to any sold after the DMCA to avoid being dragged into Stardock's silly goosery, and it may cause Valve to revise how their key system works to avoid that risk again.
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool.
It would have been, except that it was a huge red flag for Wardell's future behavior in retrospect, and was a sign that he was going to move on their stuff; like a lot of thing in this case, stuff that would normally be cool in other contexts become very suspect when Wardell's observed behavior comes in. You simply cannot trust that goose, as has been shown, time and time again.
I'm curious to hear this, but why would a DMCA takedown of third-party retailers affect keys sold directly from the developer/publisher? Stardock isn't selling fraudulent Steam keys (as in keys acquired via fraud), so I'm not exactly sure why Valve would give Stardock-purchased keys "the G2A treatment" as the circumstances around them aren't even similar.
As for the whole attempting to trademark SC1/2/3 names (and even GotP), it makes sense if you step back and look objectively at it:
1) Stardock owns something
2) Paul and Ford own something
3) There's conflict on what each party owns
so, 4) File everything and let the courts decide, exactly, who owns what
Most charitable read is that this is a way to delineate what each party owns and can produce.
Least charitable read is Stardock is 'weaponizing' their license.
There might be some way that steam's distribution of the DMCA's product via those keys might be suspect. Steam gave those keys to him to sell, and therefore may be on the hook for distribution, and will want to preclude possible complications from such.
From the community's own experience with Wardell, the least charitable read is the one that must be assumed, from every time he's interacted with us about this affair.
Every, from his attempt to trick the UQM team into signing over their rights to threats against those communities, to threats to dox members of that community, to habitual mendacity, up to and including searchable bits of american law.
He's simply forfeited every bit of good faith reading we've gave him, and the resemblance to his previous uses of the legal system to intimidate a sexual harassment accuser with a very similar style of case take away any chance of this being anything but an attempt at legal brigandry.
I read that thread and it seems those keys are invalidated PRIOR to redemption, not AFTER redemption.
The game is not going to disappear from your library. Or at least it is insanely unlikely to. I think that might actually be illegal itself (to remove an activated product).
From the community's own experience with Wardell, the least charitable read is the one that must be assumed, from every time he's interacted with us about this affair.
Every, from his attempt to trick the UQM team into signing over their rights to threats against those communities, to threats to dox members of that community, to habitual mendacity, up to and including searchable bits of american law.
Your characterization of that agreement continues to be seem rather slanted. The least charitable read of it was that they offered you unlimited use of trademarks they don't own, and might have hoped to then use UQM's existence to retroactively claim their marks had been in use since the project started.
If they are found to not own the marks, that agreement assigns them nothing, as it only pertains to the marks they own. There was no provision in there to revoke your right to use them as long as UQM continued apace.
Did you ever suggest clarifying language, such as revisions to the termination clause?
They were smart enough not to try and play legal games with him, especially as it might undermine the creators; this was a (fumbling) attempt at legal judo against the creators of Star Control. They will not play ball with Wardell, and they will not sign anything that claims he owns what is under dispute.
Especially as he's shown total disregard at best for these communities, most recently the near-certain attempt by his CM to sockpuppet into being a mod on the independent Star Control subreddit, before flouncing in a huff when discovered.
We are not gonna trust anything by a guy who did this, or those insulting settlement offers. He burned those bridges, and he has done literally nothing to regain even the slightest modicum of trust from us.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
They were smart enough not to try and play legal games with him, especially as it might undermine the creators; this was a (fumbling) attempt at legal judo against the creators of Star Control. They will not play ball with Wardell, and they will not sign anything that claims he owns what is under dispute.
Especially as he's shown total disregard at best for these communities, most recently the near-certain attempt by his CM to sockpuppet into being a mod on the independent Star Control subreddit, before flouncing in a huff when discovered.
We are not gonna trust anything by a guy who did this, or those insulting settlement offers. He burned those bridges, and he has done literally nothing to regain even the slightest modicum of trust from us.
