Apogee(r) Bans Negative Reviews? 395
An anonymous reader pointed out one of the greatest concerns about UCITA [?] :it allows software publishers to ban negative reviews of their products. Apogee(r) has now done this. It does give right to mention them or their trademarks on BBSs or chat rooms (gee thanks!) but not in any 'Negative Context', or in a way that is negative for Apogee. So by criticizing Apogee's license, am I defaming their trademark and violating this license agreement? Isn't there (oh I don't know) a bill of rights or something that just might have precedence over this? Here is the questionable document. I also must express my distaste that Apogee has a trademark on 'Pinball Wizards'(r) since I suspect Townshend's late 60s composition probably came before, oh I don't know PAC-MAN much less Commander Keen(r). Is that saying something negative about Apogee(r) again?
Re:Old joke. (Score:2)
Not smart, perhaps, but legal.
EULA should not hold... (Score:2)
Fortunately for myself, I have not played any Apogee games, and therefore am not bound by their EULA. I claim this post is fair use and stand by my freedom of press, as granted in the bill of rights.
- This Agreement is a legally binding contract between you ("You") and Apogee Software Ltd.,
... - YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT IT IS THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND APOGEE WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY PROPOSED OR PRIOR AGREEMENT, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN YOU AND APOGEE RELATING TO YOUR USE OF THE WEB SITE.
- You must notify Apogee prior to any use of the Marks and/or the Materials.
- If you acquire any goodwill or reputation in any of the Marks, all such goodwill or reputation will automatically vest in Apogee when and as such goodwill or reputation occurs. You agree to take all actions necessary to effect such vesting.
- By consenting to use of the Marks and/or Materials, you agree to immediately cease and desist using the Marks or Material on our written or electronic request.
- Further, Apogee reserves the right to revise these Terms of Use at any time without notice.
- You are not allowed to vary the spelling, add or delete hyphens (even for normal hyphenation at the end of a line of text), make one word two, or use a possessive or plural form of the Marks.
- You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context.
- The Marks, or any portion thereof, may not be used by you or any third party as a domain name or as part of or incorporated in to a domain name.
-BHere is Scott Miller's response.. (Score:5)
> So let me get this right...If I go on to your site, see some screen
> shots of Duke Nukem XXX. If I then go onto Slashdot and say
> "That new Duke Nukem looks like crap. I would never play such a terrible
> game. Here's the link, what do you think?" you can sue me? ( I have
> just used one of you "marks" in a "negative context" on a "BBS or Chat
> room" haven't I?
> Fascinating...
>
> Well, I have bad news for you..UCITA has no jusridiction outside of the
> US so you may have trouble enforcing your "copyright" Globally.
>
> Your licence is ridiculous.
>
>
>
His response:
>>> Fascinating...
What's truly fascinating is how people can read their own evil meanings into
stuff like this. As a lawyer once told me: Everyone thinks they understand
law...it's no wonder attorneys get any business at all!
Have a nice day!
Scott Miller
Apogee Software, Ltd. and
3D Realms Entertainment
http://www.3drealms.com
==========================
So it appears Apogees' point man for questions and complaints (his e-mail was at the bottom of the "licence") doesn't take this seriously. Perhaps he needs a few more questions asked of him (Slashdot interview?). I'll admit my question was inflamatory but after reading that "licence" I was pissed. And with no "Accept/do not accept" buttons I didn't know how else to let them know how I felt.
Someone else been able to get a straight answer from them?
Re:Is it just me, or are YOU clueless? (Score:2)
Hopefully, I will not be sued for Copyright infringement for quoting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an estalishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here is a clase from the US Constitution:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Moderate this one up! (Score:2)
I like this -- it sums up the high tech industry trends of the last few years. May I snarf this?
>You can tell how desperate they are by counting the number of times they say "innovate" in their press releases.
Use a word enough times, & people will forget what it actually means.
Geoff
Re:I don't know about everyone else... (Score:2)
Besides, the publicity after a day of World Wide Where-did-it-go would be even more effective than making a big stink and risking making the news ho-hum by the time it's over.
Call it VDOS - voluntary denial of service.
--
Re:more and more strangeness . . (Score:2)
We have seatbelt, smoking, and gun laws because of money? huh? What's that supposed to mean?
The reason those laws are there is for the protection of life. I wear a seatbelt because it's safe and I'm less likely to die in a wreck. I respect gun laws, though they do need to be changed. And if you smoke around my pregnant wife I'll take great pleasure in maiming you.
Old Games (Score:2)
Silence == Negative comment, the new standard? (Score:4)
Something has to give, and it will, I have faith.
--Mike--
Re:Congress Screwed Us (Score:2)
UCITA is a contract law statute that, if passed in a particular state, would apply to computer software, multimedia products, computer data and databases, online information, and similar products. UCITA is intended to create a uniform commercial contract law for these products. UCITA would generally cover shrink-wrap and click-wrap licenses but, depending on how it is enacted in a particular state could be broader than that.
