It was only tangentially related to Elemental, but the whole broken forum’s meme about the “elemental materials” was from the lawsuit back then.
The way that ended, with the other party capitulating likely due to lack of resources to fight the countersuit regarding sabotaging Elemental’s release, it probably gave Stardock the notion they’d roll over P&F.
“Make noise” = get the lawyers and paperwork to file a DMCA notice, present it to retailer. That’s the noise that matters.
It helps to read things whole rather than just single lines.
Not being a developer, I empathize with this as well.
Make noise is still an odd way to describe what you wrote up there. Reading the whole thing, as I did, doesn’t change that.
Thanks for explaining. No need to be antagonistic. I’ve explained in other posts why this isn’t the kind of horrible precedent you are assuming.
On point.
Thanks for the feedback on the phrasing.
We’ll see.
I’d be happy to hear your ideas on why it is. I’m not sure why are are getting pissy just because the notions you put forth are being discussed rather than simply accepted.
My thinking is that in the same way that rent seeking has been for years a motivator to stifle creativity and competition in software development - see the regular beefs between Samsung and Apple over stuff like gesture recognition - looks to me as likely that we can see similar behaviours in the video games world.
The precedent is that somebody has tested the ability of DMCA notices to remove access from digital storefronts without needing to have copyright registered (see the old games issue) or to have proved in a court infringement (yet, or ever).
Rent seekers will love this: claim prior art on whatever - and given the “maturity” of video games we can find a reasonably similar precedent for pretty much every game mechanic, UI gizmo or artistic take on a subject - by acquiring rights, issue DMCA notices and ask for a cut of the income.
This happens to general software, why not to video games? Especially when the barriers of entry to obtaining outcomes like denying incomes can be achieved with what are just purely administrative proceedings (see @SamS concerns above).
I will concede that I am a pessimist, but it’s not like there are reasons to walk around this world like Voltaire’s Candide.
PS: FWIW the Blurred Lines case is ironic and troubling too. It sets a precedent for copyright holders to seek compensation for, not just covers, but just vague stuff (in comparison,
see Led Zeppelin lifting chords from a Dutch prog rock ensemble). The irony is that the song in question is an awful rapey piece of derivative crap.
And about being pissy… Well, you weren’t really discussing anything. Just stating “puzzlement” and dismissing with handwaves.
Wasn’t the whole point of them putting the SC3 examples in that post to show that it isn’t about just using the same mechanics?
I could write a piece of music with every musical chord permutation, and likewise make a crap game with a short type of every kind of game dynamic, then live out my life in luxurious wealth as I sue everyone that makes anything forever. CR/TM/IP law is irrevocably broken in this country.
I am not talking about P & F specific tactics in his case, which are fair as they actually created the thing, but the use of DMCA notices by rent seekers inspired by the case.
Forgive my ignorance but aren’t we seeing that now just with the roles reversed?
To address the last bit first, I totally agree about the blurred lines case. That actually sets a precedent that’s troubling.
I also agree that people are opportunistic and one should be wary of mechanisms that set up the possibility for abuse. My disagreement is that this sets a new precedent, or sets the stage for the types of abuse that concern you.
P&F did get all required copyright assignments last year. So this doesn’t set a precedent that someone without a registered copyright, or at least a well documented claim including literal copyright notices on the product. can file a DMCA. Also the courts didn’t actually uphold or even decide anything of this nature in the recent judgement, though the background did imply that P&F have the rights granted to them by the original contract including the copyrights. The bar has not been lowered or moved in any general way that would apply to people attempting to abuse the system with baseless DMCAs.
Also unless there’s been recent news I haven’t even heard that Stardock has filed a counter-notice. If and when they do, and if and when Steam and GoG deny it and keep the content down, that also is not a precedent that can be generally abused. If they do keep it down it is for two combined reasons, there’s a current existing lawsuit over the rights, and secondly and most importantly, Steam and GoG are party to those lawsuits. How this affects their safe harbor is vastly different from a situation that does not include those elements.
Heh. Good point. It is ironic that we’re talking about the defendants potential abuse of legal mechanisms when the whole case is about the plaintiff trying to capitalize on mention of prior products the defendants created into a “this will cost you so much you better just pay me and hand over everything” lawsuit. Especially when the offending blog post was already modified.
Well yeah I just bought the rights to Twilight Zone™ so now I can use the script and characters from the movie as well as any past episode. That’s how this is going to go down and if you don’t like it Mr. Scriptwriter I’ll sue you into oblivion. Also your merch is now mine.
And this thread moves from confusing copyright and trademark to confusing copyrights and patents. Your use of the term prior art is a giveaway.
Most of the litigious nonsense in non games software revolves around patents, precisely because the bar for copyright infringement in terms of the appearance and functionality of software has always been so high.
Just one more specific point. Generally DMCA notices happen before a court case. That is the nature of a DMCA notice. It’s typically stage 1, akin to a cease and desist letter. The vast majority of DMCA notices are for things that have not been decided in court to be infringing. There’s really no precedent here. This more than anything in your explanation is business as usual.
The thing that is unusual in this is not that a DMCA was filed for material not yet found by a court to be infringing, but that a company initiated a lawsuit during development, made so many public statements about their intent to use disputed material, then went ahead and released a product during the lawsuit.
Just thought I’d throw it out there that DEFCON 5 is actually the lowest possible state of defense readiness, and is essentially the military equivalent to the world leaders singing kumbaya around a campfire together. Though in all fairness it does sound more threatening than DEFCON 1, which is imminent nuclear war. :)