Page 5 of 31

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:22 am
by krulle
Frogboy wrote:So just say the word and I'll go.
Please do not.
I like your input.
It also prevents me from guessing too much and too wild.
And I want to prevent to live in a filtered bubble.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:19 pm
by Quasispatial
If you ask me, I'd say this whole debate springs from the question of whether or not Atari still had the right to sell the Star Control games, back when they owned the IP. If they did, that means that they inherited it from Accolade, and under Stardock's terms of purchase, that would mean that Stardock, in turn, also has the right to sell those games. If Atari did not have the right to do so, on the other hand, then Stardock could by no means have it either. I believe that whereas Stardock thinks the former scenario is the correct one, Fred & Paul appears to believe in the latter. The entire conflict is by no means a product of either party doing something wrong, as much as it is the result of this misunderstanding.

Am I wrong?

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:52 pm
by vancho1
Posting as guest because I can't be bothered to find my old account (if I even had one).

In my opinion, both sides are acting rather childishly. As Quasispatial said, the main dispute is over who has the rights to sell the old DOS star control games. Stardock says that the agreement with Accolade transferred over to Atari and then to Stardock, and that gives Stardock rights to sell the old games. Meanwhile, Fred and Paul say that the agreement ended and that Stardock only owns the trademark. In my mind, the solution is simple. Brad has already said that these old games don't make a lot of money in the first place, so Stardock should just offer to vacate its distribution rights on the old games in exchange for Fred and Paul signing an agreement that Ghosts of the Precursors has nothing to do with Stardock. That in my mind is a win-win situation, and avoids the whole mess.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:59 pm
by Frogboy
vancho1 wrote:Posting as guest because I can't be bothered to find my old account (if I even had one).

In my opinion, both sides are acting rather childishly. As Quasispatial said, the main dispute is over who has the rights to sell the old DOS star control games. Stardock says that the agreement with Accolade transferred over to Atari and then to Stardock, and that gives Stardock rights to sell the old games. Meanwhile, Fred and Paul say that the agreement ended and that Stardock only owns the trademark. In my mind, the solution is simple. Brad has already said that these old games don't make a lot of money in the first place, so Stardock should just offer to vacate its distribution rights on the old games in exchange for Fred and Paul signing an agreement that Ghosts of the Precursors has nothing to do with Stardock. That in my mind is a win-win situation, and avoids the whole mess.
That is quite literally something we would have accepted.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:11 am
by Angelfish
I've not been on the boards for a few weeks so I'm only commenting from the sideline:

Fred and Paul, stop acting like a bunch of kids with whiny 'but he did, but he said', blogposts. You are adults and should have the lawyers figure it out.
Stardock, I believe the same goes for you.
Stop flinging mud at eachother. Delete all whiny blogposts and official statements. It makes you look really bad and unprofessional.

Really, you're getting all riled up about copyright law of a game that was brought out decades ago and then sold and sold and sold? That's complicated, even for lawyers, and you're pointing fingers about it like a mad Orz being asked about the Androsynth. Copyright law is orzese and you're the ones asking about the androsynth, and now shit is dancing and you're looking really bad for it. So stop whining, let the lawyers figure stuff out, and just work on your games.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:09 pm
by Bleeding Star
Drama! In our own tiny corner of the internet. I'm not sure I'm a fan.
Mormont wrote:F&P have been strongly convinced for a long time that they fully own Star Control 1/2 and have rights to all future products in the universe (including non-game), with the exception of the name "Star Control." This is something they've believed since sometime in the first half of the 00s and not a new thing they came up with to needle Stardock or start a fight. I'm sure they have consulted with lawyers about it in the past long before Stardock became associated with SC.
That has long been my understanding, based on what Fred and Paul have said. Not a lawyer and all, but the IP situation does indeed seem to be pretty confusing.
Frogboy wrote: That is quite literally something we would have accepted.
Do it then. Gesture of good will or whatever.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:58 pm
by 2-23-6
Man, I go away for a bit and look what happens.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:44 pm
by Angelfish
2-23-6 wrote:Man, I go away for a bit and look what happens.
Fred and Paul going into berserk mode because of a law nobody understands, yes that's new.
They used to be above all questions in my head, and now they degraded into sour copyright trolls :)

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:03 pm
by Death 999
Well, that's not fair. A proper rights troll would not have created the work in the first place.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:55 pm
by krulle
[Me thinks AngelFish was being sarcastic]

Indeed. Having made the content, transferring some rights to a large company, AND expecting to have any rights left?
Unheard of!