For a very informative and relatively unbiased look at UCITA go to:
http://www.cpsr.org/program/UCITA/ucita-fact.html
For an anti-UCITA editorial go to:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
Come on (Score:2)
Apogee only has trademark protection against anyone else using the name "Pinball Wizards" in the realm of computer games. I don't see anything questionable in that.
Game arcade conversation.... (Score:2)
Bill: Well, I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Bob: Ohhhhh, that bad, eh?
Re:Misunderstanding? Email from Apogee (Pt 2.) (Score:3)
First, as I understand it the term "Duke Nukem Forever" is a trademark, no? So you couldn't even use the name, much less a logo.
The second is, regardless of who they *WANT* to deal with, the license applies to quite a few more people then that! Everyone, in fact, that buys the game or goes to their website. So, if they want to only include those fan-sites, they should say so!
Re:more and more strangeness . . (Score:3)
Personally, I think mandatory seat belt laws are some of the stupidest laws ever. Like those against committing suicide.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2)
2 Things You Can Do (Score:2)
Does hearing about things like UCITA, the DCMA, and the idiots in the RIAA drive you nuts? It drives me nuts. I can't believe half the things I read. Big business pays off our elected representatives and tramples all over our rights. Why is there no guaranty of privacy online? We can't even criticize computer games by name now? Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apogee -- they're all in on it, and these are the companies who are supposed to understand technology. The only reason the net is the vibrant thing it is today is because of the free-wheeling, smart alecky hacker types who built it, love it and live it.
"So what, meer. I can't do anything about it. I think I'll just whine on /. about how unfair it is."
Wake up! The future of the web is up to you -- to all of us. We can change this -- we got rid of the CDA, we can get rid of this UCITA nonsense.
Vote. Your vote counts. In the last election, fewer than half the electorate voted (that is, for the American readers). That means the people in office who represent YOU weren't even voted in by a majority of citizens! Sick of partisan bickering? Don't vote Republican OR Democrat (can anyone even tell the difference anymore?). Just vote! I'm from Minnesota. We ended up electing an ex-pro-wrestler as governor, which is quite entertaining, and also scared the $#!+ out of the politicians and the media. This is what happens when people vote. Change -- it can be good, it can be bad, but it's better than more of the same.
Join the EFF [eff.org]. These people are out in the trenches every single day, defending the people we read about. If you can spare even $20, sign up as an associate member. Put your money where your mouth is!
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a bit fanatical. I care a great deal about the net -- I live it, I love it -- and I don't like to see it perverted into another forum for corporate interests to make money off people who don't KNOW enough to protest. That's why it's up to us geeks -- to raise awareness of these issues while we still can.
screenshots (Score:2)
The criticism against UCITA, which I feel may be valid, is that it throws out fair-use exemptions from copyrights for digital media. The U.S. has a long history of defining and protecting the fair-use of copyrighted materials. We have been very successful at striking a balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing the free exchange of ideas. Software companies especially seem to dislike this concept, and crafted UCITA to largely eliminate its extension to software (even while making hollow statements to the contrary.
It's one thing to say Duke Nukem's graphics are blocky, it's another to actually show the chunky sprites, which Apogee may be claiming to disallow.
Re:A Good Precedent(tm) (Score:2)
jabber (tm) writes:
Are you a trademark? :-)
Seriously, I thought this would only apply to a trademark like jabber(tm) or restricted phrases like "When jabber jibbers, the jive jibes!" (r). Can't say anything nasty about those!
But you, on the other hand, are not protected. So I can say anything about you that I like. So, for the sake of argument, I could say:
Oh wait--that stuff back there was abuse of copyright, part of an argument about trademark violation. Guess I'd better take that back, then. Heh, heh.
stupid git
No Derogatory Use of Logos? (Score:2)
Re:Who wants some Wang? (Score:2)
Re:more and more strangeness . . (Score:2)
---
Ok, everybody calm down...AGAIN (Score:5)
"5. You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context. Such use will terminate your license to use the Marks."
Ok, the very first thing that piqued my interest was the phrase "terminate your license". Now, if in fact, Apogee is giving somebody a license to do something, and they break the rules of that license, then Apogee has every right to terminate that person's license. This is not to say the license was fair in the first place, but just that this phrase makes it seem more like they are terminating some permission they have GRANTED you. Now I read down further and find that all the Marks they speak of are actually copyrighted IMAGES. Aha. So. They are ALLOWING you to use these copyrighted images. If you do things they don't like with their images they will terminate your license to use said images. Imagine if I had a webpage and did something like:
PEPSI (insert copyrighted Pepsi image) SUCKS!
Pepsi would naturally want to revoke the license it gave me to use its image in good faith. They probably couldn't stop me from saying "PEPSI SUCKS" because that is free speech. But they might be able to keep me from using their trademarked image in conjunction with that phrase to make them look bad. After all, these are official trademarked images of products. It is not entirely improbable that somebody could set up a website the looked very much like Apogee's and pretend to be them, and use their images to smear them. Whether using somebody's trademarked image is free speech, I don't know. THAT is the issue though.
