While I do believe the parts to the whole argument has merit, one of the simplest straight forward infringements for this particular case is the “Races DLC” which was on sale when the game was released. It was originally listed on Steam and marketed, then moved to Stardock store only by the time of release. They must have sold some of these…but this DLC offering seems to have disappeared from the market. Did anyone around here purchase it? and know why it disappeared?
That also got DMCA’d. I don’t know if a counter-notice was ever filed for that but it has remained down.
It was DMCA’d is correct. Though it still remains on Steam so you can access it if you own the original, I believe. Notably, in the Steam database all of these DLC still had the SC2 race names on them right up until January, after the DMCA against SC:O itself.
I do find it interesting that someone would demand a party join them in their activism against that parties’ interests in a lawsuit. Or that these two things are so intertwined as to be morally equivalent across the entire board. The idea that the DMCA take down was some unforgivable act in perspective of the entire story here is … I mean that is at least a little silly, isn’t it?
Stardock is a strange bedfellow to have for IP reform. It’s as if they expect me to also believe that they made a game called Galaxy Command which had a space ship, used the trope of hyperspace, the color red, common elements found in scifi game genres, and a remix of a song once used in another game (owned by the original artist).
But no, actually: IP reform should favor someone who actually bought a trademark from an older title, emailed the original creators that they bought it, asked for the IP they created, insisted that they didn’t need permission for that IP anyways, inferred to the previous fan base that everything was rosy, copied major elements from the previous universe, copied major elements from the “look and feel” of the previous title, associated the new title with the previous title, *associated their universe with the previous universe (“multiverse”), then is suing the original creators for trademark infringement.
Then this is a clear cut case of DMCA “abuse” when the actual copyright holders of the original title used that process to defend their position.
Yeah this really sums things up, I feel.
It does if the judge says it does! :neenerneener:
The intended purpose is to take down work where the rights holder has a good faith belief it is infringing and the creator of the disputed work does not choose to contest this and indemnify distributors.
I find this small portion thing bizarre. You seem to be saying that using the Dmca to take down works that are infringing is abuse if you think copyright law should work differently in that case.
Bit of a digression here, but isn’t all law a social construct and therefore only exists because statutes define what it is and how it works?
What is natural law? (and no I shan’t google it)
Yesterday: the judge tells them to get on with it, denying Stardock’s motion.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/110/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/
Reading between the lines of this unusually specific order (“At the date and time indicated above, plaintiff’s counsel shall call…No party shall otherwise contact chambers directly without prior authorization of the Court.”), the judge is just about out of patience with the way this case is going.
The first paragraph is particularly entertaining, because this is the judge listing all the previous times the parties delayed and asked to reschedule the case in preparation for the judge refusing to do it this time. (She does later call out the addition of GOG and Valve to the case as the one reason a change in schedule might be permissible).
I’m now putting my money on “Discovery related to GOG and Valve gets a later deadline, but the original parties get no such extensions.”
Human rights are inalienable, and unarguably in effect without repeal at all times under all circumstances. Law that is inherent to your very being, that you are born with, and is sourced from the very nature of your existence. The laws of state are enforced by flawed human beings. Subject to change, whim, error, as well as the spirit of justice. Natural law is immutable, and any law written by men which violates your natural rights is in effect nullified.
What is beautiful in my mind here is that, unlike positive law, natural law can be understood by the common people. This is why we common folk created the jury system. It’s the people’s court, not the magistrate’s. Even the most simple folk, which I feel a part of for sure, can understand their inherent right to be.
I think this line in your link sums it up:
Yet as with any human endeavor, mistakes are inevitable.
But in inhuman endeavors, whether natural or supernatural (you decide), the order of things is. I’ll add to that thought that it is often questioned on whether the human experience can observe the nature of rights objectively, or properly. Wars are fought over this, and we are the progeny of the victors.
It seems to be focused pretty entirely on Stardock and Valve, but not GOG. They’re behind the motion that this is denying. (They wanted to delay depositions for two months.) It’s also scheduling the joint status conference P&F and Stardock both requested back in December.
So it does seem like the judge is REAL mad at Stardock and Valve for being petty delaying shits.
I would argue that P&F have a moral and ethical right to use all legal means necessary in this case since they feel their rights are being violated. Using the DMCA, however temporary it was, is one of the few legal means they haf to potentially reduce the sales. By reducing the potential sales, they are being ethical because it shows they are not in this for the gains they may receive if they prevail and are awarded damages based on the sales. They just want them to stop using any of their stuff. Which is morally just.
For those that don’t know, she is the one who wrote
http://crimsoncorporation.org/reasons/ and while some don’t agree with her tendency to play devil’s advocate, I usually see her point.
Natural law theory goes back to Aristotle and to Thomas Aquinas. It rests on the idea that human beings have objective common natures and ends, and acting in concert with them is acting rightly, while violating them is acting wrongly. Anyway, peterb’s point is that you probably don’t derive good copyright law from questions of innate human nature.
Yeah the fact that she wrote that is why I said she was being contrarian on this point.
Some new documents posted today.
(1) The court orders the depositions scheduled for Feb. 11, 13, and 14 to go forward in Michigan. This is a setback for Stardock.
(2) Reiche and Ford’s lawyers file their opposition to GOG’s motion to dismiss. It’s an OK pleading but nothing really earth-shaking in either direction.
Still, it’s good to see these details spelled out plainly. According to P&F, in 2011, GOG cut a parallel deal with Atari to license the SCI&II trademark rights, to go with the copyrights they licensed from P&F. But the details of the Atari TM license were kept confidential, and never disclosed to P&F (nor to us; it was apparently filed under seal), so when it apparently expired in 2015, they had no way to know.
This expiration became important last year, because Stardock amended its complaint to say that it means that P&F were violating its trademarks from 2015-2017, as well as its copyrights on SC3. P&F reacted by invoking an indemnification clause in their contract with GOG, and GOG refused to honor it. So P&F added GOG to the lawsuit, saying that any liability to Stardock is the result of GOG’s failure to disclose material information to them.
There’s something odd about Stardock’s accusations here. Stardock is using those GOG sales as exhibits in its trademark applications, including images taken after it edited the store pages in 2017 to add “The Ur-Quan Masters” subtitle to the SCII page. But if Stardock had the power to edit the games’ store pages, and was accruing the trademark rights from their sales, then how can it simultaneously claim that P&F were the ones selling the games, and therefore liable to it for trademark/copyright violations?
EDIT: I also just noticed that the schedule of assumed contracts from Atari to SD shows the GOG deal’s dates as 3/10/2010 - 2/23/2016, which does not quite match the 2015 dates being talked about. It also only shows the agreement pertaining to SC3, and does not mention SCI&II.
From the minutes of the teleconference over the latest delaying motion.
The court orders the depositions scheduled for 2/11/19, 2/13/19 and 2/14/19 to go forward in Michigan.
Oh to be a fly on the wall.
One of the enduring mysteries of the star control universe is why the Melnorme’s bridge turned from the color red to the color purple. I wonder if one of the mysteries delved during deposition will be the reason why hyperspace turned from purple to red. You know there are going to be various forms of the question “Did you instruct anyone to make SC:O more similar to SC2?” asked during the deposition.
So, ballpark figure on what the legal fees must look like at this point?