Except it's not about trust and instead about stepping back and looking at the situation objectively. If the "settlement offer" you're referring to is the offer to straight up buy the usage rights for SC1 and 2 (if it's not, please clarify), where you see an "insulting" offer, I see an offer to 1) clear up who owns what (privately addressing my point 4 from my last post), along with 2) putting a neglected franchise (and setting) back into production.
None of that seems malicious...unless you go in wanting to see malicious intent.
Erlkönig on
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2019
3 is only an issue if you're assuming brad isn't full of shit and didn't spend years treating P+F as the rightful owners the IP (and, to his credit I guess, apparently making a good faith effort of getting their blessing) before he decided to attempt to legally bully them into submission when they wouldn't play ball.
Except it's not about trust and instead about stepping back and looking at the situation objectively. If the "settlement offer" you're referring to is the offer to straight up buy the usage rights for SC1 and 2 (if it's not, please clarify), where you see an "insulting" offer, I see an offer to 1) clear up who owns what (privately addressing my point 4 from my last post), along with 2) putting a neglected franchise (and setting) back into production.
None of that seems malicious...unless you go in wanting to see malicious intent.
Except the damn contract was explicit, as has been made explicit in this thread before. He just had to read it, and he knew what he had - namely, SC:III and the SC name. Every act since has been an attempt to get what he didn't have, which they weren't selling - and were disinclined to licence to another 3rd party after the SCIII disaster - and get around their holding of IP, one that has been in circulation for more then 10 years - Open source use counts as being in commerce, as memory serves, BTW - by the time he brought the thing.
The settlement offer was not what you say - in case you hadn't heard, they demanded the IP, which by a 30 year contract old contract, was something they had licencesed to Accolade, no more Ghosts Of The Precursors - as in, not even mentioning it - to stop claiming they made the game, and 225K, as P+F have put up online for us to see:
Wardell was not expecting his attempt at intimidation to be revealed. This is why we don't trust him, and P+F are not silly enough geese to falsify something that is a part of an ongoing legal dispute. Any right that wardell could have had to use that stuff was voided by lack of royalty, bankruptcy of Accolade and lack of written permission to sell it to Stardock.
End of story.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
Unless you're going to explicitly define "we" every time you use the word, please stop using it. I'm a part of the Star Control community. I am an original consumer of SC1, SC2, and SC3, and of Origins. And yes, I had the original releases when they originally came out. I am either not a part of your we or I am and you do not speak for me.
Beyond that, I'm inclined to support anyone willing to cut through IP law fuckery. Because it is bullshit.
The more I see the anti-Stardock side rattle on about this and that the more pissed off I get at the whole situation and the less inclined I am to support anyone wanting to control an IP 25-30 years after creation, even if it was their own creation. Fuck that. If underhanded tactics are the only way to utilize an IP that is 25+ years old, I'm all for it.
The only thing I am not for is Stardock trying to stifle P+F from making their own game using the Star Control name/trademark. For the same reasons I support Origins.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+3
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
"I want my toys and I don't care who it fucks over"
"I want my toys and I don't care who it fucks over"
You could uncharitably mischaracterize my position that way, sure. But it just lends credence to my belief that your "side" is being just as disingenuous as you claim Stardock and Brad are being.
I flat out believe that no one should have monopolistic control of an IP in perpetuity or anything close to perpetuity, even by the original content creators. Art is cyclical. What I primarily see here is P+F squirming to stifle a company that wanted to pay homage to one of the best games ever made and squelch the work of art paying that homage.
Fuck. That.
It's not an easy subject to discuss, because the concept of creation and ownership is so near and dear to humans, but much like our children (for those that have them) eventually have to let go of their children, let them enter and contribute to and shape society, so must scriptors let go of their art which has likely already shaped society. Star Control II is a game that mattered to the industry and it mattered to people. It inspired people. It inspired other creators. It's essentially a part of the public domain when it comes to mindshare. Legally, it should be too.