Re:Pinball Wizard (Score:2)
They've "trademarked" the "radioactive" symbol (Score:2)
It's basically a slightly stylized version of the the international symbol for radioactivity.
(See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/stu dents/symbols.html [epa.gov])
Now, on the policy page: http://www.3drealms.com/policy/index.html [3drealms.com]
they claim that this is an Apogee trademark.
Bwa ha ha ha. And I was kind of looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever. Oh well.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
So I was Walking Down the street.... (Score:2)
Let's imagine, for instance, I am walking down the street when I happen upon somebody walking in the opposite direction. I stop and say hello. The stranger says nothing. He removes a stick of chalk from his pocket and procedes by drawing a circle around me.
Puzzled, I ask him why he is doing such, as it certainly is peculiar behavior. He responds to my request by saying "By exiting outside of this circle, you agree to pay me One Million Dollars." Now, if this were legally binding, I would think much about it. But since it is not, I would walk away thinking this man to be a lunatic deserving of a straight jacket.
The point is that such laws allow those who can to change them without so much as bothering congress. These companies will be lobbying for their own laws, laws which give them the power to change the laws themselves. I don't much like dynamic contracts, and it seems as though this is where the industry is headed. I can understand for such sites that provide free services to have some sort of dynamic contract, but within reason. To have software accompanied by a dynamic contract would be all too cruel.
We need an official Blacklist (Score:2)
Any company enforcing this aspect of the UCITA cannot have their products fairly reviewed since only positive points can be mentioned. Therefore anybody who would buy a product from such a company would not be making an informed decision. It would be advisable to boycott any company that enforced this evil law and buy a products from competing honest companies that allow fair reviews.
I can't wait until Microsoft tries this
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Re:Not a troll post (Score:3)
I'm going to drop a Bombshell here. Me, Duke Nukem, and Talon Brave were running around in the snow acting like Shadow Warriors. We saw a bunch of Pinball Wizards coming our way. Imagine their surprise when they came upon The yellow nuke symbol we made. (Being a gentleman, I won't go into details on how we made the snow yellow.)
Re:Not a troll post (Score:2)
But Campbell's actually had no part in his most famous 'appearance' in a videogame -- if you remember Duke Nukem 3D, the main character was always knocking off one-liners borrowed from Sam Raimi movies like Army of Darkness, stuff like, "Hail to the king, baby." Needless to say, Campbell's no fan of Duke Nukem
. "I think it's a rip-off, and I think they should have done two things," he says. "One, they should have been original, and if they didn't do that, they should have at least hired me." Well, is Campbell available for a sequel? "No, too late," he says, laughing
Re:Misunderstanding? Email from Apogee (Pt 2.) (Score:3)
Still, he's talking out of his ass as much as any Slashdotter: "You cannot use trademarks without the owners permission." This is blatantly false. Trademark law forbids certain usages, but gives the owners of the trademarks no power whatsoever to dictate what those forbidden usages are. Other than saying that "this agreement isn't bad because it isn't legally valid anyway" I don't know what validity his position has.
I don't know about you... (Score:2)
I'm sick of being under fire from people who know little or nothing about what we do, [...]
By your own ignorance (above) you've displayed that you know little or nothing about what they do, either. Are you as forgiving when you're on the other side of the table? Instead of posting "poor me" rants and childlishly threatening to take your ball and go home (i.e., turn off your servers) perhaps you should read about how the law works, and how you can make the law work for you.
Best regards,
Daniel.
--
Ack! Astrophyisics Turn On Head! (Score:2)
What will NASA and the International Space community do now that "apogee" (all rights reserved) has been taken away from them!? I'm just waiting for Apogee(r) to sue NASA and JPL when they do a press release on the Galileo Space Craft when it encounters Europa at its farthest point from Jupiter. ^_^;
Response from 3D Realms (Score:5)
There may be a misunderstanding here. I wrote to the address at the bottom of the "Intellectual Rights" page on their website, and got a response from their PR guy. I'll post my letter and his response below. He called me a "clueless moron"...heheheh... well, maybe my email WAS a little carried away. :)
My original message: His response:Re:Congress Screwed Us (Score:2)
However, the way I think this works is that since the "no-negative-use-of-marks" provision is part of the license agreement, if you use the marks to make "negative comments" then you have breached the license. If a company were to include the self-help remedies also provided for under UCITA as part of its software, then, theoretically, once you have breached the license by posting "negative comments" the company could reach into your PC and shut off the software.
Granted, this is a pretty extreme action. However, I'm not sure that the law should allow for such an extreme action.
John
Reviewing Licenses (Score:3)
I suppose that depends upon the terms of the license to the license. If the meta-license prohibits criticism of the license, then just criticise the meta-license instead. You'll always be able to out-meta them by a level, unless they are able to figure out a way for a license to apply to itself. "Information about the terms of this licensed are provided under this license." If something like that is actually legal, then it is time for bloody revolution.
You end up with a product review like this:
---
Re:Pinball Wizard (Score:2)
Tommy trivia: What "musical molestation" did Pinball Wizard suffer as a child, and by which relative?
