Thanks for another word in Gaelic! Another step toward conversation. At this rate I’ll be 90, but i can dream.
Right, what I’m saying is the blog post is not the whole of it The filings contain other examples and even those are not necessarily the only examples that might be raised at trial.
I’m curious about this: Does Valve allow additional keys to be generated for a game under a DMCA claim?
One of Brad’s tweets from early January made it sound like not. (Something like “limited supplies”).
This is fair with the exception that the defendant is not making an argument that hyperspace, isometric viewpoints, or general design elements are at issue. So I’d want a more elaborate description of your view on the defendants actual arguments before I could agree. They have argued that their expression, lore, etc. was copied. When I reviewed SC:O I saw a near identical expression of SC1 and SC2, with few exceptions, many being simple graphical updates to the old UI/UX.
I see no part of the defendant’s argument where they make a claim to an isolated individual mechanic, or a general term. In specificity I see them making claims to creative assets. For example in game alien races with specific names and attributes. This is not a claim on alien races or their attributes. They are not making a claim to inter-dimensional travel, or claiming patents on a dialogue tree with an animated alien.
Then, when taken into context of the written sequence of events, the defendant makes a claim to the intentions of the plaintiff. Objectively, this seems unrelated to DMCA abuse. I would argue that this has clouded true DMCA abuse which does need reform, and that Stardock is no champion here. Further that any reform of the DMCA should take into account corporate entities that attempt to co-opt the work of creative arts through trademark litigation. Then that any public debate on the merits of the DMCA, or it’s form of justice, should take first and foremost account of the individual in their body of creative work. Then, perhaps the consumer of useful or entertaining products. Lastly, a corporate body that seeks to obtain rights to that experience.
Yes, let us not forget with this talk of “abuse” that the root of all this is a corporation using a trademark purchased in a bankruptcy auction to wrest control of the products previously created under that trademark from the actual creators and copyright holders.
The IP equivalent of “I bought your old license plate at a junkyard, you now need my permission to use or even mention your car”.
That’s the abuse that should send chills down the spines of any author, artist or creator.
I don’t think kedaha is presenting alternate facts here, and I’m kind of baffled how badly you seem to be misinterpreting them. Might I suggest trying to take a few steps away from the situation and actually making an effort to understand their point of view?
People complain when the rain in the background of their video gets DMCA’d by someone with a Five Hour Relaxing Rain Mix. They call it abuse. This is not at all an uncommon place to draw a line between “valid DMCA” and “DMCA abuse”: are you trying to take down actual piracy (uploading SC1+2), or something where the infringement is only a small portion of the total work (SC:O)?
Even worse, in the case of SC:O, it’s merely alleged infringement - no court has yet ruled on whether they’re actually similar enough. Plenty of people on the pro-P&F side have conceded that it’s entirely possible a court will rule against the infringement, And then SC:O was taken down merely because someone mistakenly believed a small segment of their copyright was infringed.
This is a huge difference between trying to take down SC1+2, and I’m really genuinely confused why people here seem to have so much trouble understanding that distinction. I’m pretty staunchly pro-P&F, but I still think the DMCA is a terrible law precisely because it enables abuses like this.
Yeah but… they sold the trademark in the first place.
EDIT:
If you sell a trademark to your creation I don’t see how you can later be pissed off when someone else buys that trademark because… you sold it.
This never happened. Paul and Fred created a game universe and it was marketed under a trademark registered by Accolade. The trademark was itself based on in game lore and arguably abandoned. If it was not abandoned, then purchasing the rights to use the mark does not assign copyrights to a previous creative work.
I quoted what I was responding directly to.
“I’m still entitled to form the opinion that using the DMCA against a game for incorporating ideas (like hyperspace) and design elements (like an isometric viewpoint)”
Those are not the facts of the DMCA. It is a misrepresentation of the items in the chart from P&F’s blog post.
I understand the very real concerns content creators that depend on sites like youtube have about the potential for abuse of the DMCA process. Still it is simply not factual that P&F’s DMCA was based on SC:O incorporating the idea of hyperspace.
I don’t think I’m misinterpreting the literal statement “for incorporating ideas (like hyperspace) and design elements (like an isometric viewpoint)”. I am taking it completely at face value. What am I misinterpreting from that statement?
Yes, that is pretty much the standard when it comes to DMCA requests. It usually happens before any lawsuit is filed. You are not complaining about abuse of the law but about the nature of the law.
