Author
|
Topic: My take on Stardock (Read 197050 times)
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 111
|
If Stardock wants to shut the UQM forum down because it has started hostile action then it will do so, regardless of your "free speech".
First of all, I'm pretty sure Stardock is a U.S. based company. Secondly, they absolutely do not have the right to spontaneously take down a website that voices any kind of opinion about them. They can request a cease and desist if they think any of the site's content infringes on their intellectual rights, and the only thing that would possibly do that is p6014, but they can't arbitrarily take away content and websites. If they could, they wouldn't even be in a legal dispute with Fred and Paul.
So moving on, it wasn't hard to find Activision's Skylanders forums here https://community.activision.com/t5/Skylanders/ct-p/skylanders-forums
These can be scoped out to get a sense for how strong Skylander's fan base is, how much they like Toys for Bob. Since these fans are already interested in a sci-fi game, if it's enough, we can beseech that community about fundraising the legal defense fund, so that's one step.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 01:04:15 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
If Stardock wants to shut the UQM forum down because it has started hostile action then it will do so, regardless of your "free speech".
First of all, I'm pretty sure Stardock is a U.S. based company. Secondly, they absolutely do not have the right to spontaneously take down a website that voices any kind of opinion about them. The company that holds the trademark to the name "The Ur-Quan Masters" can not shut down, at will, a website forum calling itself "The Ur-Quan Masters Forum"... Say that out loud.
I read it and it says "can not," though I don't have any reason to think that code is credible anyway since you haven't shown where you got it from.
But even if it said it could, all that would mean is that the name of the site would have to be changed and that's it. Stardock can't legally hack the servers the site is hosted on and force it to shut down, they can only request that the owner takes the name down, and that's if the name isn't changed in the event that they could request it. Beyond that, they could request that the server host takes the site down if they have more legitimate grounds. I've seen crease and desist letters before, they can't permanently shut down a website at will, they can only ask for content to be removed, such as well, mainly just the banner of this site. Otherwise there's not much else here that can be construed as explicitly representing the UQM franchise.
Take a look at this site here https://www.codforums.com/
Activision is way bigger than these guys, but the fans can still use that name for fan site with the franchise's images as long as it's "codforums" and not explicitly "Call of Duty"
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 01:29:12 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
I don't know about many of you, but actively inciting a review-bomb on this forum should be a bannable offense.
Just to be clear, I in no way condone anyone leaving an untruthful or deceptive review. With that said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people deciding to leave truthful but negative reviews, or advocating for a boycott based on a shared view that Stardock's legal actions are inappropriate (though I would suggest using a different thread for such things). Stardock is actively attacking the IP foundation upon which this community was founded, and we have every right to take whatever legal actions we desire in order to resist or protest against those attacks.
Do you think Stardock would take it kindly if it were to find out a review bomb started right here? Do you think it would just let this forum stick around after being that hostile? Other people in this thread are worried about Stardock shutting UQM down, which Brad far and away does not want to do, so don't become a reason for it. ...before you get this place in some real trouble. If Stardock wants to shut the UQM forum down because it has started hostile action then it will do so, regardless of your "free speech". The company that holds the trademark to the name "The Ur-Quan Masters" can not shut down, at will, a website forum calling itself "The Ur-Quan Masters Forum"...
So, you are clearly indicating that you believe that we should all be so scared of Stardock that we must censor ourselves in order to avoid doing anything to offend them. You can certainly take that position if you like; given your desire for Brad to release SC3, you have more incentive than most to want to keep his favor. But their trademark claim on "The Ur-Quan Masters" has never been proven in court, and until it is, none of us are under any obligation to respect it.
And I am damn sure Serge van den Boom (Admin, Main UQM dev) and the University which hosts UQM wouldn't want the kind of attention that you're dragging in.
I think that it would be best not to presume to speak for Serge.
Speaking only for myself, I find the very idea of a community censoring itself to avoid upsetting a company to be offensive. It was UQM's independence from corporate control that made me such a fan of the project in the first place, and this is why I find Stardock attempting to trademark our name to be so fundamentally repugnant. Brad claims to be a member of this community, but in my opinion, as long as he is attempting to subordinate us to his control, his actions cast him not as a community member, but as an outside aggressor attempting a hostile takeover. Should his trademark claims prevail (which I believe is unlikely unless P&F run out of money), I would be in favor of shutting the project down until we can rename whatever needs to be renamed to get out from under his thumb.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
JHGuitarFreak
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 1374
|
So, you are clearly indicating that you believe that we should all be so scared of Stardock that we must censor ourselves in order to avoid doing anything to offend them. You can certainly take that position if you like; given your desire for Brad to release SC3, you have more incentive than most to want to keep his favor. But their trademark claim on "The Ur-Quan Masters" has never been proven in court, and until it is, none of us are under any obligation to respect it.
I'm more afraid for the future of the forum if it becomes actively hostile.
I love working on the MegaMod as I have been working on the UQM source code for the last 13 years.