A free copy of Geeks, by Jon Katz (you pay shipping) to the first person who emails me with the answer.
Hypothetical license agreement (Score:2)
Negative reviews shall include any statements pointing out limitations not covered by our own documentation, bugs we don't want the public to know about, lack of customer support for the product, removal of eVapor from a computer under your control, or any claims that any other product is superior. Claims of another product's superiority to eVapor shall include any claim that any other product has a feature that eVapor lacks, is best in class, has higher performance, is preferred by customers, enjoys a larger market share, or fails to kill cuddly animals implying that eVapor does in fact kill them.
For purposes of determining comparable products, eVapor is considered to be software. All other products and services that are software, contain software, or use software shall be considered competing products. eVapor shall not be unfavorably compared to any such competitor.
Well, I think Apogee Makes crappy software (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost... you see, the trick here is... (Score:2)
Well, that sort of thing should actually work if you do it right:
Of course, thankfully reality is not quite that derranged.
Uh-oh (Score:2)
It might be the year 2000, but 1984 is getting closer and closer....
Re:Not a troll post (Score:2)
"3D Realms Site: Intellecutal Property Rights..." (Emphasis added.)
Intellecutal? Intellecutal? What the hell does that mean? Are these the new aliens that Butt F*kem must fend off while gratuitously ripping off quotes from "Army of Darkness"?
"Look out, Butt F*kem! The Intellecutals are attacking!"
At which point we get to see our hero stomp mudholes into the chests of everyone opposed to UCITA.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the anal lube."
Maybe he can team up with Blow Wang from Sh*tty Warrior for a gay romp through LawyerLand! "Blow Wang come to sue you, little free-speech coward!"
Sheesh!
---
Oh look! My head exploded!
Re:Reviewing Licenses (Score:2)
Slashdot morons do it again (Score:2)
Re:Another step closer to Big Brother... (Score:2)
I don't know about everyone else... (Score:2)
Overreaction my ass (Score:3)
But you are just plain wrong about using the logos in trashing articles.
Have you ever seen At The Movies with Roger Ebert? Let's see, he shows clips of films. If the film is really bad he says so.
Have you ever read PC Gamer? They have screen shots of all the games they review. They reviewed Corel's game "Mode" in 1996 and gave it a 10% rating and called it the worst game they had ever seen. There was another game they rated in the same issue that faired just as poorly.
Ever seen a TV review or music review? Usually there is a picture of the cast of the TV show or a picture of the CD cover.
Ever read Home Theater magazine? Mike Nelson (from MST3K) spends each month pointing out the dogs of the film industry. He has stills from the movies, or pictures of whatever actor he is going after.
There is nothing wrong with saying a product is bad and then showing a picture of it. If it is crap, it is crap, pure and simple.
Re:Old joke. (Score:3)
Unless we can get some friends in the next Congress, to take up our cause, look forward to even more erosion of rights. To do so, we need to find those running for US HoR or US Senate that is anti-big government and pro-individualism and give them our "collective" support. Yes, I'm afraid I'm talking about forming a "special interest group" to combat Big Brother/Bill.
Hmm... (Score:3)
Of course, if you really want to be complete, you could also put an anti-flaming clause in there and possibly a "I promise to send the poster my first born child" clause for full points.
The UCITA Accounts For This, sort of... (Score:4)
The primary problem with the UCITA is not that it says *anything* can be put into a license agreement. Instead, it is simply that anything can be put in a license agreement until it is determined through the judicial process that such a term *cannot* be included and qualifies for an exception.
It is yet another opt-in vs. opt-out debate; should the allowable terms be explicitly defined and all else deemed inappropriate, or should all terms be considered allowable unless they qualify as an exception. There is little doubt that the former is better for consumers.
Re:Can't Anybody Here Read? (Score:2)
You're right--and in the licensing biz, that's the way it works. If you're a McDonald's franchisee running a web site for other McDonald's operators (true fact: most franchisers have licensee organizations that don't always see eye-to-eye with corporate headquarters) Big Mac is going to expect you to delete that post that says the Quarter Pounder is made with horse meat. In, say, zero seconds. If you even think about the First Amendment issues there'll be a truck in front of your store removing all the signs before noon. That's the deal: you do things their way, you give up a lot of autonomy, but McDonald's makes you rich.
That said, you make a good distinction: Apogee can beat up on its licensees, but what about Microsoft and SlashDot? Microsoft (which invoked the DMCA, not UCITA) was claiming its secrets were violated. Changes in rules like copyright generally don't happen until there is significant review by the courts--Microsoft was trying to invoke the DMCA, but in more or less exactly the same way that the Pentagon would have tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The context of the SlashDot posts were (generally speaking) public comment about controversial documents. The courts are going to have to hear some really compelling arguments to let something like that fly.
The Microsoft vs. SlashDot thing was about the DMCA. The Apogee thing is about licensing. Neither has anything to do with the UCITA.
Re:UCITA?? I don't think so (Score:2)
A "Murphy's Rules" in an old Space Gamer (Steve Jackson Games) once reported that on 3 of the cardboard counters, the Indiana Jones Role Playing Game trademarked the term "Nazi".
