Author
|
Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion (Read 130540 times)
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 231
|
@Elestan:
It's not up to me to prove you wrong. I'm not the one making assertions of wrong-doing. Rosepatel was. You know very well I'm not going to litigate an ongoing legal dispute on a forum.
You guys tried to suggest that Stardock is infringing on copyrights. Well then, have at it. Let's see the infringement. Post it here. Let the lurkers see what the hub-bub is about. Show an example of copyright infringement in Star Control: Origins.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SCFan
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 3
|
FYI, I am not an employee, agent or representative of Starock, or have any other tangential relationship to Stardock. Anything I post is my thoughts as an individual who is at most invested via interest in seeing a new Star Control game and my personal beliefs on who is the aggrieved party in this dispute.
I just can't believe a supposedly neutral forum that has banned posters for making accusations against pro-Fred and Paul posters is allowing posters aligned with Paul and Fred to make clearly libelous statements against another poster while refusing to provide proof. This forum has banned posters for one strike of this rule if they didn't withdrawal the statement and yet rosepatel is allowed to repeat his same unsubstantiated claim repeatedly while refusing to substantiate it when challenged?
If I were the moderator of this forum, I'd consider whether it was good for the future of this community to allow posters to make unsubstantiated, libelous claims against another poster who has a colorable claim to ownership of at least a portion of the IP governing the game this forum was created to discuss. That doesn't seem to be a good idea if your goal is to further the continued future of this community... and it *definitely* is clear bias in your handling of the supposed forum rules.
A FORUM WITH ONE MODERATOR CAN FALL BEHIND IN MODERATION FOR ONE DAY. ALSO, YOU WERE WARNED, OPENLY AND IN PRIVATE. - D999
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 01:37:56 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
xvzinjvx
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 1
|
It's a fool's errand. Especially when there's multiple forum posts from the CEO saying they're trying to copy without triggering Copyright law. That's like saying you're going to jump on a neighbor's lawn so fast that you can't be caught trespassing, or you're only going to take a few grains of rice so nobody can tell you're stealing. It would work a lot better if you didn't say out loud that's what you're trying to do.
Where is the moderator? Why is this poster being allowed to potentially libel other posters without providing evidence? I thought this rule went both ways, Death999? rosepatel literally accused Frogboy, another poster, of having stolen something and Frogboy has asked rosepatel to substantiate that statement and rosepatel is unable to do so yet has not withdrawn the statement. I think it is clear the moderation of this forum is biased. Glad to have that fact confirmed.
The irony of a newly registered account using a generic name calling the moderator and forum biased as their first post was such that i had to get off my lurker hole and mention how Frogboy has insinuated P&F created fake puppet accounts. Glad to have SCFan confirm that they is such a shill that they need to hide behind a generic name.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
Where is the moderator? Why is this poster being allowed to potentially libel other posters without providing evidence? I thought this rule went both ways, Death999?
Libel is a very specific term with very specific regulations that has little to no legal enforcement on some random internet forum. A judge might literally laugh at you if you tried to file anything for it. The fact that you only created your account today and that you're using a similar fringe term as Frogboy and are inexplicably only in support of Stardock suggests something suspicious.
The evidence of such is already public knowledge. Firstly, there's the artwork that Stardock itself has publicly released along with the beta test of the game, then, there's the claims and visual evidence within the claims showing your own
Let's see the evidence then. You guys really like to make allegations but always slink away when asked to back it up. So post it. Show the copyright infringement. Should be easy if it's publicly released.
Here you go https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/store It even uses the full term "Arilou Lalee'lay" and then mentions in the story itself that the Chenjesu are crystalline and come from a crystalline world. If you had only used just the names, or, only just similar art, you would probably be able to get away with it and even probably people who overall side with F&P exclusively wouldn't have much of an issue with it, but both together is very easy to construe as an infringement on F&P's copyrighted content through derivative works.
I just can't believe a supposedly neutral forum that has banned posters for making accusations against pro-Fred and Paul posters is allowing posters aligned with Paul and Fred to make clearly libelous statements against another poster while refusing to provide proof. This forum has banned posters for one strike of this rule if they didn't withdrawal the statement and yet rosepatel is allowed to repeat his same unsubstantiated claim repeatedly while refusing to substantiate it when challenged?
I don't see any basis to suggests people are banned for only making pro-Stardock statements, I made plenty myself that are still perfectly visible, and I even told F&P myself that I thought some of Stardock's points were fair, which Frogboy would get to see if he manages to subpoena F&P. Secondly, Death999 isn't here to micromanage everyone's opinions with their own opinion, people are allowed to have discussions, they only interfere if someone is acting toxic.
Actually, it was the 'providing proof of a serious accusation when such proof should be readily available' part. SVS was banned for making an accusation against Elestan about what Elestan had said right in that thread, being told to find an example, being warned to fix it as top priority before posting again, and ignoring that. - D999
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 01:52:01 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
To be fair, like you, most of the rabid anti-Stardock people are new to the forum.
For many years, this has been a pretty wonderful community that required little moderation. It's only been an issue since the start of this year when the forum got a bunch of people who seem to not really care about UQM but instead want to argue about the dispute.
I don't know if Death should or shouldn't be moderating allegations unto themselves. But now that Rose and the like have been called out to demonstrate their allegations, my opinion is that they need to back up their allegations or they should cease and desist on making them.
If Star Control: Origins is infringing, even in the slightest, on someone's copyright, then we want to know about it. And since at least 2 people here claim that such infringement is obvious, public and easily obtained they should have no problem supply an example that exists in the game today. Because accusing a someone of criminal activity, which is what a copyright violation is, is a pretty serious allegation. It should not be made lightly.
I look forward to seeing Rosepatel and Cmdshep post the material they consider to be an infringement of copyrighted material. I am sure many lurkers would like to see what Paul and Fred fans believe falls under whatever copyrights they think they have. I'll even help them and repost their evidence in the Stardock community channels so that others can see Stardock's dastardly deeds.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 111
|
You think copyrights cover names. They don't. That's trademark.
And again I refer you to the concept of a "strawman", seen conveniently explained here on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. I don't think stated I support the notion that copyrights cover strictly names, and I've even been consistently in support of suggesting Stardock owns the trademark to "Star Control." Copyrights however, do cover characters and derivatives of those characters.
The images as you present them, in conjunction with the names, also in conjunction with the project being in the same industry, also in conjunction with similar use altogether strongly constitutes copyright infringement as a derivative of Fred & Paul's copyrighted characters, Starock made all four attempts at once when it could have easily gotten away with 3 out of 4. But, by moving forward with the names, you have made your own claims weaker because now it's even easier to construe that those images are derivative of F&P's characters and is quick to draw attention to any random similarity someone might suggest.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 04:03:39 am by CommanderShepard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
