It’s weird to see people thinking that this is going to set some precident making DCMA claims easier. Right now robotic processes with no human oversight file them constantly.
In this case a Federal Judge ruled on an actual injunction saying it seemed like a good situation for a valid one. People think that is easier than having an automated process puke one out based off a keyword search???
I largley agree with this thread’s vibe… there really isn’t any substantial defense of Stardock here anymore and I get why.
But the DMCA thing I don’t get (although I get it as an instrument of ‘battle’…).
If copyright can’t protect game design, but only it’s execution/specific expression, like a sum of concrete implemented designs, how can one seriously argue for ‚same look and feel‘ or „mimic“ if you have played a 27 year old SC2 and 2018’s SC:O? Of course SC:O’s starmap does not look and feel like SC2. Load it up, play it. It’s clearly the same idea, the game is the same sum of ideas. But it is a game published 27 years later with just the ideas in common. (Or did I miss something that’s right away copied? Like: a copy. That would be just the music, but it doesn’t belong to Ford/Reiche. Right?)
(and: you can/are prompted to (re)name your ship – the suggested name: one would call it a homage.)
Are there really that many game designs overall? Nowadays most are mixed up, but it should not be necessary to go this way. I like a StarControl game - SC3 isn’t really one, or?
Between SC:O and SC2 the ‚problem‘ (to me, here) seems to be that StarControl 2 is a game design but that kind of design is rare/is vanished because it wasn’t very successful. It’s unique, it’s concrete - but you should not be able to copyright it: have a galaxy map, have star systems you can visit close up, have funny chat with aliens, fly around, do battles and gather resources, gear up, there might be some galaxy ruling boss. That’s a design, a general plot. Not some expression.
To me what Ford/Reiche showed was a comparison of ideas. Of course SC:O looks like SC:2 at first glance. But only if you see the idea first. If you let someone look who knows nothing about StarControl and it’s ideas/concepts I bet he/she would have a hard time to see resemblance. He/she must concentrate to identify the broad/abstract ideas/matches (which Forde/Reiche pointed out, like: red space, holes, 2D top down etc., the sum fits, but it’s hard to identify without the ideas).
There just wasn’t much evolution in the genre, hence one might think Ford/Reiche owns this design.
I disagree. And what Reiche/Ford are claiming to be their ‘artistic expressions’ is the idea of a StarControl-type-game. SC:O isn’t a HD remake. E.g. you can’t learn SC:O from playing SC2. The writing differs greatly, as do graphics and controls. That’s not TripleTown/Yeti Town. Look at it, not at the idea. Call it a StarControl(2)-like game. It hasn’t stolen the code, the writing, the unique plot twists (or?) or anything else that reassembles the source (like: "Oh, that just looks exactly like TripleTown but with snow. Even the buttons work the same…")
I think an ‚expression‘ in the sense peterb unfolded should be something still relevant and very concrete – SC2’s expression isn’t relevant anymore (minus the writing/story). Only it’s ideas. It’s game design.
So to argue…
seems therefore inaccurate to me.
Well, that’s just the one point I don’t agree with the thread’s common sense.
@Thrag, is hard for me to decide whether you’re discussing in good faith or not, as depending on the post, you either come across in a very different light
First things first, right? There have been two DMCA notices involved: first, in November 2017, involving the old games (including SC3), the second, involving Star Control: Origins, now in January 2019.
In the first case, no copyrights had been formally assigned (other than notices on packaging and the games themselves, which may seem “obvious” but as this case reminds us, copyright can be sold and its ownership transferred, and old software and objects probably won’t be updated magically).
In the second case, as far as I understand, the fact of infringement hasn’t been adjudicated just yet.
If you think the above isn’t a new thing, please point me to a case, not involving direct asset stripping,that involves a online games distribution channels like Steam.
Then, you post this… so a “good point” is a worthless sarcastic comment that contributes zero to the discussion but somehow you agree with? Especially when I have been very clear about separating what P&F do to defend their rights, and what the case makes apparent about how one can stop a game from being sold with or without reason.
They are different things, yet they can be wielded in a similar fashion to make frivolous claims, make money or tighten peoples’ screws. A kitchen knife and a bayonet are different things too and they can be used in similar ways too.
So here we have two somewhat conflicting takes on DMCA notices. @Thrag says that actually most of the time there’s some oversight on the process to protect people from DMCA notices, @Lantz says that the process is most of the time an algorithmically driven process with no oversight. Is everybody - including myself - right then?
