DMCA Claim Results in Star Control: Origins Being Pulled From Steam and GOG

[ironwolf]

If you can handle lots and lots of legal talk, Leonard French over on YT has some great videos (including some from well into last year) about this topic. He put up a new one the other day, strongly suggest everyone watch it. If you are pro-Stardock you might not like the results of the recent filing.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No, they do not. The only thing they have is royalty payments in regards to the original SC1/2 design, that's it.

What evidence do you have to support that statement? To me, it seems like all their doing is protecting their interests in the assets in question.

As a sign of good faith to Ford and Reiche.

Which directly implies that Stardock might believe that there is validity to the claims being made.
EDIT; RE: the above video with contains the court documents. Looks like the take down was a part of the DMCA claim made by Reiche and Ford.

Stardock has no contract with Ford and Reiche other than royalty payment obligation. Accolade owned the games which transferred to Infrogrames, which transferred to Atari, which transferred to Stardock. Ford and Reiche have no paper trail saying they own anything other than the IP for SC1/2. Stardock has paperwork saying they own everything excluding that.

However, if they never released their interest in the games through the sequence of ownership transitions, their claims could very well be valid and Stardock might be, even if unintentionally, violating the rights in question.

An ice cube's chance in hell. Ford and Reiche are basically trying to slander, smear, and extort Stardock.

That is an assumption that only the court can rule on. We do not have all the information available to conclude such.

 

[Deleted member 158293]

Well the Humble Store still has Origins for sale, and has a promotion discount as part of the Stardock 2019 Humble Bundle. (Which include my all time favorite games)

 

[Vayra86]

Ford and Reiche state that this is their right as the original agreement expired with copyright and everything else reverting to Reiche.

They literally stated 'their academic rights'.... lol

They know they haven't got anything and they're quite simply trolling, all I smell is two huge narcissistic assholes and an opponent who is pretty much impervious to it. Their plan backfired, they baited and all they got was kindness, and from that point onwards you can see their tone of voice deteriorating with every following email. Its hilarious to read.

That is an assumption that only the court can rule on. We do not have all the information available to conclude such.

Go read the sources in the OP

 

[londiste]

If you can handle lots and lots of legal talk, Leonard French over on YT has some great videos (including some from well into last year) about this topic. He put up a new one the other day, strongly suggest everyone watch it. If you are pro-Stardock you might not like the results of the recent filing.

What Stardock wanted is kind of stupid but the court opinion sounds fun as well - DMCA notice does not require the removal of allegedly infringement material but is merely a notice and incentivized removal
They are right though, this is issue with congress not the court

 

[lexluthermiester]

If you can handle lots and lots of legal talk, Leonard French over on YT has some great videos (including some from well into last year) about this topic. He put up a new one the other day, strongly suggest everyone watch it. If you are pro-Stardock you might not like the results of the recent filing.

As was mention earlier this is far more complex a matter than originally presented. Based on the documents from the court, Reiche and Ford might have the rights they claim.

EDIT; Given the documentation thus far and developments, I have to retract the opinion offered earlier. Stardock seems to have made a few mistakes and are likely to lose this battle. The court seemingly took the evidence offered by Stardock with a raised eyebrow and rejected it.

 

[bug]

I have a special place in my heart for Stardock. But for this game, sadly, spot on.

I used to have a special place for them, too, but since Brad ran Demigod and then Elemental into the ground, I started having my doubts. And since they threw in the towel on DRM-free and went Steam, they've definitely become just another developer. I still rate them miles better than EA, Ubi and the bunch, they're just not what made them special anymore.

What? The game is actually pretty good.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-control-origins
No, it isn't. Just look what rating it has from users (i.e. those that don't need to suck up to the publishers to get more titles to review).
It could be enjoyable for some (many?), but it's clear it's no Star Control of the past.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If you can handle lots and lots of legal talk, Leonard French over on YT has some great videos (including some from well into last year) about this topic. He put up a new one the other day, strongly suggest everyone watch it. If you are pro-Stardock you might not like the results of the recent filing.

TL;DW: Reiche and Ford basically orchestrated DMCA abuse against Stardock. The games are now off of GOG and Steam because Reiche and Ford sent them DMCA takedown requests. Injunction was denied because DMCA provides no mechanism for the allegedly infringing content to remain available.

TL;DR: Star Control Origins is not going to be on sale again until the overarching case is litigated. It's going to court.

