Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Star Control: Origins - Star Control reboot from Stardock

Mustawd

Guest
1. You're wrong and they haven't argued that at all. Nor would you if you actually played the game.


First of all, read the court doc. The judge does a good summary. But hey, let me recopy and paste it for you:

Plaintiff assured Defendants that Origins would not make use of “any of the Star Control 1/2 IP (which in this case means alien names, alien designs, lore, art, music, ship designs).” Plaintiff ultimately changed its position, however, and a copyright dispute materialized in the fall of 2017.

Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants have no protectable interest in Star Control I and II and/or that its use of the Star Control I and II IP in Origins does not constitute infringement.

Second of all, what does them arguing this in court have to do with me playing the game?


2. You're a petty dick lauding an abusive lawfare practice and happy over their misfortune even if they're ultimately in the right.

Oh please. Get serious. You make it seem like you just found the internet. People have opinions. Get over it.

You can't expect a company to delay their major release that they've worked on for 5 years and poured ~$10 million into for potentially years based on allegations and frivolous claim

Lol. Yah, ok man.

“Hey everybody, if you spend a lot of money and make bad strategic decisions you’re allowed to do whatever you want” - Dexter

Look, feel free to disagree with my opinion that Stardock fucked themselves by not pinning down any issues on the copyright. But I’m merely pointing out what the Judge said in justifying rejecting their request for an injunction on the DMCA. So if you have an argument to point out the flaw in the judge’s ruling, then at least address the cases they cite. Otherwise, you’re just giving an opinion based on nothing but feelz.

This kind of precedent has a way of backfiring.

You realize filing a DMCA notice is just a notice right? Right? It’s the service provider who ultimately makes the decision.

Again, I guess I have to cooy paste the same section because you’re obviously either not reading it or completely ignoring it because it’s convenient for your flawed ass argument.

As Defendants correctly observe, Plaintiff’s argument is based on the “flawed premise” that the issuance of a notice of infringement under the DMCA is the equivalent of an injunction requiring the removal of allegedly infringement material. It is not. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, see Mot. at 13, Defendants cannot “unilaterally” block Origins or any other content from distribution by issuing a DMCA notice. See 17 U.S.C. § 512. Such notice simply serves to provide knowledge of alleged infringement to service providers. Critically, receipt of a notice of claimed infringement does not mandate that a service provider remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,640
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
Fun fact: The DMCA is there to protect game distributors like Steam. If they refuse the order, they are liable for damages when the court rules in favour of R&F.
I meant why is that web page still alive ?

DMCA notice only applies to third party vendors. Paul and Fred would need a court order to stop Stardock from selling it directly, but that's not settled yet.
Yes, and it would be glorious when the court rules against stardick and the notion of them continuing to sell that violation of IP comes up. The damages is going to be fun to watch.

I would be very shocked if that were the outcome. If SC:Origins is found to be an infringing work, I would take that decision to Games Workshop and use it to sue the bejeezus out of Blizzard.

Not that I approve of Stardock's strong-arm tactics, but games rip each other off all the time, and that's just the way it is.
 

Stefan Vujovic

Educated
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
93
Haven't bothered reading whole legal situation but in my humble opinion Fred and Paul are two repressed faggots. For 26y they haven't even considered making a sequel to Star Control until the trademarks for it haven't been sold and someone else started creating the spin off. They have been whoring out and creating spyro games for mentally challenged kids for 26 years and now they want us to feel pity for them and support their claim for the IP they haven't touched in almost 3 decades. Disgusting little shits, both of them, at least that's my opinion. On the other hand i have always been supportive of Stardock games, and bought most of them considering that they are one of the few companies that support their games for years to come.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
I would be very shocked if that were the outcome. If SC:Origins is found to be an infringing work, I would take that decision to Games Workshop and use it to sue the bejeezus out of Blizzard.

