The Third Doctrinal War -- Stardock, Reiche/Ford, and Star Control


OK, sure, let’s run with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely you will agree that “The defense used slave labor to conduct the depositions” is extraordinary evidence! I would absolutely be very very concerned if such a horrible thing happened. That’s exactly the sort of evidence that could change my mind!

So, with that in mind, please feel free to provide extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim that using the DMCA as it was used in this case is unethical. Friend, if you’ve got evidence of slave-trading going on here, I am on your side.


Mostly objecting to the idea that “legal = moral” that peterb keeps bringing up. And all the other misrepresentations of my stance.


Even Peterb is specifically talking about this case.


“My claim is that of course using every legal tool available to you to defend against a lawsuit is ethical, and to argue otherwise is absurd on its face.” <- that is not a statement about a single lawsuit. That is a generalized assertion that using legal tools to defend yourself is de-facto ethical.

If peterb had said “this” lawsuit, we’d be having a different conversation.


I am happy to take it as read that I should have said “…barring extraordinary evidence showing why it’s unethical.”


If the fate of SC:O (outside of damages) determines the solvency of Stardock, they are already screwed. Based on what they said they put into development, and the sales generated it is a massive loss.


Oh come on! My very next words were “and yes ethical”.


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.

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.


Read Sapiens, great book.

What you are describing sounds like liberal Humanism.


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.