What evidence do you have to support that statement? To me, it seems like all their doing is protecting their interests in the assets in question.

Wardell's statements on what they acquired from Atari.

Well the Humble Store still has Origins for sale, and has a promotion discount as part of the Stardock 2019 Humble Bundle. (Which include my all time favorite games)

Until Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown request to Humble Store, that is.

What Stardock wanted is kind of stupid but the court opinion sounds fun as well - DMCA notice does not require the removal of allegedly infringement material but is merely a notice and incentivized removal
They are right though, this is issue with congress not the court

If a distributor gets a DMCA notice, they take it down because if they refuse, then they potentially subject themselves to litigation, which they really don't want. Stardock tried to reverse the DMCA takedown and failed, because the law doesn't permit exceptions. Stardock is going to have to prove that Origins has no infringing content so the DMCA takedown is overridden and stated in decision that Reiche and Ford cannot submit future DMCA takedown requests on it. This could take years though. Star Control may be effectively killed off because of this fiasco.

 

[lexluthermiester]

TL;DW: Reiche and Ford basically orchestrated DMCA abuse against Stardock.

They did not. The courts ruled very clearly that Reiche and Ford are only acting to protect their interests, not use the DMCA in a malicious way.

Wardell's statements on what they acquired from Atari.

That is only one side of the story and is a very biased. Wardell is acting to protect Stardock's interests. However, the evidence seems to support that Wardell/Stardock misunderstood what rights it has or directly disregarded the rights of Reiche and Ford.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As was mention earlier this is far more complex a matter than originally presented. Based on the documents from the court, Reiche and Ford might have the rights they claim.

Yes, Reiche and Ford open-sourced Star Control II in 2001 is a fact I did not know before. Reiche and Ford also apparently hold registered copyrights for Star Control I and II.

They did not. The courts ruled very clearly that Reiche and Ford are only acting to protect their interests, not use the DMCA in a malicious way.

Negative. The court ruled that Stardock can't stop the DMCA takedown until the larger matter of copyright has been litigated or settled.

That is only one side of the story and is a very biased. Wardell is acting to protect Stardock's interests. However, the evidence seems to support that Wardell/Stardock misunderstood what rights is has or directly disreguarded the rights of Reiche and Ford.

That may be the case that Atari mislead Wardell in what he was buying. What is clear is that there will be no quick resolution to this matter.


Edit: I don't know that anyone ever got an relief against DCMA takedowns.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yes, Reiche and Ford open-sourced Star Control II in 2001 is a fact I did not know before. Reiche and Ford also apparently hold registered copyrights for Star Control I and II.

All while not giving up ultimate control of such. And the copyright also seems to have some portions of Star Control 3.

Negative. The court ruled that Stardock can't stop the DMCA takedown until the larger matter of copyright has been litigated or settled.

That's a bit semantics, but the result is the same.

That may be the case that Atari mislead Wardell in what he was buying. What is clear is that there will be no quick resolution to this matter.

Agreed on both points. Seems clear to me that Stardock did not understand, either fully or partly, what they had rights too and that there has been a ton of confusion concerning the details of such. Said confusion seems to be only on the part of Stardock/Wardell as Reiche and Ford seemingly knew exactly what they own and have rights to. Thus far there doesn't seem to be any direct malice or bad faith on the part of either party, just a ton of misunderstandings and confusion, which that court seems fully able to sort out.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Thus far there doesn't seem to be any direct malice or bad faith on the part of either party, just a ton of misunderstandings and confusion, which that court seems fully able to sort out.

Reiche clearly strung Wardell along for four years because Reiche didn't know what Wardell bought and Wardell didn't know Reiche considered the 1988 agreement void in 2001.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Reiche clearly strung Wardell along for four years because Reiche didn't know what Wardell bought and Wardell didn't know Reiche considered the 1988 agreement void in 2001.

That does not mean there was any bad faith on either party's part. Only confusion that needs clarity. I think this is one of those times where the involvement of the court is actually a good thing for both sets of parties and will bring definition to particulars that need it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

After a lot of digging and discussion, I think there's two ways this will land:
1) Court enforces the original agreement between Accolade, Reiche, and Ford: Stardock has nothing.
2) Court enforces the fact that Reiche did not legally challenge Atari back in 2013 so the bankruptcy documents are enforced: Stardock has what it claims to have (Star Control trademark, Star Control III copyright).