Not that I approve of Stardock's strong-arm tactics, but games rip each other off all the time, and that's just the way it is.
Well, the Activision buttbuddies are apparently now arguing that they own the gameplay concept of "Hyperspace travel": https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction
So, why do we contend that Star Control: Origins is substantially similar to and/or derivative of our copyrighted game, Star Control II? Besides the evidence of infringement identified in our most recent filings with the court, let’s compare the expression in a very limited part of the gameplay — interstellar travel. One would presume that Stardock would either make entirely new gameplay for Origins or base it upon the original parts of SC3. Let’s check that out…

spaceTravel.JPG

It’s clear to us that Stardock chose to make Origins substantially similar to SC2 instead of using the original material they purchased in SC3. We don’t claim to have a copyright on all interstellar travel, but we do have a copyright on the specific way we expressed interstellar travel in Star Control II. We see many such examples in Star Control: Origins where its expression is substantially similar to and/or derivative of our copyright-protected work, without our permission.


 

Unkillable Cat

LEST WE FORGET
Patron
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
27,090
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy
Holy shit, that list is hilarious.

The publication of what Toys for Bob considers to be "theirs" under copyright may actually help convince Steam and GOG to put SC:O back on sale.

Though the updated chart with Starflight added does have one huge error: Starflight was released in 1986, not 1982.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,486
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Upon learning of Plaintiff’s [Stardock] intent to develop Origins, Defendants [P&R] stated that they hold copyrights to Star Control I and II.

Plaintiff acknowledged the same and repeatedly sought a license to use the Star Control I and II IP in Origins. Defendants declined. Through at least August 2017, Plaintiff assured Defendants that Origins would not make use of “any of the Star Control 1/2 IP (which in this case means alien names, alien designs, lore, art, music, ship designs).” Plaintiff ultimately changed its position, however, and a copyright dispute materialized in the fall of 2017.

Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants have no protectable interest in Star Control I and II and/or that its use of the Star Control I and II IP in Origins does not constitute infringement.

So Stardock is arguing, IN COURT, that they used SC I and II, BUT it wasn’t copyright infringement (which is due to the fact they claim their purchase of SC3 assets gave them copyright of SC I and II).

So all your REEEEEIIING about this is pointless. Especially when Stardock has already admitted their use of SCI and II in Origins in front of the court.

No, this isn't what they argued/admitted in court. Why you would immediately assume Stardock's lawyer is retarded is beyond me, but here we are.

What Stardock is arguing is that they have no grounds for a suit in the first place and it should be tossed out. That should be provable in court. If it isn't, due to whatever mess of legal rights these games are stuck in, then they can go the other way and try and prove that there are no protected assets in the game, though I would imagine this will take more time and be harder to prove.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Why you would immediately assume Stardock's lawyer is retarded is beyond me, but here we are.

If you had read the court docs you’d realize that lawyers on both sides made mistakes in submitting their briefings. The judge even calls them out on this in the opinion. Something you’d know if you bothered reading it.

Also, unless you haven’t realized, passing the bar exam doesn’t make you a law god. Just like I know plenty of retards who have passed the CPA and CA exams.

As an example, go read the transcript of the dismissal of the defamation/libel case Maddox brought against some blogger. Maddox’s lawyer completely fucked up the briefing and the Judge just kept needling him over and over. It was great entertainment.

What Stardock is arguing is that they have no grounds for a suit in the first place and it should be tossed out. That should be provable in court. If it isn't, due to whatever mess of legal rights these games are stuck in, then they can go the other way and try and prove that there are no protected assets in the game, though I would imagine this will take more time and be harder to prove.

Negro, the entire thing was a request for an injunction. There’s no determination of who owns the copyright. It’s strictly about if there are grounds to stop the DMCA notice. And if you read the opinion it’s clear their argument is quite flimsy and basics about the DMCA law escape Stardock’s lawyer.

What often happens is that these companies don’t get subject matter experts but likely have some local or mid-level generic corporate law firm on retainer, so they end up using them. I mean I one has to assume that when the lawyers on either side can’t even submit briefings correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,486
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Why you would immediately assume Stardock's lawyer is retarded is beyond me, but here we are.

