[quote who="tingkagol" reply="100" id="3739904"] P&F must have been so stupid to sign a contract that would effectively bind their IP with the publisher forever- [/quote] No. A contract could be made null and void via a breach by either party....eg...were it to be exclusive - P and F allowing someone else into the mix...or relating to royalties....some definitely due but not paid. Zero royalties where there are no sales would be within the terms of such a co
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="682" id="3713385"] BTW he does very little to actually explain anything. What he does is most of less summary of what happened so far and who claims what.... i see how after wasting 35 or so minutes of life on watching it, only to eventually find out, there is nothing more to it, than what is already known, can be a bit of a downer... [/quote] Ain't that the truth. It's a real bummer when you know you'll never get those minutes back
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="664" id="3713096"] Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[1][2] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work. The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[ [/quote] Yep...that'
[quote who="Elestan" reply="626" id="3712074"] Brad could retire, or change his mind. Stardock could sell the franchise, or go bankrupt and have it be bought by EA. [/quote] Or the world could end in fire and brimstone...or the 'second coming' could be satan and not 'the other guy'. To answer your question [in that other thread you'll make] you will need a seer or perhaps a time traveller. Angsting over what 'might' happen in some future or other will only lead
What Taslios said ...;) Once Brad has declared there is no issue with the status of commercialism [lack of] with UQM then that particular question is closed - done and dusted. At the top of this page is a link/button called 'New Topic'. Clicking on that will allow a user to post....a new topic, one even that can have the heading "What constitutes commercial use in fan art/communities/games?" [or whatever one wishes to title it] and the tangent/s can be explored ad infini
[quote who="Elestan" reply="613" id="3712031"] I understand that is Brad's position, but respectfully, I don't consider his statements to be the final word on such things. [/quote] It IS 'the final word' when it comes to the SPECIFIC topic of this thread, however. Why is it you find some compunction to go beyond reality and delve into irrelevances? When did "Stardock response to Paul and Fred [Update]" become an open invitation to investigate the <span s
[quote who="Elestan" reply="608" id="3711995"] The only thing I opined on was that the answer to this question wasn't as clear-cut as pointing to the license, or the fact that the software is freely distributed. I'm looking for more insight [/quote] "The UQM isn't engaging in commerce." is the sum total of relevant response. All else is immaterial and off-topic.....at best adding confusion for others. "looking for more insight" ....have you thought about
[quote who="Elestan" reply="589" id="3711899"] So, I'm a little puzzled. You've often derided me for making legal statements. [/quote] I think the issue is that it'd be preferable to rephrase that as 'making legal speculations'. Perception. How people view COMMENTS made vs. 'statements of fact'. Adding "I am not a Lawyer" doesn't really cover it other than itself being [probably] its own 'statement of fact'. Forum discussions/debates are ALWAYS
Elestan ....I feel the issue some people have with [all] your input into this topic is that... A ... there is just so much of it. and B ... it's all coming from a position of outsider's ignorance. Even the people who actually KNOW substantially more are saying significantly less, and the reason is that it's all 'sub judice' and/or there is everything from NDAs to officially-imposed 'gag orders' in place.</p
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="506" id="3711651"] Unless somebody can successfully locate and represent a previous precedent for Paul & Fred, where assets owned by a publisher would revert back to a contractor and/or their subcontractors, things will not look good for Paul & Fred. [/quote] As someone who has been a 'subcontractor' in the Architecture game [46 years] I can state absolutely that were it all about building design - Paul & Fred are definitely 'screwed'
[quote who="Jafo" reply="475" id="3711180"] Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 468 I'll stop now. I made my point again. I don't want to turn these forums into being about me. I'll hold you to that. Any further posts referencing SFB and/or SFU on this thread shall be removed in order that the thread remains
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="487" id="3711487"] That thread is just an embarrassment. I doubt I’ll be returning. [/quote] Yes, but it's sooooo entertaining ...;) Practising Lawyers only 'practise'.... whereas amateur Lawyers actually KNOW what's what. The acronym 'FIGJAM' springs to mind....;p
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="468" id="3711151"] I'll stop now. I made my point again. I don't want to turn these forums into being about me. [/quote] I'll hold you to that. Any further posts referencing SFB and/or SFU on this thread shall be removed in order that the thread remains specifically on-topic...;)
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="456" id="3710954"] I bet you are a fast typist. [/quote] Yes, Frogboy is... Unlike him, even 2 decades of monitoring Stardock's sites and I'm still a 'point-and-click' typist...though I must admit I've graduated to TWO FINGERS!!!!!!!! Yay...;)
[quote who="JerkClock" reply="435" id="3710572"] so my guess is it's probably company data and sales figures that aren't publicly posted much of the time. Just a hunch. [/quote] Not a bad hunch. Even Ford stopped publicizing how long it took to make a Model 'T' when it got down to 20 minutes.... Eventually they realized it'd get harder to justify the 300 bucks it cost to buy one.... Companies [or their CEO] may happily reach out publicly re
When the CEO of computer game company says a product's 'name' or 'trademark' is worth the price he paid he's either going to be right or wrong. If said CEO is that of a successful computer game company the chances are that only one option is correct - that he is in fact right. People can have an opinion contrary, however actual results/past history should speak for themselves. Incidentally, Stardock was the first of precious few entities to be commercially successful wit
Kavik_Kang .... what say we stay even just remotely on-topic. I'm sure I'm not alone - tired of being told of things I already lived through. [some of us were alive then]. Oh, and getting 'political' will see comments simply deleted outright...;)
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="377" id="3709818"] Vladimir Lenin would say the exact opposite, and he is almost finished conquering the world. [/quote] Ah, but Lenin isn't a site administrator overseeing people's conduct, and he certainly isn't conquering anything....he's lawn-feed at best...;)
Just an aside...[friendly reminder].... Many of you won't know me....but I've been 'here' quite some time.... Whether or not you are pro or anti 'Paul and Fred' [or pro or anti 'Stardock'] no-one is seen in a good light calling one side or the other names. It simply lessens your comments' worth. State an opinion/belief/guess/whatever...but only attack the topic, not the person...;)
Public revelation won't help anyone. Observers will claim some agenda or other. What IS needed is a polite and legal-worded warning that public utterances by anyone that may adversely affect the public's perception of one side or other WILL result in defamation suit/s. That right to "free Speech" doesn't include slander/libel ....;)