But, sure, in this case I literally do not care who it "fucks over" because I consider the thought of being "fucked over" to be morally illegitimate and contrary to what the spirit of copyright law was actually designed to protect and promote within society. Take a step back and try (if possible) to look at this thread, this topic, objectively. What's the net result here if P+F win? A great game inspired by another great game dies and never sees the light of day. Is P+F's "right" to control their creation nearly 3 decades after said creation really more important to the industry, to society? Not in my book. Not by a longshot.
I already own the game so there's no toys to take away from me. This is a fundamental philosophical issue for me, and one I feel extremely strongly about.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
oh man I bet you're one of those people who repost art on facebook with the artist signature cropped out.
Look at No One Lives Forever. No one will touch it because of the legal quagmire surrounding its ownership. Nobody even gives enough of a shit to try and figure it out. That is insanity. Copyright law is flat out not doing its job which is to PROMOTE the preservation and continuation of art. It recognizes and protects derivative works because realistically there is no such thing as creation in a vacuum. Art begets art. "Creation" begets "creation." Yes, it protects creators and extends explicitly limited ownership of IP to ensure that artists and creators not get fucked over, either. That is extremely important. But there comes a time for a considerable amount of art when something has notably become a part of society, almost memetically, and to deny the rest of society its direct use in the creation of other art is ludicrous.
I'm not saying that artists owe everything to society, but they owe something to society. Because what came before absolutely inspired what they created, and what they create will absolutely inspire what comes after. I detest this whole situation.
It doesn't serve society either when someone can lawyer up and chase someone off their IP because he wouldn't sell it to them, and that is exactly what has been tried. While IP law is bullshit, so is trying to steal something that has been in use for 10 years because someone wouldn't sell - and that was the case.
This is perhaps the most goosey thing I've seen all day, and I've seen Wardell's posting. This isn't goddamn insulin for fuck's sake or fanfiction, this is a commercial product that is using other folks's stuff for Wardell's own enrichment and ego without permission, and this is not a tangled thing like fucking No One Lives Forever.
Jeep-Eep on
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
oh man I bet you're one of those people who repost art on facebook with the artist signature cropped out.
I'm fairly certain who I am and what I do is not the topic at hand, but no. I am a photographer. I don't even put a watermark/signature on the photos I publish as I find that to be...gauche. I've dealt with and I'm sure I will continue to deal with copyright issues over my own works. I am not arguing for 0% ownership. I am arguing against our current system.
It doesn't serve society either when someone can lawyer up and chase someone off their IP because he wouldn't sell it to them, and that is exactly what has been tried.
What doesn't serve society is the requirement to purchase the IP so long after its inception.
Or last-use of said IP.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
It doesn't serve society either when someone can lawyer up and chase someone off their IP because he wouldn't sell it to them, and that is exactly what has been tried.
What doesn't serve society is the requirement to purchase the IP so long after its inception.
It doesn't serve society either when someone can lawyer up and chase someone off their IP because he wouldn't sell it to them, and that is exactly what has been tried.
What doesn't serve society is the requirement to purchase the IP so long after its inception.
Or last-use of said IP.
The IP has been in use for 15 years now in an open source game, do try to keep up.
Define "in use"?
I define it as a major or perhaps I should say "novel" release using the IP in question.
I'm all for Origins being a thing, cool, more Star Control never hurt anyone.
But when you that "oh we are never going to use any of the stuff owned by this group", start advertising content for your new game ripped directly from stuff explicitly owned by that group, then turn around and say "Well we never said they owned anything we own it ALL"
You lose your high ground, moral and otherwise. Stardock overplayed their hand on this, hard. They probably could have made a neat game based on Star Control without playing legal fuck fuck games, but they decided to play legal fuck fuck games, and are now stuck in a problem of their own making.
Posts
Casey Hudson said it was a key inspiration, and the way you explore the galaxy has a lot of similarities.
Yeah I can see that now.
I vaguely remember this. Too bad.
