Which is fine if I want to ignore a party intentionally escalating my risk using less-than-ethical tactics so I can appease the moral sensibility of someone who thinks my opponent, who is ripping off my creative history, is only potentially guilty of “minor infringement”. It is amoral to arbitrarily assign judgement to other people’s beliefs as well.
Let he who is without sin
In this case the DMCA may have been justified whether or not we agree with the DMCA in total. This was emailed to the defendant and is widely thought of as one of the most egregious hostile statements made to them:
While there is no disagreement that you own the IP. There seems to be a misconception that our rights stop at the trademark. We also acquired the full publishing rights to Star Control and the included licenses to the IP.
Stardock has a perpetual world-wide exclusive license to the characters, setting and plot line.
That seems like a clear intent to claim authority over copyrights. In my view this is also a moral and tactical mistake made on part of the plaintiff. From a perspective of ethics, subjective or not, I find this action against a content creator’s rights abhorrent. I say that free and clear as I’ve gone through the Atari bankruptcy documentation and have only found, out of everything, the trademark Star Control and Star Control 3. I found nothing that claimed or claimed to grant any copyrights edit. or extended license for the original content created by Paul Reiche III.
I’ve looked carefully, and would be happy to review any document Atari provided to the contrary. In light of this I struggle to see how someone could blame the defendant for using the DMCA as it was actually intended.