You are focusing on an irrelevant (and slightly incorrect) detail. A trademark does not give the holder rights to anything and everything ever made under the mark. If someone sells a trademark, but retains copyrights, patents, etc. for products previously sold under the mark, that does not give the mark holder rights to those things. The owner of those things does not require permission from the mark holder to use them as long as they don’t do so under the prior brand name. It does not require the owner of that IP to get permission from the mark holder to mention the prior products.
If you write a story published in “Awesome stories(r)” magazine, and in the publishing agreement you retain copyrights, can the holder of the magazine’s mark make sequels or other derivative works to your story? Can they demand that you need their permission to make your own sequels? That’s what Stardock is fighting for. That once a work is associated with a mark, the mark holder’s rights trump all others and they own all the marbles.
I know, I’m pointing out something that is easy to miss; it’s not one or two things in isolation, which would likely be fair use (or not even relevant), it’s a collection of things that ends up being a copy. Allegedly, of course, it’s not trivial to say either way.
There are worse cases from the stone age. Like you and the author, I think it’s crappy legislation, but it is the only one that exists.
Distracting from this is a very intentional tactic at play. I don’t think it is easy to miss. I think it is easy to hammer on a single point instead of address the greater argument. Repeating this as a mantra helps the Stardock argument as they do not have to address the actual argument itself. This is the same with injecting the DMCA into the debate. It’s not the issue at hand and will not be impacted by the outcome of this case; as the judge noted this is for congress. But it is in favor of Stardock’s public position to hammer on the DMCA as opposed to say, registering all the alien lore from the original creator’s universe as trademarks. I don’t blame them.
Hmm… good response. It made me reconsider my position.
Thank you for saying so. It’s nice to know my points are coming through.
Good point. While cries of abuse surrounding the DMCA are being pushed by Stardock, and they are falsely claiming that P&F say they own the idea of hyperspace, Stardock is abusing the trademark system to directly wrest control of the Ur-Quan masters universe from P&F and to prevent them from making an independent sequel.
In this matter, instead of relying on in the intentional misrepresentations of one party in the dispute about what the other side claims it owns, we can look at trademark filings made under penalty of perjury as to what Stardock claims to own.
Specifically: “Orz”, “Melnorme”, “VUX”, “Yehat”, “Taalo”, “Dnyarri”, “Pkunk”, “Chenjesu”, “Spathi”, “Ur-Quan”, “Arilou”, “Ilwrath”, “Syreen”, “Androsynth”, “The Ur-Quan Masters”, “Fwiffo”, “Druuge”, “Chmmr”, “Crimson Corporation”, “SUPER-MELEE”
Stardock claims the “Star Control” trademark also gives it trademarks and thus exclusive use of all those terms.
Can you cite a source for that? My understanding is that the vast, vast majority of DMCA claims are concerned with full-on piracy (uploading the full copyrighted work with no significant alterations), and very rarely concerned with situations where it’s merely alleged infringement.
What are the facts of the DMCA? P&F are alleging copyright violations. There’s a couple of minor elements like the Zoq-Fot-Pik and the Tzo Crystals, plus their public claims about owning this particular expression of hyperspace. That seems like it obviously falls under “infringing only a small portion of the total work”, not “actual piracy”
I don’t have an explicit source that lays things out in the terms you are using. However it’s a standard part of the process that a DMCA usually comes before a lawsuit, which was my point. After a lawsuit if something is found to be infringing it would likely be a court order to take it down. A DMCA is basically a more formal cease and desist letter that is the prelude, not the result of, a lawsuit.
Also it’s always alleged infringement until a court has made a decision. So simply by nature of the law and the process DMCA notices are generally over alleged infringement. Again, if it’s no longer alleged, we’re past the point of a DMCA.
The judgement of "infringing only a small portion of the total work” vs. “actual piracy”isn’t really made. That’s up to a court to decide if the parties involved in the DMCA want to take it that far.
Also "infringing only a small portion of the total work” is still called “infringement”. It’s not like a plagiarist could argue “look, I only lifted one chapter from Harry Potter, the other 42 were my own”. That’s not a defense, that’s a guilty plea.
Just because this was news to me until Shuma pointed it out in passing: Paul & Fred filed for a trademark on the name “Frungy Games.” I’m guessing this will be the entity under which they will make Ghosts of the Precursors apart from Toys for Bob.