Page 81...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html

 

[bug]

After a lot of digging and discussion, I think there's two ways this will land:
1) Court enforces the original agreement between Accolade, Reiche, and Ford: Stardock has nothing.
2) Court enforces the fact that Reiche did not legally challenge Atari back in 2013: Stardock has what it claims to have (trademark, publishing rights, and Star Control III)


Page 67...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html

I believe those outcomes can be expected without digging into anything

 

[lexluthermiester]

2) Court enforces the fact that Reiche did not legally challenge Atari back in 2013: Stardock has what it claims to have (trademark, publishing rights, and Star Control III)

In that situation, ignorance is an excuse as it was Atari's responsibility and obligation to inform all interested parties of the sale and conditions of same then offering rights of first refusal to those interested parties. If that was not done, Reiche & Ford have valid claims.

EDIT: forgot a couple of key words.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's absolutely no way Reiche wasn't aware of Atari filing for bankruptcy in January 2013 and that Star Control was named as part of the sale in July of 2013. Wardell was in contact with Reiche back in 2013 too. Stardock and Atari can't be blamed for Reiche's ignorance. The sale happened. It's in writing. Stardock has the trademark and Star Control III copyright.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There's absolutely no way Reiche wasn't aware of Atari filing for bankruptcy in January 2013 and that Star Control was named as part of the sale in July of 2013.

Can that be proven? Reiche may have believed that because of the 2001 cancellation that those rights reverted back to Reiche & Ford. Again, this is what the court will have to determine.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Unless you're prepared to question the integrity of a judge, yes:

 

[lexluthermiester]

Unless you're prepared to question the integrity of a judge, yes

Not the integrity, just how well informed that court was. In such a complicated case and with the Star Control IP having been unused for a number of years, it's possible to overlook or be unaware of such an oversight especially if Atari's counsel was misinformed. Those parts of the notification do not nullify the rights of Reiche & Ford, nor nullify liabilities of Stardock as new possessor of the IP.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...just how well informed that court was. In such a complicated case and with the Star Control IP having been unused for a number of years, it's possible to overlook or be unaware of such an oversight especially if Atari's counsel was misinformed.

Obviously didn't read it.

Those parts of the notification do not nullify the rights of Reiche & Ford, nor nullify liabilities of Stardock as new possessor of the IP.

It nullifies any claim Reiche/Ford had on the Star Control trademark and Star Control III copyright. They have been Stardock's since July 2013.

The Star Control trademark is still registered to Stardock:

Word Mark: STAR CONTROL
Goods and Services: IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: computer game software, and manuals supplied as a unit therewith. FIRST USE: 19890314. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19890314
Mark Drawing Code: (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number: 75095591
Filing Date: April 29, 1996
Current Basis: 1A
Original Filing Basis: 1A
Published for Opposition: December 24, 1996
Registration Number: 2046036
Registration Date: March 18, 1997
Owner:
(REGISTRANT) Accolade, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 5300 Stevens Creek Blvd. San Jose CALIFORNIA 95129
(LAST LISTED OWNER) STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC CORPORATION MICHIGAN 15090 BECK ROAD PLYMOUTH MICHIGAN 48170
Assignment Recorded: ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record: GARY PERLMUTER
Type of Mark: TRADEMARK
Register: PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text: SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20160609.
Renewal: 2ND RENEWAL 20160609
Live/Dead Indicator: LIVE

 

[Patriot]

DMCA provides no mechanism for the allegedly infringing content to remain available.

And it is limited in scope... aka, they didn't send a takedown to humble bundles.

Well the Humble Store still has Origins for sale, and has a promotion discount as part of the Stardock 2019 Humble Bundle. (Which include my all time favorite games)

Seems fairly clear to me that this is frivolous... if they really did have a leg to stand on...they would have refused royalty payments.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Obviously didn't read it.

Sure did. Maybe you don't understand how that works..

It nullifies any claim Reiche/Ford had on the Star Control trademark and Star Control III copyright. They have been Stardock's since July 2013.

Never does that happen. Reiche/Ford were not a part of the bankruptcy. They seeming were not directly informed of the sale(required by law) which they had interest in. As a result, it is very possible that due to that procedural mistake, everything Reiche/Ford had interest in reverts by default back to them, regardless of the bankruptcy court judge ruling. Bankruptcy court rulings have and do get over-ruled in situations like this.