(Moderate up, please) Emails with Mr. Miller (Score:2)
Myself:
Good day, Mr. Miller
Dave
Mr. Miller:
A standard response to the maddness!
I must say this is just entirely too funny. And a sad commentary on how little most people understand law.
I will say that anyone who thinks we are trying to control reviews and such are jumping on a bandwagon without really giving it proper consideration.
Legally, that's entirely impossible -- but then, most people know less about law than they do making ice.
This policy/agreement simply allows fan sites to use our trademarks and copyright character art, etc. Most developers/publishers do not allow this
at all. End of story. We are providing a way for them to do so, though.
Lay people, of course, read this policy and become panic mongers. This policy is only for owners of web sites who wish to use our trademarks and copyrights, like www.3dportal.com.
Sheesh! Back to important work...
Myself:
What is this? An auto-responder? Excuse me, sir, but I don't have lots of money. I'm a mechanic, and I don't get paid enough. I don't have a lawyer "on staff", so, I figured I'd ask you. I don't pretend to understand the law, so I figured I'd *ask you*. Thank you for your help
Dave
P.S.: I do own a web site(which will remain nameless at the moment), and the review I have written about Duke Nukem 3D is, for the most part, glowing, but I did comment on some "short cuts" that, in my opinion, took away from the game. I refer you to your IP lisence:
5. You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context. Such use will terminate your license to use the Marks.
Now, I respect your company, and, quite frankly, I don't want to do anything to upset anybody, so I'm *ASKING YOU* if it's all right that I post my review... It may be considered, in some fashions "derogatory or defamatory." Is that all right?
Mr. Miller:
Freedom of speech protects anything you write, as long as it's truthful, even if just in your opinion. We believe in free speech, and would never attempt to stop a negative review of our games. Our job is to make our games worthy of a positive review.
That's it. Judge for yourself.
Dvae
Re:unfortunately, no (Score:2)
The best defense... (Score:3)
Re:My personal favorite clause (Score:2)
This agreement outlines a way to let Apogee fans use their (Apogee's) stuff without taking credit for it themselves or defaming Apogee. IMO people are reading way too much into this. I see nothing mentioned regarding reviews or any other such criticism that is already Constitutionally protected.
LouZiffer
In Simple Terms (Score:2)
1) UCITA is being put through your Congress by extremely rich and powerful business interests.
2) Your politicians are being bought out.
3) The only thing more important to a politician than money and power is the vote. If they're not voted in, they can't make money or have power.
4) Which means you get ACTIVE and ORGANIZED. If they don't toe YOUR line, then they DON'T GET YOUR VOTE.
The vote is the *ONLY* big stick you hold. Wave it around, threaten them with it, and USE IT.
Other points:
5) The document is written in legalese. Anything you write about it is pure hypothesis. You don't understand it, and you're not meant to.
6) Apogee's lawyer dude laughs it all off. He plainly thinks most of you are idiots. Probably, he's right.
7) Take comfort that, even if you are an idiot, at least you're not a lawyer. Pity poor Scott, who's stuck being Apogee's asshole!
--
Interesting (Score:5)
By agreeing to this limited license, you acknowledge the validity of Apogee's ownership in the Marks and will not contest such ownership or the validity of any registrations of Apogee relating to the Marks. If you acquire any goodwill or reputation in any of the Marks, all such goodwill or reputation will automatically vest in Apogee when and as such goodwill or reputation occurs. You agree to take all actions necessary to effect such vesting.
So.... in English, and by analogy: if you won a worldwide DukeNukem(tm) tournament, and were declared the best DukeNukem(tm) player EVER, you'd have to give the trophy to Apogee(r), and publicly declare "I owe it all to Apogee(r)!" (Provided, off course, that you had prior approval to mention them in your speech.)
Re:A Good Precedent(tm) (Score:2)
You may quote me, provided that:
Not a troll post (Score:4)
Apogee logo (sucks)
3D Realms logo (sucks worse)
Duke Nukem (not as good as Quake)
Bombshell (don't buy it)
Dr. Proton (lame)
General Phil Graves (gay)
Come get some (I'd rather not)
Hail to the king (not worth the effort)
King of action (uh-huh)
King of carnage (awful)
The yellow "Duke Nukem" title logo (putrid)
The yellow nuke symbol (should be blown up)
Planet of the Babes (ugly)
Time to Kill (should be dead already)
Zero Hour (terrible)
Max Payne (payneful)
Talon Brave (cowardly)
Prey (good. no, strike that: bad)
Shadow Warrior (BOR-ing)
Lo Wang (incomprehensible)
Pinball Wizards (song was better!)
Balls of Steel (do I need to?)
I'm sure I'll be hearing from their lawyers soon.
A Good Precedent(tm) (Score:5)
How long until I can be legally protected from negative moderation on Slashdot?
Re:Here is Scott Miller's response.. (Score:3)
We've already gotten a clear answer from Apogee in their liscence:
To Scott Miller: How many lawyers do I need to understand the words any negative context???