Those are essentially covered under the concept of Scènes à faire, effectively:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scènes_à_faire and the like.
What isn't is the uncanny resemblance in art design between the two, especially when they directly changed the appearance from previous designs to be more like SCII - consider the following:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/477867809540407307/531192928962347008/hyperspaceMock1a_3.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/477867809540407307/531189700321476608/64241-star-control-origins-screen5-1260x709.png
It becomes rather damning evidence of a willful infringement, rather like the Arilou.
Remember, also, that derivative works are protected in copyright law. I would consider the artistic expression of hyperspace present in Origins to be derivative of the original. It's not exact. It's an updated, aesthetically improved derivative of the original.
I have yet to find anything compelling in P+F's arguments against Origins. And frankly I despise the idea that the "idea" of Star Control 2 could not be remade without all this legal quagmire garbage after 25+ years of almost-stagnation. If the laws rule against or contribute to the loss of Star Control Origins, my opinion is that the laws are not operating properly.
That is not fucking happening here. Especially if Stardock loses.
And I am not absolving Stardock of some of their actions. Origins is a good game. P+F are probably making a good game. They should both exist.
Yes, I've played Origins. I know what hyperspace travel looks like. It's similar to Star Control 2's method of travel. Is it a straight lift of Star Control 2's method? No. Is it (as Drez put it) derived from SC2's method? Absolutely.
As for the Arilou, do we really need to go over it again how the LGM trope is one of the oldest alien designs in existence?
In all honesty, it sounds like no matter what it does for any future games, you're just firmly in P+F's camp. Let them kill any other Star Control game from a company that owns the license (if only for Star Control 3 and the name), and let them sit on the franchise and not do anything with it for the rest of their lives. I'm sure we'd all be happy playing SC2 and not seeing another game in the setting, right?
He refused, much to his own growing cost.
Also, do you know what Stardock's settlement was, after a long list of provocations that seem to have been a deliberate attempt to pick a fight, after he was a silly goose that only succeeded in buying the IP from the ME:A of the 90s rather then the meat, for 350k or so?
Hand over the IP and 225K or so, reliquish their names on the game, and don't do anything like it for 5 years. Wardell has acted in bad faith from the beginning and weaponized his IP in this fight where it wasn't lazily copying UQM; aside from trying to use it while it was still in the air - a silly and goosy move that the judge has mocked him for as hard as her position allowed - he was also trying to pressure them with various trademark claims, as well as the attempt on UQM. Wardell was throwing punches, and now the judge has said it's free game to return fire.
Wardell has lied repeatedly, he has refused reasonable settlements, he has threatened to dox members of the community and threatened forums for that community. If P+F are going to play hardball and possibly crater Stardock in this, it was after repeated low blows by Wardell, a man with a history of using the legal system as a cudgel for petty revenge and covering his own acts.
They don't have much ground to stand on.
EDIT: SteamDB still has some evidence of it
It doesn't get benefit of the doubt and assumptions of good faith which games made under different circumstances would get, after the behavior of the company that developed it elsewhere.
The squid ships are, amusingly, one of the harder counters to the fish. They wouldn't talk to me while one was in the fleet, so I just let them fight it until it died and, several schools later, I had to just let them kill it.
Fast travel is great. No strip mining of planets to gas up for the next outing, and the fact friendly colonies will fill you up for free helps a lot as well. Not that I've had RU issues, a tank of gas costs one good planet or fight, and you primarily spend it on nice-to-have ship upgrades (the availability of which have been doled out at a decent pace with story / exploration progress).
Sigh. Another shame emerges from this conflict. Treating GOTP as canon multiverse would have been pretty cool. I'm enjoying that handwave and where the might be going with it.
Has anyone checked out the episodic DLC campaign? Is it worth $20 as-is? It seems like there's no guarantee it will actually wrap up given the legal state of things.
It would have been, except that it was a huge red flag for Wardell's future behavior in retrospect, and was a sign that he was going to move on their stuff; like a lot of thing in this case, stuff that would normally be cool in other contexts become very suspect when Wardell's observed behavior comes in. You simply cannot trust that goose, as has been shown, time and time again.