If you had read the court docs you’d realize that lawyers on both sides made mistakes in submitting their briefings. The judge even calls them out on this in the opinion. Something you’d know if you bothered reading it.

Also, unless you haven’t realized, passing the bar exam doesn’t make you a law god. Just like I know plenty of retards who have passed the CPA and CA exams.

As an example, go read the transcript of the dismissal of the defamation/libel case Maddox brought against some blogger. Maddox’s lawyer completely fucked up the briefing and the Judge just kept needling him over and over. It was great entertainment.

What Stardock is arguing is that they have no grounds for a suit in the first place and it should be tossed out. That should be provable in court. If it isn't, due to whatever mess of legal rights these games are stuck in, then they can go the other way and try and prove that there are no protected assets in the game, though I would imagine this will take more time and be harder to prove.

Negro, the entire thing was a request for an injunction. There’s no determination of who owns the copyright. It’s strictly about if there are ground to stop the DMCA notice. And if you read the opinion it’s clear their argument is quite flimsy and basic about the DMCA law escape Stardock’s lawyer.

What often happens is that these companies don’t get subject matter experts but likely have some local or mid-level generic corporate law firm on retainer, so they end up using them. I mean I one has to assume that when the lawyers on either side can’t even submit briefings correctly.

Well, that's fair enough I suppose. I didn't read the docs and don't intend to. It does strike me that that was his intent in any case, rather than an admission of guilt. Assuming, of course, that it really doesn't seem like the other games' content is in the new one which I haven't played.
 

Mustawd

Guest
Well, that's fair enough I suppose. I didn't read the docs and don't intend to. It does strike me that that was his intent in any case

Well, I mean tbf likely it’s just an easy argument to make. “we own the SF I and II Rights so this is pointless”

But I do think it informs on their overall opinion of how they view the copyright situation. I mean they kind of have to make that argument to back up their point on why there should be an injunction on the DMCA notice. Mostly, I was surprised they’d go there. And I think it’ll likely be the argument they present in court when trying to determine who the copyright belongs to.

Honestly, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just think the CEO was completely negligent in moving forward with the game when this issue wasn’t resolved. Either that or he got really really bad advice from his legal counsel. SOMEONE should have known this could and likely would happen.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,486
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Honestly, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just think the CEO was completely negligent in moving forward with the game when this issue wasn’t resolved. Either that or he got really really bad advice from his legal counsel. SOMEONE should have known this could and likely would happen.

I don't either. I just see it the other way (admittedly, I haven't been following this drama, so I may just be ill-informed), if Wardell believes he actually has the rights to the IP's future and it doesn't have legacy content in it, why would he believe that he was in legal jeopardy moving ahead with a project that he has the legal rights to make? People threaten things all the time.

Beyond that, I view the... whoever the fuck they are, the original devs, using Gofundme to finance their lawsuit as a sign of bad faith. If I had free time, no financial risk and the possibility of a payoff or at least messing with a company/person I didn't like, I'd probably launch a lawsuit too.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
I just think the CEO was completely negligent in moving forward with the game when this issue wasn’t resolved. Either that or he got really really bad advice from his legal counsel.
Third option: He is an arrogant asshat who thinks he knows everything and what he says is law. He won't be the first one, nor will he be the last.
 
Repressed Homosexual
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
17,867
Location
Ottawa, Can.
Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.
I think those two are laughing and counting money at night, because they haven't catered to hardcore gamers, but peddled bullshit for the last 20 years.

They are already multimillionnaires. The question is why are they fighting so hard and getting so upset at a franchise that they haven't touched in 25 years? It's all about ego.

As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.
I think those two are laughing and counting money at night, because they haven't catered to hardcore gamers, but peddled bullshit for the last 20 years.

They are already multimillionnaires. The question is why are they fighting so hard and getting so upset at a franchise that they haven't touched in 25 years? It's all about ego.

As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright.
Then, it should be reasonable to go into a private collector's home and steal his paintings. Because, you know, theft is OK if you just leave it protected in a vault and not use it.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,486
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.
I think those two are laughing and counting money at night, because they haven't catered to hardcore gamers, but peddled bullshit for the last 20 years.