The Second Amendment Sisters [sas-aim.org]
Run screaming (Score:2)
I also noticed that there was no "I Agree" clickthrough box. Isn't there supposed to be one, or are they claiming that I gave up all of my fair use rights just by loading their homepage?
Very evil.
/\p0g33 (Score:2)
What'll they say to that?
/\p0g33... looks better in this font on my machine.
Pinball Wizard (Score:5)
--
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
This thing is NOT about the games. It's NOT about reviews. It's also NOT about the words "Apogee" or "Time To Kill" or any of the others themselves. It's about using the contents of Apogee's site on other sites. Instead of making fans take down content that they copy (*cough*FOX*cough**Simpsons*), they have a specific set of guidelines set up that allow you to use their content as long as you do so in a manner that they agree with.
Please, people... get a grip.
LouZiffer
Re:Not a troll post (Score:2)
Don't freak out people, no one mentioned the UCITA. The CEO and founder of Apogee is laughing at our reaction - he knows he couldn't sue for a negative review.
We should be grateful (Score:2)
~luge
UCITA?? I don't think so (Score:4)
I think some lawyers are being overzealous. If you read the text, you'll notice that you have to ask Apogee's permission before using the trademarks, anyway. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with UCITA. This is pure trademark law and AFAIK the terms on Apogee's site have nothing to do with buying a software product from them. For example, I never bought any software from them, and yet I am sure that they feel I would be bound by these trademark use restrictions.
Kaa
The list of Trade marks includes: (Score:4)
Hail to the king - and this one too...
In fact, aren't a lot of the expressions from Duke Nukem (forget the R or the TM... come sue me - I'm in Canada) just ripped off from Bruce? (Okay, the bubblegum/kick ass comment was from Rowdy Roddy Piper in "they live").
Bill of Rights vs. Private Corporation (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
Apogee sucks (Score:2)
They still suck!
Re:Another interesting one (Score:2)
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent." -- Marlene vos Savant
Can't Anybody Here Read? (Score:3)
Apogee requires anybody who wants to use their trademarks to ask for permission. When they get permission they become a licensee--as a licensee they cannot do all the stuff everybody is getting all flustered about.
Well, guess what? This is absolutely standard in the world of licensing. If you're a McDonald's franchisee you cannot host alt.bigmacs.suck.bigtime--that's part of the deal. Them's the rules. If you're going to license Apogee's trademarks, you have to abide by the license agreement.
What this does NOT do is restrict anybody rights to free speech. Duke Nukem is a stupid game. It's immoral. It encourages preteens to acts of violence. It causes people to become fat. I have it on good information that the electrons in the game have been Genetically Modified.
So there.
Should I quake in my boots, waiting for the Apogee lawyers to appear? Nope--because I'm not an Apogee licensee. "Well, wait a minute," you might say. "If 'Duke Nukem' is a trademark of Apogee, and I post a message saying 'Duke Nukem sucks', haven't I used Apogee's trademark? And haven't I therefore become (at least by Apogee's delusional agreement) an Apogee licensee?"
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Apogee explicitly requires you to apply to use their trademarks. They will then issue you a license. Until that happens, you're not a licensee. Posting anti-Duke messages is entirely legal, and the UCITA has nothing to do with it.
BUT if you copy a Duke Nukem GIF off of their web site and post it on your dukenukemblowschunks.com website, they're going to accuse you of trademark infringement. And they might even try to assert that using their site means that you agree to their terms and conditions (um, no.)
AND If you do ask for a license to the Duke Nukem logo to put on the cover of your forthcoming Duke Nukem Tips & Tricks (a bit late to market, aren't we?) then you're on the hook. You can't say bad things about the product. As I wrote above, that's how product licensing agreements work.
what about the MS Lawsuit? (Score:2)
OTOH if DeCSS came under UCITA then noone could claim that it can be used for pirating movies without risking some serious legal trouble.
Actually UCITA is one of the biggest roadblocks on the way to innovation i've ever seen, since (constructive) criticism is always the first step to make something better. Now there's no more need for patches, security holes are no longer a problem (at least not a problem of the softwarevendor, if the customer learns about the problem when his host is all cracked over it's early enough to sell him the 'upgrade pack') and if some webpublisher writes the wrong things about the wrong software, why not simply remotely bring his hosts down.
Does anyone who stands behind UCITA even think a moment about consumers? or even economy? (no it's actually not a good idea in a world where nearly all production relies on Software to let the Softwaremakers have an easy way out of any responsibility or even critique.)
Another interesting one (Score:4)
You are not allowed to vary the spelling, add or delete hyphens (even for normal hyphenation at the end of a line of text), make one word two, or use a possessive or plural form of the Marks.
Apogeee.
Apo gee.
Apogees.
Apogee's.
Apo-gee.
:-)
Waiting for the e-mail from the big, bad lawyers...
Re:Fair use, usual argument... (Score:2)
Eric
Fair use, usual argument... (Score:2)
The problem with this (Score:2)
The trouble is, a license/EULA like this is like a blank check. It's like Unisys's patent on LZW GIFs and a rousing helping of "Don't be a fool, we're not going to charge for this! (until it's convenient for us to)". And that is the problem.