@Lantz I do not think that the precedent is about lodgement of a DMCA notice, but actually about how organisations react to such notices, implement them, and the impact they have. Certainly in the second case (see start of post) there has been a Federal judge involved.
How the inherent difference due to technology is handled when making comparisons is an interesting question. If someone remakes a movie that was original a small cast theater like production but this time with epic staging and cinematography, a cast of thousands, but basically copying everything else is the difference in production values enough.
In this case the situation with the split trademark and copyright is so atypical it’s not likely to set any precedents that can be applied universally. Also it is looking like this case will not come down to primarily a question of “how much is too much” in similarity but instead the deciding factor will likely be the public statements about intent to make things more like SC2.
Exactly.
Before I read or answer anything else let me say I’m trying really hard to not be argumentative here, given the fact I can’t say the same for everyone who has replied to me. I’ve kept even sarcasm to a minimum. I would love to know how I am coming across like I am arguing in bad faith.
I was genuinely asking the question and genuinely asking you to forgive me for not being as knowledgeable on the topic as I’d like. So please take your words afterwards in context of this.
Since it apparently needs repeating - the CEO of Stardock publicly stated that they would be including elements of Star Control II (that they don’t have the rights to) in Origins. That alone should be enough for a good faith DMCA claim and shouldn’t set any precedent when the one party explicitly states they’re going to infringe.
First, I didn’t actually say what you said I said. The only time I literally mentioned oversight was when discussing Stardock’s legal team and I don’t believe I’ve made any definitive statements about what level of oversight an average DMCA request gets.
Let me address this anyway. A DMCA notice, depending on the service provider, can lead to automatic delisting. By the same token, depending on the service provider, then filing a counter notice will result in an immediate re-listing. The service provider can make individual decisions as well. How things are handled is up to the service provider and the specifics of situation.
This is an incredibly unusual case where the service providers in question are a party to an existing dispute. It is unlikely to set a general precedent of any kind. I do sympathize with your worry about abuse, but at least acknowledge this is not a standard situation and what happens here cannot really be applied to a generic situation.
Abstracting from the similarities (or lack thereof) themselves, as I was disgusted enough to not look at the final product, I’m going to be the annoying pedant.
This is a normal factor in copyright cases, the only new thing is that it’s about videogames. It’s shitty that it has to be decided in vagaries that are not entirely objective, but when the creator publicly claimed he was copying the original, he can’t claim he didn’t think of it after.
And the same applies here, it’s only new with regards to being a spat between videogame making companies. It’s not only not the obligation of the common carrier to sort it out, it’s a liability to do so.
You have many reasons to call this silly and wasteful, but you’re late to the protest by a couple of decades (and that’s just taking into account the DMCA).
Since we are mostly talking past each other, let me try to state clearly the core of my argument. Much like you can’t look at each individual line item on the SC2/3/O chart but it should be taken as a whole, you can’t isolate one part of the legal situation from the rest of it.
What happens here is only likely to affect how DMCAs will be handled for ones where the service providers are party to the already existing legal dispute.
Was that just general gameplay ideas, or more specific infringey type things?
This actually answered my question so thanks.
The Arilou was pretty specific.
The Arilou was pretty specific.
This part too:
I have to admit I lol’d a little when I came across it in the listing.
That page, the…the…[searching for neutral words] “Here’s how we’re trying to develop non-infringing versions of the aliens from SCII” page, still leaves me flabbergasted. The person writing it so obviously thinks they understand copyright law and also so obviously doesn’t understand that they just gave incredible evidence to the opposition. It’s an IP lawyer’s dream Christmas.
(In an earlier post in this thread, I explained how I would use the names without infringing, if that was important to me: I’d give artists and writers who had never played SC2 the names, and absolutely no information about their previous expressions, plot beats, or roles in the game, and have them make “clean-room” versions of those aliens.)
EDIT: And even with those alleged infringements you’d still totally get away with it if as long as you knew enough about business to not sue the copyright holder and make them have nothing to lose by fighting you.
GOD!
To be fair, I believe the original author retains the copyright to the music and entered into a new agreement with Stardock.
ianal - animus possidendi
I was and I get you. Just seems like more evidence that there was intent to possess the lore.
Right, animus possidendi - that’s why earlier I said the moment for me was the claims on the Accolade agreement being valid. Except this was well before any point where a claim of establishing use in commerce as a defense measure was made as subtle PR, I believe.