My desire for CommanderShepard to simply STFU is a selfish one.
I actually have a very antagonist relationship with Brad and I'm surprised he hasn't booted me from the founders project.
I'm always bitching about something I think the game should or shouldn't be doing and I go to great lengths to make my voice as loud as possible in that context.
I just don't want the forum to turn into a 4chan-type where it basically becomes this base of operations for witchhunts, brigades, and group DDOS attacks.
As for Serosis, every time I see you pop into this thread I think, why? If you don't like discussions of the legal situation, why can't you just ignore this thread?
Because maybe if it were only about the legal talk then I could ignore it.
But no, we got CommanderShepard trying to organize "friendly" review bombs and finding ways to hurt another game because he's butt-hurt over a legal dispute that's not connected to him.
Now there maybe be an answer that goes along the lines of:
but StArDOCk IS PrevENTinG p&F FrOM MakiNg uQm2 aND tHat affecTs me BecausE noW i WoNt Be able to PlaY UqM2.
Which is false. Stardock is preventing P&F from making a game with a name "Ghosts of the Precursors" and are preventing P&F from associating themselves with Stardock's current trademark.
P&F can still go out and make UQM2 as long as they call it anything but "Star Control" and "Ghosts of the Precursors".
They could make "The Ur-Quan Masters II: Spectres of Eons Past" right now and be perfectly fine.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 02:31:04 am by Serosis »
|
Logged
|
The artist once again known as Kohr-Ah Death 213. Get your MegaMod HERE |
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
I just don't want the forum to turn into a 4chan-type where it basically becomes this base of operations for witchhunts, brigades, and group DDOS attacks.
That's reasonable; I would oppose all of those as well, but there's a big difference between a boycott and a DDOS attack (the latter is illegal, for one).
Which is false. Stardock is preventing P&F from making a game with a name "Ghosts of the Precursors" and are preventing P&F from associating themselves with Stardock's current trademark.
P&F can still go out and make UQM2 as long as they call it anything but "Star Control" and "Ghosts of the Precursors".
They could make "The Ur-Quan Masters II: Spectres of Eons Past" right now and be perfectly fine.
You realize that you're missing the same caveat that Brad often omits:
"If any future games come out that continue the UQM story, it will happen under Stardock's supervision or not at all." - Frogboy, April 24, 2018.
If Brad were really willing to drop the trademark infringement claim and concede the unregistered marks in exchange for them dropping the GotP name, I'd tell them to take the deal. But that's not what he's offering. He wants them to give up that name, and concede that he controls all of the other names, including "The Ur-Quan Masters", and that's not even close to reasonable, given all the reasons discussed earlier in this thread why his claim is legally questionable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
I'm more afraid for the future of the forum if it becomes actively hostile. I don't see that anyone is making it hostile, these are all reasonable discussions.
My desire for CommanderShepard to simply STFU is a selfish one. Never mind, you made it hostile for no good reason.
I actually have a very antagonist relationship with Brad and I'm surprised he hasn't booted me from the founders project.
I'm always bitching about something I think the game should or shouldn't be doing and I go to great lengths to make my voice as loud as possible in that context. I've talked with Stardock and they seem open to people expressing different game options, so I don't see why you'd be booted unless you were hostile.
I just don't want the forum to turn into a 4chan-type where it basically becomes this base of operations for witchhunts, brigades, and group DDOS attacks. I don't see that it would be, operations would eventually move to private conversations.
As for Serosis, every time I see you pop into this thread I think, why? If you don't like discussions of the legal situation, why can't you just ignore this thread?
I've gotten some useful information here, but more so from Stardock itself. UQM should be fine.
But no, we got CommanderShepard trying to organize "friendly" review bombs and finding ways to hurt another game because he's butt-hurt over a legal dispute that's not connected to him. It seems like you're forgetting that I didn't make this dispute up, it's Fred and Paul that raised concerns, possibly warranted. I'm inclined to support them if UQM is attacked, but it seems Stardock is only interested in the SC title, not UQM, so these forums are free to retain the UQM title and make a UQM fan version. Given that Fred and Paul have access to UQM, I am wondering why they want to raise a dispute over the SC title, but it could be they don't want conflicting storylines as they've probably spent a lot of time thinking about them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 01:06:18 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
If it were only about the SC title I just spoke with Stardock and they said it's only the SC trademark. I need to double check and make sure, but that's what I was directly told on discord. Unfortunately, I've found that Stardock's representations about the suit tend to be misleading. Take, for example, the link in my earlier post, which is a direct quote from Stardock's CEO and owner. For that matter, if you go to the FAQ, there are links from there to all of the trademark registrations that Stardock has filed for; you can go read those for yourself. If they're telling you it's just about the "Star Control" name, they're not being forthright with you.
It is possible, but I'll double check with others to make sure, I remember that Fred and Paul said Stardock was untruthful about waiting to receive their blessing in a blog post.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 06:52:25 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