What the people at Apogee _think_ they're doing is not relevant. The terminology of the contract is what is binding, and UCITA makes it quite feasible to live up to the worst fears of panicking slashdotters- basically, the Apogee people can even believe themselves that they are only establishing rules for using IP on fan sites or whatever, but it's the actual contract terms that matter, and knowingly or not they've got a blank check for whatever abuses they might want to commit in future- basically it becomes a slamdunk to cripple anyone who gets in their way, under UCITA, not because they wrote the EULA that way but because it is TOO VAGUE about what is permissible. I would not want to trust that referring to their products negatively in a review is technically permissible- I think it would be very easy to make a case that it is not, going not by their intent but by the potentials in the terms of use which falls under contract law.
It is indeed one of the most heinous contracts I've ever seen- one interesting point is that if John Carmack wrote Apogee and said, "You suck! Quake (tm) is much better", Apogee would then own rights to make games using the Quake (tm) trademark, provided Carmack owned the trademark and was personally able to sign it away! Not only that, technically, if any IP was contained in the _sig_ of Carmack's letter, that too would become Apogee's to use. This would not be exclusive- Carmack would still own his IP- but under the agreement, any communication with Apogee gives them access to anything mentioned anywhere in the communication, to use for any purpose.
Lastly, regarding the repeated statements of Apogee people that "This is what we really mean, settle down": that's like a "Summary" section of a music business contract, legally completely irrelevant. I quote the terms exactly: "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS; YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT IT IS THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND APOGEE WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY PROPOSED OR PRIOR AGREEMENT, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN YOU AND APOGEE RELATING TO YOUR USE OF THE WEB SITE." In other words- there is no point even talking to the Apogee people about this, much less listening to anything they say, because what they say is legally _meaningless_... only the terms apply, they could verbally outright contradict every last thing in the terms of use and it would still be binding.
Welcome to the world of the future. Enjoy your stay- and get used to READING every little detail of things like this, as literal-mindedly as a computer, and #ifdef "THIS SUPERSEDES ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION YOU MIGHT HEAR FROM COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES", reassurances > dev/null #endif. Legalstuff is like programming- what it says is what you get, not what you _think_ it says or what you want it to say or even what the author thought he was trying to say.
can't do it (Score:2)
ripe for judicial review (Score:4)
The supreme justices (indeed, even the district courts) would have a hard time reconciling their prior rulings on matters of speech foreclosure with Apogee's foolish attempt at censorship. UCITA is an act of State legislatures. These bodies do not have the power to annul the 1st amendment of the constitution. If I could be forbidden to criticize Apogee based upon their "ownership" of various identifying names and symbols, then what would exist to stop private individuals, social groups, or even politicians from doing the same with their "licensed" speeches and doctrines?
No, this will be struck down. But remember, the courts do not work magically. Many thousands of dollars and hours must be spent by the "good guys" before they can even reach the supreme court. In case you weren't aware, this sort of committment is not purely voluntary. Organizations like the EFF and the ACLU need you help, in terms of contributions and vocal support.
And don't forget - somebody actually has to entice Apogee into sueing them as well...
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Licenses give, not take... (Score:3)
Re:Time To Kill(TM) their Terms of Use (Score:3)
Sad...
jf
Re:Texas? (Score:2)
D00D! 1t's 4 h3rr1ng, n0t 4 tr0ut!
Fuck this. Using no vowels sucks. Plus I couldn't think of a replacement for the "u" in trout.
--
Re:Scott Miller on Slashdot (Score:2)
Yea but I don't own any of their software (Score:2)
Re:I don't know about everyone else... (Score:3)
You don't need a lawyer. (Score:3)
The Apogee license is pretty clear and you don't need a legal degree to understand it. Some of its provisions may turn out to be unenforceable and their remedies may be limited, but to predict that you do need a legal degree.
By default, you should assume that the most restrictive reading of a license is the one that is legally binding. Explanations from vendors or sales people that "it isn't quite like that" and that "they would never enforce it that strictly" are disingenuous; their statements aren't legally binding, they want you money, if they are wrong, they have you by the balls (good for them), and if push comes to shove, you are still looking at a lengthy legal battle to fight something like that through.
If you don't like what a license says, don't agree to the license and don't buy the product. A bad/defective license is worse than a defective product.
(As for the Apogee license itself, you may be able to cancel it by destroying the game media. Afterwards, I believe you ought to be able to say whatever you want to about their product within the bounds of trademark law; but I'm not a lawyer, so get professional legal advice before doing anything like that.)
more and more strangeness . . (Score:5)
Here in the U.S.of A., more and more of our individuals' rights are being given away and sacrificed to the grand god of The Botton Line.
All thanks to the rampant distrust of the Government, whose power is being taken away (and in most cases, rightly I think) . . but unfortunately, not returned to the We The People, but instead to the god of The Bottom Line.