The Star Control trademark is still registered to Stardock

True, but they might not own it and it is possible they could lose it and be required to surrender it back to Reiche/Ford. Procedural mistakes are the fault of the bankruptcy court, Atari's legal counsel and Stardock's legal counsel, not Reiche/Ford. It is possible that Stardock may have to eat it on this one.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sure did.

No, you didn't, evidenced by this statement:

Reiche/Ford were not a part of the bankruptcy.

I quote:

...such notice was good, sufficient, reasonable, and appropriate under the particular circumstances of these chapter 11 cases, and reasonably calculated to reach and apprise all holders of liens, claims, encumbrances, and other interests, including, without limitation, any holder asserting any rights or claims based on any taxes or successor or transferee liability, about the Noticed Items...

Reiche and Ford legally had to be contacted and they declined to bid and they didn't challenge Atari's right to sell.

...everything Reiche/Ford had interest in reverts by default back to them, regardless of the bankruptcy court judge ruling.

That would be a violation of the 5th amendment. The bankruptcy filing is due process. Reiche and Ford, by failing to make their voice heard, forfeit their claims over the properties sold.

Procedural mistakes are the fault of the bankruptcy court, Atari's legal counsel and Stardock's legal counsel, not Reiche/Ford.

The court operates on the information has available to it. It was Reiche and Ford's responsibility to present their contract declaring that they have first right to purchase the trademark. They did not, ergo, the bankruptcy terms apply: Reiche and Ford forfeit all claims to it.


Reiche and Ford would likely have to sue Atari making the claim that the trademark was stolen property. A ruling against Atari is the only way Stardock would lose it. I don't think Reiche and Ford have any chance of winning that case against Atari because Accolade -> Atari always owned it. It was never held by nor transferred to Reiche and Ford. If Reiche and Ford never had it, how can they claim it was stolen? The contract's terms were never executed. It was Reiche and Ford's duty to dispute that, and they didn't, until now. Statute of limitations. Reiche and Ford have nothing on the trademark and Star Control III but they still do have potential copyright claims they can make against Star Control: Origins. The burden is on Reiche and Ford to make their case that Star Control: Origins violates their copyrights.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Reiche and Ford legally had to be contacted and they declined to bid and they didn't challenge Atari's right to sell.

Where was that? I did not see any documentation showing direct notification, refusal or any contact whatsoever between counsel for Atari and/or that of the court and Reiche/Ford.

That would be a violation of the 5th amendment.

Your understanding of the 5th Amendment seems to be flawed. Read; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
You seem to imply that proper due process took place, but there's no evidence of that. Reiche and Ford seemingly did not receive proper due process either due to a procedural mistake or misunderstanding on Atari's part as to the fact they needed to contact Reiche and Ford.

The court operates on the information has available to it.

Correct. That does not mean that upon a discovery of a mistake that said courts judgment can not be over-ruled.

It was Reiche and Ford's responsibility to present their contract declaring that they have first right to purchase the trademark.

So long as they were properly informed, yes. Doesn't seem like they were though as there is no documentation, or mention of documentation, indicating the effort of proper contact or any following correspondence.

They did not, ergo, the bankruptcy terms apply: Reiche and Ford forfeit all claims to it.

The evidence(lack thereof) does not support that statement.

Reiche and Ford would likely have to sue Atari

Except that Atari is not the responsible party to Reiche/Ford. As direct result of the sale, Stardock accepted and assumed all rights and responsibilities for the assets in question, including litigation that may stem concerning it. Reiche/Ford are pursuing the correct party. If Stardock loses, then they can go after Atari for improperly representing the properties being sold through the bankruptcy. That is the proper procedure.

Statute of limitations.

Statues of limitation are not as concrete as that. If a mistake was made in procedures and the rights of Reiche/Ford were violated in the process, any statues of limitations can easy be, and often are, set aside.

but they still do have potential copyright claims they can make against Star Control: Origins.

Correct.

The burden is on Reiche and Ford to make their case that Star Control: Origins violates their copyrights.

Given Wardell's public statements and the release of the game which seems to contain elements of IP owned by Reiche/Ford, Stardock is in hot water. The fact that a court order has already admonished Stardock of improper behavior, it seems entirely likely that this case is not going to go in their favor.