The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 09, 2019, 12:34:55 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Stardock Litigation Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 45 Print
Author Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion  (Read 53613 times)
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #120 on: August 14, 2018, 03:06:23 am »

@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 Offline

Posts: 3



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #121 on: August 14, 2018, 03:19:58 am »

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 Offline

Posts: 1



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #122 on: August 14, 2018, 03:23:47 am »



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 Offline

Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #123 on: August 14, 2018, 03:27:13 am »


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 Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #124 on: August 14, 2018, 03:27:27 am »

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
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #125 on: August 14, 2018, 03:30:41 am »

@Elestan: It's not up to me to prove you wrong.

It is when you assert that "the law is pretty clear on this", and that my words "demonstrate a lack of understanding".  Having made those assertions, you bear the burden of supporting them.

Quote
You know very well I'm not going to litigate an ongoing legal dispute on a forum.

Then bluntly, you should stop participating.  It is not fair to assert your positions, and then claim immunity from the need to back them up.  All you're doing is wasting peoples' time, including your own.

Quote
You guys tried to suggest that Stardock is infringing on copyrights.

I made no such suggestion.  Please confine your request to the people who did.

FYI, I am not an employee, agent or representative of Starock, or have any other tangential relationship to Stardock.

I have but one question:  Are you an individual who has been previously banned from this forum under another handle?
Logged
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #126 on: August 14, 2018, 03:43:22 am »

I just can't believe a supposedly neutral forum...

I don't believe that this forum ever claimed to be neutral.  Paul and Fred founded this community by contributing the game.  Stardock filed to trademark our name, and has requested an injunction that could be used to shut the forum and project down; I think it's safe to say that most people here have good reason to be rather miffed at it.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 04:58:30 am by Elestan » Logged
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2018, 03:46:40 am »

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.  
Nearly every single academic institution in the entire world agrees climate change exists, but that doesn't stop millions of people from choosing to believe the contrary and say that it doesn't, so even a citizen's defiance of actual facts that negatively affects other people doesn't even constitute a claim. All your random opinions are just as opinionated as anyone else's opinions, you're not above that.
Logged
SCFan
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2018, 03:48:16 am »

I have but one question:  Are you an individual who has been previously banned from this forum under another handle?

I have high confidence you know which prior handle was mine.

Rosepetals most recent posts aren't the only posts that have blatantly flaunted the supposed one-strike rules that resulted in Death 999 kicking my prior handle, and rosepetals posts and all of the posts like it are clear proof that the moderation of this forum is beyond biased. Rosepetal is posting factual allegations and refusing to substantiate them after being called out, by this forums apparently rules.. rosepetal should be banned.

Elestan, if you actually care about UQM, I'd reflect on how this kind of discussion may impact the community's future. Using this community forum to level unsubstantiated legal allegations against a company with at least a colorable claim to the IP underlying the game this community was built upon is dangerous ground. Personally, I think you are a shill and only care about Paul and Fred's interests. I care about Star Control.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 03:51:14 am by SCFan » Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2018, 03:48:35 am »

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 are just similar art, you would be able to get away with it and even probably people who overall side with F&P exclusively wouldn't have an issue with it, but both together is very easy to construe as an infringement on F&P's copyrighted content through derivative works.

So there you go.

You think copyrights cover names.  They don't. That's trademark.

So go ahead and post here an image of the Arilou as shown in SC2 and one in SCO and explain the latter is a copy of the former.  

Stardock's Arilou:


Fan version of Arilou derivative:


To be sure, the Arilou shown below is one made by fans so fans do understand what an Arilou, as expressed in SC2, looks like.  

No reasonable person is going to suggest that the SCO Arilou was derived from the SC2 Arilou.

But most Star Control fans will be happy to see the Star Control aliens, including the Arilou in new Star Control games.


Logged
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2018, 03:54:33 am »


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
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2018, 03:56:26 am »

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 all together constitutes copyright infringement as a derivative of Fred & Paul's copyrighted characters, you made all four mistakes at once when you could have easily gotten away with 3 out of 4.

I just wanted to make sure your argument was made clear for lurkers to read.  I don't want to add anything else to it.
Logged
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2018, 03:58:51 am »


I just wanted to make sure your argument was made clear for lurkers to read.  I don't want to add anything else to it.
Fair enough, but you could have respectfully asked me to just state clearly what my position is in the beginning and I would have had no problem laying it out.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 04:04:46 am by CommanderShepard » Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2018, 04:05:59 am »

Quote
Fair enough, but you could have respectfully asked me to just state clearly what my position in the beginning and I would have had no problem laying it out.

I think it was important that lurkers see that you explicilty believe that copyrights are trademarks and that you believe that the two images are substantially similar.  Otherwise, people might really believe I am "Straw manning" your position.

When someone asks what Paul and Fred's fans are mad about and what rights they think they have, I can point them to your post and they can decide for themselves about how reasonable that position is.
Logged
CommanderShepard
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111



View Profile
Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion
« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2018, 08:16:40 am »

Quote
Fair enough, but you could have respectfully asked me to just state clearly what my position in the beginning and I would have had no problem laying it out.

I think it was important that lurkers see that you explicilty believe that copyrights are trademarks and that you believe that the two images are substantially similar.  Otherwise, people might really believe I am "Straw manning" your position.

When someone asks what Paul and Fred's fans are mad about and what rights they think they have, I can point them to your post and they can decide for themselves about how reasonable that position is.

But instead of being manipulative you could have just explained that. You could have said "I think it's important for the public understanding for you to clearly illustrate what you think is protected under their copyright" which is already beside that I asked myself and then determined how reasonable it is.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 45 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!