When I talk about individual rights, people look at me like I have horns coming out of my head. When I say "you know, it's a little ridiculous that we have mandatory seat belt laws to prevent me from being stupid because people don't want to pay for it." Everything's about the $$$.
"Don't SMOKE, FOR GOD'S SAKE! IT COSTS MONEY!". You watch, next they'll be coming after high-fat foods and alcohol because of the "societal costs" -- they already are coming after guns. I mean, I'm for gun control but HAVE THE BALLS TO CHANGE THE LAWS instead of suing.
But, nope, it's all about the Benjamins folks. Sorry, you can't say anything BAD about COMPANIES for gosh sakes! I mean, you might hurt the GDP! What? You don't want to work 60 hours a week and neglect your wife and family? what sort of sicko are you?
</RANT>
---
Re:The list of Trade marks includes: (Score:3)
What a wonderfully horrible movie; I just got it on VHS the other day.
Hey Apogee: "You got real ugly, real fast."
I can't buy your games anyhow; they don't have them at my local S-Mart!
"Shop smart; shop S-Mart."
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Old joke. (Score:5)
Officer: "No, you can't do that."
Driver: "Well... is it legal for me to think you're an asshole?"
Officer: "Sure. You're free to think whatever you want."
Driver: "Officer, I think you're an asshole."
So. Is it OK if we think Apogee sux?
--
*MY* licensing agreement (Score:3)
By selling to a consumer ("the USER") any programs or computer applications ("the SOFTWARE") created or licensed by you ("the COMPANY"), the COMPANY automatically gives the USER complete ownership rights, including but not limited to the right to copy, distribute, sell, or reverse-engineer the software.
All source code to the SOFTWARE must be distributed with the SOFTWARE, and complete rights to the source are granted to the USER as well.
If the USER finds any errors ("the BUGS") in the software, the COMPANY is required to immediately fix these bugs, as well as publish the revised source code.
The COMPANY enters into this agreement by selling SOFTWARE to the USER, and is legally binding to such SOFTWARE. If you do not agree to these TERMS OF SERVICE, do not sell your SOFTWARE to the USER.
Can a click-wrap license agreement be far behind? (Score:3)
PS: anyone who trademarks "Balls of Steel" probably doesn't have any
Shugashack posts 3D Realms comments (Score:3)
License to use the marks (Score:3)
This is a classic case of lawyers seeing how much they can put over on regular people. Somehow, people don't trust lawyers, but they believe everything that they write in an official-looking document.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:3)
I may be drastically overestimating our elected leaders and our judicial system, but I would think that this is the perfect case to get UCITA thrown out/repealed/whatever.
As clueless as Congress may be, I think the politicians understand that the right to air someone else's dirty laundry is fundamental to the American system of government (as well as numerous others). That's how many of them get elected in the first place.
As flawed as our judicial system is, the courts have been quite consistent over the years about protecting the right to criticize whomever and whatever we wish. This sounds like it could easily be thrown out on First Amendment grounds.
And once we're into First Amendment territory, the media finally pay attention. There's no faster way to get journalists into a rabid frenzy than to tell them they can't air their in depth investigation of whatever they think is wrong with the world.
Hmmm. Guess it's time to fire off some polite emails to a few politicians and journalists explaining that their own livlihoods may be in jeopardy.
The above opinion is purely my own and does not necessarily the reflect the opinions of my employers, friends, family or dog.
Re:Not a troll post (Score:5)
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce a praiseworthy game?
--
Misunderstanding? Email from Apogee (Pt 2.) (Score:5)
Well, I replied to Scott and he replied again with some clarification. Especially interesting is the part where he says, "we only want to deal with fan sites. And we expect them to have attorneys". I'm not making this up. Read below to see it in context...
My 2nd Email... His response (I have italicized the parts he quoted from my mail) Hmmm........... interesting response! I still don't think the agreement is very clear, but perhaps that's because I'm not a lawyer. -John Booty3D Realms response...damn it! :-) (Score:3)
Overreaction (Score:4)
The materials (as defined in the document) are all of the typical copyrightable things such as images, sounds, and code.
The marks (as defined in the document) are all trademarkable things like the Apogee Logo (not name) and software titles.
You cannot legally use their sights, sounds, or logos in a derogatory way against them. Whoopty f**king doo. That doesn't mean that you cannot write anything bad about Apogee or their products. It only means that you cannot use the Duke Nukem logo in an article that trashes the crap out of it.
I think that people are making way too much of this. This is traditional copyright/trademark law that has been around for decades. Believe me, if it was 1970, and you wanted to use McDonald's logo in a newspaper article trashing the way they make burgers, believe me, you would get the pants sued off you. But if you trashed McDonald's without using the logo in your article you would be fine. America does have laws protecting criticism. What we don't have are laws that allow you to criticize somebody else using their copyrights or trademarks.
To CmdrTaco: Would you want some other website writing a trash article with
Please people, do not think that everything written in law is evil and bad and designed to take away all rights of everybody everywhere. Yes, the DMCA is bad. Yes, parts of the UCITA are bad (but the parts standardizing transactions between states is good for online commerce).
Let's not take stuff out of hand.