Support Stardock by Buying Star Control: Origins Directly

[Yoshi]

Rather than me re-telling the story, if you are unfamiliar with what the heads of Activision's Toys for Bob studio are doing to Stardock regarding their new Star Control: Origins game, I'd encourage you to read about it here.

If you'd like to support Stardock while the DMCA nonsense gets sorted out on Steam and GOG, you can buy a Steam key directly from them here. It's on sale for 50% off to boot.

If you'd like to support them even more, they coincidentally (I assume) just released a Humble Bundle as well. You can buy it here. I'd recommend moving the "Humble tip" slider to $0 to cut IGN out and make sure the money only goes to Stardock and/or charity.

[TelperionST]

New personal rule: don't purchase games from publishers who are involved in vocal and visible law suits that may or may not get their games kicked off from every platform I use.

[aileron]

Thanks but I don't tweet. Someone will have to tweet him for me.

[twidget]

Nice summation.

[twidget]

YoshiIt is sad.

[Chairman Meow]

Anyone here watch Rekieta Law on YouTube? I thought he might be interested in making a video about this but there seems to be no way to contact the guy.

Nick Is pretty active on twitter so maybe try that route.

[Yoshi]

It's sad that I have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon than respond to nonsense, but for the record my only association with or support for Stardock is buying this specific game from their website for $20. I have never played any of their previous games. I also have recently started to follow Wardell on Twitter, because, again, I find the potential precedent here dangerous for this industry and potentially media in general. Congrats on unraveling my rampant co-conspirator status, Sherlock.

[ryvrdrgn14]

From my understanding of random Youtube comments on the video Youtuber Law made on about the topic (Youtuber Law claims to have tried to make them settle so both games could come out, but both rejected):

1. The original creators and the publisher had a deal to live and let live. The original creators owned the assets of SC1&2 while the publisher owned the rights to the the name "Star Control" and what assets in SC3 that aren't overlapping with SC1&2.
2. The publisher wanted the original creators to buy the name. They refused.
3. The publisher then wanted the creators to license the assets to them multiple times. The original creators refused.
4. The publisher tried to sue the original creators for a lot of money to pressure them to hand over the rights to SC1&2 assets.
5. The original creators sue back.
6. The publisher, with an ongoing and unresolved lawsuit, goes on with production, marketing and release.
7. Knowing that a game makes most of its money in the first 3-6 months of release, the original creators bide their time to do the DMCA takedowns.
8. The publisher goes to court for an injunction (to hold off the DMCA takedowns until the original cases are settled), but the judge blames the publisher for going through with the game's production/marketing/release even if they knew there was a pending case.
9. The game was taken down on Steam and GOG through DMCA by the original creators, but this was the decision of Steam and GOG.
10. The publisher is still selling the game through their website and supposedly another storefront.

[twidget]

A simple lol was to short to post by itself.

[twidget]

For someone who is so opposed to wild baseless accusations, and thinks everyone should wait untill all the facts are in before considering anything, you sure don't seem to mind it when you personally jump to wild conclusions. Or is that only OK to do when casting aspersions on the motivations of people who politley disagree with you on the internet?I'm also not going to watch an hour long video series from some guy on the internet for the same reason you don't want to read a niche gamer article and don't want to form an opinion on this untill it's been borne out in the courts. Mostly because anyone who willingly describes themself as "a copyright lawyer" is basically a human stain.


Though I did skip to the end of the first set of videos you posted, just to get an idea of why you thought Brad Wardell is a scumbag. And to be honest it looks like the piece of crap copyright lawyer doesn't agree. He seems to think that it's an extremely complicated case that could go either way. Seems a bit wierd that the videos conclusion is "this could go either way, who knows" and your take from that was "Brad Wardell is a scumbag." Is there a timecode you can give me where he gives evidence that Wardell is a scumbag?

Copyright law is completely broken. DMCA has been a joke since day one, and continues to be one of the most disgusting pieces of American legislation. So I tend to side with anyone who isn't pushing their weight around in terms of copyright. That being said Brad Wardell has a history of being the whipping boy of the industry, for little reason other than he makes good games and doesn't bend the knee to people who aren't his customers. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless. Especially when his litigators are claiming ownership of things like "hyperspace," "autopilot" and "the colour red."

Fair enough.
Would Yoshi, him/herself, care to wade in on which of my assertions is/are false?
Or will you remain her/his champion?

Where did I say I didn't read his article? I said I didn't trust him as a source of factual interpretation.

I came to the opinion he's a scumbag after watching and not skipping through the videos I posted in this thread.
You want a time code to where in the videos I saw evidence of this.
Why?
Because you couldn't be bothered to watch the videos?
From one of your previous posts in this thread.

Not reading the link and posting anyway with ignorance is called a shitpost.

And now in this post, " I'm also not going to watch an hour long video series..." & "...I did skip to the end of the first set of videos you posted."
Does your not having watched or read material in a post or posts you're responding to make your post a shitpost?

Copyright law's wholeness and the DMCS's value as "American" legislation are straw men.
The discussion of the value or lack thereof of the DMCA is something for another day.
Brad Wardell's history is a straw man.
One would his expect his lawyers to side with whatever will get them more billable hours.
Are lawyers less of a "human stain" if they're called litigators?

Don't mean to derail this gripping thread but...
Your pronouncements on Copyright law and lawyers, the DMCA and "American" legislation makes me wonder if you haven't had problems with one or more in a personal way.
If you had, might not that color (American spelling) you viewpoint?

Carry on.

[Animusisters]

Good shilling so far. Keep it up.

[fenrif]

I find it hard to believe your only interest is that the correct precedent be set.
There's a nagging thought in the back of my mind that your are:
a. a plaintiff or represent the plaintiff
b. you're a significant financial backer looking at losing lots of money
c. just a fanboy hoping Star Control: Origins senpai notices.

Like I said before, I'll wait for the courts to render a judgement and not jump to one.

For someone who is so opposed to wild baseless accusations, and thinks everyone should wait untill all the facts are in before considering anything, you sure don't seem to mind it when you personally jump to wild conclusions. Or is that only OK to do when casting aspersions on the motivations of people who politley disagree with you on the internet? I'm also not going to watch an hour long video series from some guy on the internet, for the same reason you don't want to read a niche gamer article and don't want to form an opinion on this untill it's been borne out in the courts. Mostly because anyone who willingly describes themself as "a copyright lawyer" is basically a human stain.

Though I did skip to the end of the first set of videos you posted, just to get an idea of why you thought Brad Wardell is a scumbag. And to be honest it looks like the piece of crap copyright lawyer doesn't agree. He seems to think that it's an extremely complicated case that could go either way. Seems a bit wierd that the videos conclusion is "this could go either way, who knows" and your take from that was "Brad Wardell is a scumbag." Is there a timecode you can give me where he gives evidence that Wardell is a scumbag?

Copyright law is completely broken. DMCA has been a joke since day one, and continues to be one of the most disgusting pieces of American legislation. So I tend to side with anyone who isn't pushing their weight around in terms of copyright. That being said Brad Wardell has a history of being the whipping boy of the industry, for little reason other than he makes good games and doesn't bend the knee to people who aren't his customers. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless. Especially when his litigators are claiming ownership of things like "hyperspace," "autopilot" and "the colour red."

[fenrif]

Not reading the link and posting anyway with ignorance is called a shitpost. Next time read the thread and the links contained wherein. And if caught making an embarassing shitpost that highlights your ignorance a quick apology would serve you better than getting up on your high horse.

[twidget]

The US Patent and Trademark Office thinks so: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...804:h334ge.2.1

And the link goes to...

This search session has expired. Please start a search session again by clicking on the TRADEMARK icon, if you wish to continue.

Well done.

Did you just skip over the videos I posted between the post you're responding to and your response?

[Yoshi]

"Aye, there's the rub,"
The creators claim that their deal for the rights had expired.
If it had expired than the seller of said trademark had no right to sell it and the buyer has no rights to use it.
And that is the crux. Did the seller own those rights?

The US Patent and Trademark Office thinks so: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...804:h334ge.2.1