They are already multimillionnaires. The question is why are they fighting so hard and getting so upset at a franchise that they haven't touched in 25 years? It's all about ego.

As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright.
Then, it should be reasonable to go into a private collector's home and steal his paintings. Because, you know, theft is OK if you just leave it protected in a vault and not use it.

This analogy is garbage. You'd at least have to show that somehow the new game was depriving the former staff members of anything at all. If it is, it isn't obvious in what way.
 

Mustawd

Guest
As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright

Isn’t that for trademarks and not copyright?

EDIT: For a trademark to be renewed, use must be shown. AFAIK this isn’t true for copyright.
 

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Wow, that list is retarded. None of that shit is copyrightable. Unless Stardock used the exact source code or graphics files from SC 2, tough cookies
Btw. this was found not to be Copyright infrigement in a famous case from the 90s (and they literally copied UI, movesets/combos, characters and owned no IP):


https://snk.fandom.com/wiki/Fighter's_History
Fighter's History is a 2D fighting game released by Data East. It was first released in arcades in 1993 and a home port followed for the Super NES in 1994. Fighter's History was best known for being responsible for its place in a lawsuit between Capcom and Data East, over what Capcom felt were infringements on their Street Fighter II property. Capcom lost the case on grounds that the copied elements were standard for the genre and thus excluded from copyright. Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

http://patentarcade.com/2005/08/case-capcom-v-data-east-nd-cal-1994-c.html
Case: Capcom v. Data East (N.D. Cal. 1994) [C]

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994) Capcom filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Data East from distributing the video game “Fighter’s History,” which Capcom alleges infringes upon its copyrights for the “Street Fighter II” series of video games. Capcom introduced Street Fighter II in 1991, whereas Data East introduced Fighter’s History in 1993. Capcom alleges that Data East’s Fighter’s History copied the distinctive fighting styles, appearances, special moves and combination attacks of many of Street Fighter II’s characters, as well as the control sequences used to execute their moves. Data East claimed that there was nothing original about Street Fighter II, which used stereotypical characters and common fighting maneuvers. To prevail on its motion for a preliminary injunction, Capcom had to show either: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions going to the merits existed and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in its favor. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Systems, Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir. 1989). A showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a copyright claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm. Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d at 1174. After establishing valid copyrights, Capcom needed to prove that they were in fact copied. Capcom had no direct evidence, but instead relied on the circumstantial weight of Data East’s project proposal for Fighter’s History which made repeated references to Street Fighter II in addition to the similarities in characters and moves between the two games. Because there was no direct evidence of copying, the Court applied the two part test of access and substantial similarity to assess Capcom’s claim of copyright infringement. First, Capcom easily proved access, as Street Fighter II had been widely disseminated before the development of Fighter’s History. Also, the proposal for Fighter’s History was a nine page document that contained twenty-two references to Street Fighter II. Data East put forth direct evidence of original work including cartoon characters, comic books, movie advertisements, etc., from which Data East claimed to have drawn its inspiration for its Fighter’s History characters. The court did not find Data East’s evidence persuasive, as while other outside sources may have influenced the development of the Fighter’s History characters, there was no doubt that Street Fighter II characters also provided a significant source of inspiration. Second, Capcom had to establish that Fighter’s History was substantially similar to Street Fighter II and that the similarity resulted from protectable expression. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1109 n. 3 (9th Cir.1970). The test to establish substantial similarity consists of extrinsic and intrinsic prongs. To analyze extrinsic similarity a court must filter out those elements of the copyrighted work that are deemed unprotectable, and reserve only protectable expression for comparison under the subjective test. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 821 F.Supp. 616, 623 (N.D.Cal.1993). Capcom had identified a number of alleged similarities between Street Fighter II and Fighter’s History. These similarities could be divided into four primary categories: (1) similarities in characters; (2) similarities in special moves and combination attacks; (3) similarities in control sequences; and (4) miscellaneous similarities in the general presentation and flow of the games. Concerning (3), the control sequences could not be expressed in limitless ways. Rather, the expression of an idea and the underlying idea frequently merge in the area of control sequences because the player simply pressed the button corresponding to the move he wishes to have produced on the screen. On the practical level, the universe of possible joystick combinations was further restricted by the need to have the control sequence emulate the natural movements of the body. While the Court was disturbed by these “coincidences” in some of the arbitrary control sequences, it concluded that because the control sequences did not constitute protectable expression, these isolated similarities were not actionable. Concerning (4), Capcom sought to protect a variety of miscellaneous features in Street Fighter II including its “attract mode” and “VS.” screens and its method of selecting characters, designating winners and tracking a fighter’s vitality during a fight. These features, however, were commonplace and unprotectable under the doctrine of scenes-à-faire. Concerning (1) and (2), Capcom urged that Data East had copied the physical appearance of seven of Street Fighter II’s eight playable characters and had reproduced twenty-seven of the characters’ special moves for use in its game. The court found that three characters and five special moves in Fighter’s History were similar to protectable characters and special moves in Street Fighter II. The intrinsic prong was applied once all the unprotected similarities and those elements that were not similar as a matter of law had been filtered out through analytic dissection, the remaining protectable expression in the plaintiff’s video was compared to corresponding expression in the defendant’s video in a subjective analysis of similarity. The subjective determination involved in the intrinsic test employed a reasonable person standard and examined the works for similarity in “total concept and feel.” Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1990). Although the Court had concluded that three Fighter’s History characters–Matlok, Feilin and Ray, were similar to Guile, Chun Li and Ken in Street Fighter II, the characters were not virtually identical and Data East certainly had not bodily appropriated them for use in its game. Applying the Ninth Circuit standard for granting a preliminary injunction to the facts infra, the court determined that Capcom had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or even serious questions concerning the merits. The advantage Capcom gained in relying on these stock characters and standard moves was that they were immediately recognizable and familiar to the player. One of the risks consequent to that tactic, however, was that much of Street Fighter II was left unprotectable from competitors’ simulations. Based on this analysis, the preliminary injunction was denied.
Thanks to Adam Trost for his assistance with the preparation of this case brief.
 
