Inserting sources is a bit of a hassleon this device.
So please excuse the lack in most cases....
[url=https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred]Q&A regarding SC and PR and FF[/url], Stardock forums wrote:
Q: What are the issues in dispute?
A: Paul and Fred have been promoting their new game, Ghosts of the Precursors as an official sequel to Star Control. This creates confusion in the market as to the origin of Star Control games which is why we have trademark laws.
In retaliation, Paul and Fred began objecting to the sale of the DOS games being sold online, despite the fact that they’ve been for sale online since before we acquired Star Control from Atari. Their contention is that the licensing agreement for their characters and lore has expired thus terminating the right to sell and distribute the old DOS games.
They objected to the distribution on Steam, which had been initiated by Stardock without permission from FF and PR.
Source=https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/b ... e-how-come
They only objected to GoG afterwards, becuase that way GoG would have to terminate the Stardock agreement as well, thus the games would not be for sale anywhere.
My take: usual steps. Someone starts redistributing your work? You make damned sure you get payed, and they get to know you know that they seem to be cheating you.
I've only seen Stardocks assertion that Ff and PR get royalities. With GoG they did get it directly from GoG. With steam that would not have happened. All the money would've gone through Stardock.
Also, having all distribution paths down helps in finding one new contract valid for all paths.
Also, FF and PR always used the terminology "direct sequel", instead of "official sequel".
Minor difference in wording, but with quite some content difference...
source: https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/b ... h-fighters
I'll leave the interpretation of the meaning of the differnce up to judges. Beacause it may depend from case to case...
Well, if the games are sold in a package, you take the whole package down when you file DMCA notices against a part of it...
[url=https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred]Q&A regarding SC and PR and FF[/url], Stardock forums wrote:Q: Why is this happening now? [UPDATE]
A: We don't know. The order of events is as follows:
16. Stardock's attorneys file a suit against Paul and Fred for trademark infringement and other causes of action. (December)
17. Paul and Fred's attorney requests multiple time extensions to respond, use that time to secretly do press interviews, hire a PR firm. (2018)
18. Paul and Fred's attorney files a lawsuit against Stardock alleging copyright infringement and other causes of action. (Feburary).
19. Paul and Fred's PR firm releases a press release to the wire services accusing Stardock's CEO, Brad Wardell, of copyright theft despite not being a party to the suit.
Point 17 is entirely unproven, and 3months to reply including the Christmas perios, does seem rather usual and not excessive, IMHO...
And a CEO of a company suing someone is, IMHO, always directly a party. Nothing in that company can be done without at least implicit approval of the CEO.
Point 17 was what really upset me in this list...
Anyway, so far mainly a public listing of what happened, but does not help the case of Stardock, IMHO.
BTW, if FF and PR are not the copyright holders, but each contributing member is, I want to se Stardocks permissions from all the other Copyright creators that they agree to a new redistribution by Stardock.
And while it may have been unhandy by Reiche and Ford to not have objected to the content of the mail in exhibit E, 16 October 2013, it is not implicit that a lack of objection leads to agreement with the content of the mail. This seems like a push of the boundary too. A defense along the lines of "But we honestly thought we alone had the right to, and would not need anybodies permission to do so. We even said so to the other party, and they did implicitly agree!".
The way I read it, having the hindsight knowledge of the complaint, it feels to me like a set up step by step.I became much more wary of Stardock through the complaint and the exhibits.
And Stardock "documenting" the creation of StarControl, while not having been involved back then, and likely not having much more than the licensing agreement between Atari and FF/PR is... interesting..... They do not know the agreements between the "designers" and the content creators" (graphic artists, musicians)....
I'm pretty sure FF, PR are trying to collect some feedback from back then..