I bought mine post-DMCA, will post if it stops working.
The half-off fire sale got me. Stellaris isn't going anywhere, except in the sense that it will probably be a whole new game (again) when it returns to the top of the Space Opera queue.
I'm curious to hear this, but why would a DMCA takedown of third-party retailers affect keys sold directly from the developer/publisher? Stardock isn't selling fraudulent Steam keys (as in keys acquired via fraud), so I'm not exactly sure why Valve would give Stardock-purchased keys "the G2A treatment" as the circumstances around them aren't even similar.
As for the whole attempting to trademark SC1/2/3 names (and even GotP), it makes sense if you step back and look objectively at it:
1) Stardock owns something
2) Paul and Ford own something
3) There's conflict on what each party owns
so, 4) File everything and let the courts decide, exactly, who owns what
Most charitable read is that this is a way to delineate what each party owns and can produce.
Least charitable read is Stardock is 'weaponizing' their license.
I'm curious why issuing a DMCA take down on the infringing product (when they do not have a competing product from which sales could be bled) is part of 4, since 4 should result in the proceeds of those sales going to whomever the court decides owned it.
There might be some way that steam's distribution of the DMCA's product via those keys might be suspect. Steam gave those keys to him to sell, and therefore may be on the hook for distribution, and will want to preclude possible complications from such.
From the community's own experience with Wardell, the least charitable read is the one that must be assumed, from every time he's interacted with us about this affair.
Every, from his attempt to trick the UQM team into signing over their rights to threats against those communities, to threats to dox members of that community, to habitual mendacity, up to and including searchable bits of american law.
He's simply forfeited every bit of good faith reading we've gave him, and the resemblance to his previous uses of the legal system to intimidate a sexual harassment accuser with a very similar style of case take away any chance of this being anything but an attempt at legal brigandry.
Edit: From this steam forum post, there is a history of DMCA'd keys being invalidated: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/bartervg/discussions/0/133256959370296637/
The game is not going to disappear from your library. Or at least it is insanely unlikely to. I think that might actually be illegal itself (to remove an activated product).
Your characterization of that agreement continues to be seem rather slanted. The least charitable read of it was that they offered you unlimited use of trademarks they don't own, and might have hoped to then use UQM's existence to retroactively claim their marks had been in use since the project started.
If they are found to not own the marks, that agreement assigns them nothing, as it only pertains to the marks they own. There was no provision in there to revoke your right to use them as long as UQM continued apace.
Did you ever suggest clarifying language, such as revisions to the termination clause?
Especially as he's shown total disregard at best for these communities, most recently the near-certain attempt by his CM to sockpuppet into being a mod on the independent Star Control subreddit, before flouncing in a huff when discovered.
http://crimsoncorporation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/screenshot3.jpg
He said this, and owned up to it.
We are not gonna trust anything by a guy who did this, or those insulting settlement offers. He burned those bridges, and he has done literally nothing to regain even the slightest modicum of trust from us.
Except it's not about trust and instead about stepping back and looking at the situation objectively. If the "settlement offer" you're referring to is the offer to straight up buy the usage rights for SC1 and 2 (if it's not, please clarify), where you see an "insulting" offer, I see an offer to 1) clear up who owns what (privately addressing my point 4 from my last post), along with 2) putting a neglected franchise (and setting) back into production.
None of that seems malicious...unless you go in wanting to see malicious intent.
Except the damn contract was explicit, as has been made explicit in this thread before. He just had to read it, and he knew what he had - namely, SC:III and the SC name. Every act since has been an attempt to get what he didn't have, which they weren't selling - and were disinclined to licence to another 3rd party after the SCIII disaster - and get around their holding of IP, one that has been in circulation for more then 10 years - Open source use counts as being in commerce, as memory serves, BTW - by the time he brought the thing.
The settlement offer was not what you say - in case you hadn't heard, they demanded the IP, which by a 30 year contract old contract, was something they had licencesed to Accolade, no more Ghosts Of The Precursors - as in, not even mentioning it - to stop claiming they made the game, and 225K, as P+F have put up online for us to see:
https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r
Wardell was not expecting his attempt at intimidation to be revealed. This is why we don't trust him, and P+F are not silly enough geese to falsify something that is a part of an ongoing legal dispute. Any right that wardell could have had to use that stuff was voided by lack of royalty, bankruptcy of Accolade and lack of written permission to sell it to Stardock.
End of story.
Beyond that, I'm inclined to support anyone willing to cut through IP law fuckery. Because it is bullshit.
The more I see the anti-Stardock side rattle on about this and that the more pissed off I get at the whole situation and the less inclined I am to support anyone wanting to control an IP 25-30 years after creation, even if it was their own creation. Fuck that. If underhanded tactics are the only way to utilize an IP that is 25+ years old, I'm all for it.
The only thing I am not for is Stardock trying to stifle P+F from making their own game using the Star Control name/trademark. For the same reasons I support Origins.
You could uncharitably mischaracterize my position that way, sure. But it just lends credence to my belief that your "side" is being just as disingenuous as you claim Stardock and Brad are being.
I flat out believe that no one should have monopolistic control of an IP in perpetuity or anything close to perpetuity, even by the original content creators. Art is cyclical. What I primarily see here is P+F squirming to stifle a company that wanted to pay homage to one of the best games ever made and squelch the work of art paying that homage.
Fuck. That.
It's not an easy subject to discuss, because the concept of creation and ownership is so near and dear to humans, but much like our children (for those that have them) eventually have to let go of their children, let them enter and contribute to and shape society, so must scriptors let go of their art which has likely already shaped society. Star Control II is a game that mattered to the industry and it mattered to people. It inspired people. It inspired other creators. It's essentially a part of the public domain when it comes to mindshare. Legally, it should be too.
But, sure, in this case I literally do not care who it "fucks over" because I consider the thought of being "fucked over" to be morally illegitimate and contrary to what the spirit of copyright law was actually designed to protect and promote within society. Take a step back and try (if possible) to look at this thread, this topic, objectively. What's the net result here if P+F win? A great game inspired by another great game dies and never sees the light of day. Is P+F's "right" to control their creation nearly 3 decades after said creation really more important to the industry, to society? Not in my book. Not by a longshot.
I already own the game so there's no toys to take away from me. This is a fundamental philosophical issue for me, and one I feel extremely strongly about.
I'm not saying that artists owe everything to society, but they owe something to society. Because what came before absolutely inspired what they created, and what they create will absolutely inspire what comes after. I detest this whole situation.
This is perhaps the most goosey thing I've seen all day, and I've seen Wardell's posting. This isn't goddamn insulin for fuck's sake or fanfiction, this is a commercial product that is using other folks's stuff for Wardell's own enrichment and ego without permission, and this is not a tangled thing like fucking No One Lives Forever.
I'm fairly certain who I am and what I do is not the topic at hand, but no. I am a photographer. I don't even put a watermark/signature on the photos I publish as I find that to be...gauche. I've dealt with and I'm sure I will continue to deal with copyright issues over my own works. I am not arguing for 0% ownership. I am arguing against our current system.
Or last-use of said IP.
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
The IP has been in use for 15 years now by them in an open source game, do try to keep up.
Define "in use"?
I define it as a major or perhaps I should say "novel" release using the IP in question.
But when you that "oh we are never going to use any of the stuff owned by this group", start advertising content for your new game ripped directly from stuff explicitly owned by that group, then turn around and say "Well we never said they owned anything we own it ALL"
You lose your high ground, moral and otherwise. Stardock overplayed their hand on this, hard. They probably could have made a neat game based on Star Control without playing legal fuck fuck games, but they decided to play legal fuck fuck games, and are now stuck in a problem of their own making.