Last edited:

Unkillable Cat

LEST WE FORGET
Patron
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
27,090
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy
As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright

Isn’t that for trademarks and not copyright?

EDIT: For a trademark to be renewed, use must be shown. AFAIK this isn’t true for copyright.

This is exactly what was done in September 2007 when Atari was about to lose its trademark for Star Control: They released a basic Spacewar!-clone on their Atari Play website four days before their trademark would expire and called it Star Control.
 

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
Ultimately, you know that the two has beens are still crying themselves at night for not getting enough "hardcore gamer cred", due to them having peddled nothing but bullshit for the last 20 years. Fuck those losers.
I think those two are laughing and counting money at night, because they haven't catered to hardcore gamers, but peddled bullshit for the last 20 years.

They are already multimillionnaires. The question is why are they fighting so hard and getting so upset at a franchise that they haven't touched in 25 years? It's all about ego.
I never said Ford and Reiche are the good guys here. Obviously, they should have bought the rights to the Star Control name during the auction (which would have been pocket change for them) and none of this would have happened, and they would probably have saved money in the process. That they pretend to be some kind of indie devs who need crowdfunding for their legal campaign is beyond ridiculous.

All I said was that they certainly don't regret not going for "hardcore gamer cred". And that I think some of their claims have merit.


As YouTube Law pointed out, to be able to claim copyright, it is important to actually USE AND PROTECT said copyright.
As Mustawd said, that is about trademark. You have to apply for trademark and you will lose it if you don't use it.
Copyright appears out of nowhere automatically, as soon as you do creative work, and it expires X years after the death of the creator (Disney keeps bribing congress to enlarge X, in order to extend the Mickey Mouse copyright, because Walt Disney has been dead for so long).
In Germany you cannot transfer copyright, i.e. you could not even sell it to someone else, if you wanted to. In the U.S. you can transfer copyright.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom