Apogee License Agreement Followup 94
Fireball sent us linkage to a quote (its way down there, can't link it directly) from BluesNews where Apogee's Scott Miller replies to my little tirade yesterday about the apogee license agreement. Basically it says that they would never do such a thing and shrugs it off as mere sensationalism.
Of course I never figured Apogee would sue over this:my beef really isn't with Apogee as much as UCITA and what it makes theoretically legal. One can only hope that the courts strike it down, but only after many expensive legal battles I'm sure.
Intention/Interpretation/Lawyer Scum :) (Score:4)
The issue is how the agreement could be interpreted. Currently Apogee may not want to sue over negative reviews and so any clause in the agreemnt preventing negative reviews wouldn't matter. But, if at some stage in the future Apogee came under new management, maybe got bought out by another company, then that new management could decide to sue depending how how the agreement was interpreted by them.
The fuss people make over companies changing agreements wouldn't be relevenat here as the agreement wouldn't change, just the way in which the agreement was interpreted.
Best to never write an agreement that could be misinterpreted by anyone, now or in the future.
If someone thinks they can make money by suing then that is what they will do (if the agreement lets them) - the way the agreement was intended to be interpreted is not relevant at all.
It was a form letter response (Score:1)
I don't believe it was an answer saying it's not the extent people are reading into it. I feel it's a blowoff of the unwashed masses.
I sent a follow-up e-mail and have yet to recieve a response, I guess the computer didn't know how to handle that!
Over-Reacting (Score:2)
So while Apogee's Scott Miller may be a bit unprofessional in his response to the original posting, he does have a valid point in that controlling negative reviews wasn't the intention of the agreement, and I think most people would see that if they read it.
bubbles.utonium
GeekFlavor [geekflavor.com]
Re:it's a contract, not just a grant of rights (Score:3)
That's the real trick, isn't it? Apogee claims that merely by using their products you've already agreed to a contract which you have not seen at the time they claim you agree to it, and which they can change at any time and continue to bind you with.
Contracts that you don't get to read before agreeing to and which can be arbitrarily and unilaterally changed without notice strike me as a very bad idea.
If you don't agree, tough; by reading any part of this post, you are entering into a contract to agree with me, and gain the benefits of being one of my legions of yes-men (including but not limited to reading this post). If you do not wish to enter into this contract, do not read this post.
Re:New rule:Vote for law later overturned, get boo (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Slashdot's Flippin' Out (Score:2)
Re:Song Lyrics ( OT ) (Score:1)
So if you do see a story that's cold and clinical, within that minute it will seem like a day before never coming back? Or will you still come for the rest of the day after seeing something cold and clinical that minute, and then never come back?
(;;)
Segmentation fault.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Song Lyrics ( OT ) (Score:1)
Ok.... (Score:2)
So your answers to my questions were "yes", and "yes", respectively? :)
Re:You'll understand when you're a lawyer. (Score:2)
Re:it's a contract, not just a grant of rights (Score:1)
Re:Song Lyrics ( OT ) (Score:1)
I'm not a programmer.
I use Linux, but I do care what products best fit my needs. Typically this means that I also use a Mac.
I think that what is going on on Napster is illegal, some of it shouldn't be (I have no problems with mp3.com) but wrong is quite a stretch. I'm an artist but copyright infringement is not theft by any means.
BSD does allow more freedom, but then it's about as bad an idea in practical terms as allowing people the freedom to murder. GPL lets people do anything, but it only restricts in order to preserve other freedoms, and then, only slightly.
I think patents and copyrights are good ideas, but they're currently implemented like a screen door on a submarine.
I like the discussions, but I like honest debate. Linux news is fine, though I don't worry about too much of it; Editorials are great as long as they aren't disguised as objectivity (which doesn't mean that they can't coincide)
Takes all kinds.
Re:it's a contract, not just a grant of rights (Score:1)
Apogee licensing (Score:1)
Does fair use of trademarks include parody? (Score:2)
Any lawyers here care to give the answer? I notice the Apogee guy says they'd not allow their trademarks to be used by a porn site. If they were parodying one of Apogee's games, then could that count as fair use?
[n.b. I'm not thinking of running a Duke Nukem porn site, I was just wondering what the law is.]
That's for damn sure!! (Score:1)
Re:New rule:Vote for law later overturned, get boo (Score:1)
I can't help but think that laws like the DMCA and UCITA are nothing more than another decade's worth of job security for the law profession *grin*.
So why's it say that? (Score:2)
Re:Poor Excuse for a professional (Score:1)
CmdrTaco and Plagurisim (Score:1)
Now this just wrong. The original article was stolen from PlanetCrap (with even a link from the story), and the response which was posted on Blues was taken off a response to said PlanetCrap story. If you go to Blues, it even has the link to the original post! (so much for "can't link to it").
In what way was this "[your] little tirade"? All you did is rip off the hard working folks at PlanetCrap. While I support posting stories which are informative, I don't support you ripping off other peoples work and claiming it as your own.
Bleh.
Proper Use of TradeMarks? (Score:1)
I for one am wondering about what actually constitutes proper use of trademarks.
Obvioulsy, one cannot deliberately try to confuse customers about a well known brand, although I am sure we all recall the infamous "Windows 98 Beer" sold in Moscow, and mentioned here on Slashdot a while back. I think that we can agree that this is a violation of at least the spirit of the idea of trade mark, even if it was not even in the same ballpark as M$ software. They were riding on the novelty factor, and on the free publicity conveniently provided by M$.
I can also recall going into a chain merchandise store and seeing a "Sonic" brand boom box. an off brand if I ever saw one. It was completely identical to a Sony Boombox in the design of th package, the model numbers, etc. Of course, it wasn't a Sony, but a "Sonic"
Again here, the intent was to confuse. Possibly legal, but again, not in the spirit of the law.
There is also the problem of keeping a name unique, and not a generic term. For example, Aspirin used to be a brand name, and now it is not. So These are appropriate concerns to Trademark law, to help maintain the unique identity of a product.
It seems to me that the use of trademark law to prohibit negative speech about a product is a thin thin connection at best.
It is likely overruled by the US Constitution. (but your milage may vary)
who knows, there may be a civil rights law suit in this some place.
Re:Poor Excuse for a professional (Score:1)
I like things the way they are (Score:1)
I don't mind an occasional tirade from someone, - keep 'em coming - because of course the humbling will come if warrented. I've been humbled enough that when others go thru it I feel-the-pain®. Many eyes will find a good rebuttal sooner or later. And besides I have read many wonderful stories and found great articles consistently.
I like the a-little-from-the-hip rawness of
-rvr
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They won't but someone else will (Score:1)
Well, if you buy that line of reasoning, which I don't, you can say that due diligence laws would require the company to put this type of language in their license so that they could persue this sort of action.
Of course, everyone on
You'll understand when you're a lawyer. (Score:4)
Well, each of my subsequent thoughts were well addressed in the previous thread and still remain:
A contract is meant to be understood by the bound parties. If Apogee believes their contract to be inscrutable by the people they expect to be bound by the license, they should make the meaning more explicit. This make for not just good contracts but good relations.
The wording of the license is overbroad and certainly attempts to stomp on copyrighted works' fair use and the legal use of Apogee's trademarks by parties other than Apogee which are well defined (but different. Fair use applies to copyright, while trademark law is even less restrictive than copyright)
Here is the stumper: Apogee obviously pays lawyers to draft these licenses so... do they not understand how their licenses are overbroad, threatening and unenforceable? Why does Apogee hire lawyers that imply the ability to give Apogee rights that the company does not have? It seems that even Apogee's lawyers need to learn a little something about the law because they either believe the license is entirely enforceable or the entire contract is in bad faith.
This is doubly true, now that Apogee has stated that they will not pursue the full extent that the license seems to grant them. Oh, how benevolent. How about, instead, taking the disputed language out??
A license to use copyrighted works is bad enough, but one that has implications beyond the use of the copyrighted work is simply out of line. Anyone who claims otherwise, lawyer or not, needs to be sent to their room to think about what they've done.
Where there's legal recourse ... (Score:1)
"we just put it into our license, and you agreed to it, we would never actually ENFORCE that.."
Well, if that isn't the same line the big media lawyers gave with regards to the mill copyright act? The same act they swore up and down wouldn't be used to interpret in a broad sense and aggressively? The same legal recourse they are using for such broad actions as repeatedly suing people, getting reverse engineering notables arrested in foreign countries and attempting to ban 'file sharing' on the net as 'exploitive to intellectual property'.
It's weak and fallacious to disclaim what you put in print as well-intentioned when it's clearly got the legal teeth to be oppressive.
This is tantamount to someone aiming a gun at your face and saying "I'd never pull the trigger".
Re:*READ* what he said (Score:1)
Chris Hagar
Where's the beef? (Score:1)
Unfortunately I didn't read the prior story that way. It starts out saying that UCITA could be used to ban negative reviews and the link was Apogee has now done this, giving the impression that they had sought legal action based on negative comments about their company or product. Since the link the story came from was slashdotted (I assume) I could only go by what was posted here.
I have similar concerns about UCITA, but this particular story should have served to point us to an example of an agreement that might be used in such a way. It would also have been nice if /. had checked with Apogee for clarification before posting.
carlos, who misspells Apogee as 'Kndglech'
Re:Can you spell (boys and girls)? (Score:1)
No... (Score:2)
How could Apogee take away someone's rights by simply not mentioning them? Should they have to list every right I have in their agreements? No. The point is that Apogee is trying to regulate the use of various trademarks and whatnot in a way that they should not be allowed to do legally. However, UCITA would make their agreement binding unless parts of UCITA are overturned in court.
Haiku (Score:1)
Apogee shrugs and giggles
What fools on slashdot!
no license needed (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot's Flippin' Out (Score:1)
Re:You'll understand when you're a lawyer. (Score:2)
Ok, so all the kids that go out and buy their games are supposed to have a lawyer read over the agreement first? Simply because the contract isn't meant to be understood by anyone but a lawyer?
Responsible "journalism"? (Score:3)
Personally, if I were being paid millions upon millions to run a site, I would be more careful when slandering a company that I see as an easy target to voice my views on a slightly related issue. A simple email from the slashdot editorial staff to Apogee could have probably flushed out the REAL details of this non-story but then Taco couldn't sound off against the UCITA like he wanted to now could he?
Maybe slashdot/Andover doesn't want to be considered a serious news outlet or responsible journalists and that's their prerogative, whatever generates pageviews/banner impressions makes the stock holders happy I guess. (Makes ya wonder how so many of these types of stories make their way onto the front page these days doesn't it?)
UCITA cannot forbid the unconstitutional! (Score:3)
This whining about UCITa neglects the fact that such agreements would be equally enforceable (or unenforceable) without UCITA. Period. The fact that the status quo would permit an agreement with bad ink to be entered into isn't to defend UCITa, just to point out the extent to which the critics will go. Blame it instead on el nino.
The Copyright Act, an act of Congress, expressly provides for fair use of a work, in particular, the excerpting and quotation from a work for the purposes of criticism and such. 17 U.S.C. s. 107. The Copyright Act goes further, expressly preempting state laws, including UCITA to the extent they attempt to create copyright-like rights for subject matter expressly beyond the scope of copyright protection. Further arguments based upon the Commerce clause and implied preemption theories may be asserted as well.
The long and short of this is: (i) UCITA is no better or worse than the status quo in "permitting" these clauses to be enforced; and (ii) these clauses are probably not enforceable anyway to the extent they impinge on fair use.
As I said, blame it on el nino.
Re: (Score:1)
Rely on the goodwill of a corporation? (Score:1)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
My thoughts (Score:2)
I do know, however, that he's right. That license agreement was for the trademarks. It was a standard license. It has been legal binding for years. If you wanted to legally use Apogee's trademarks, you had to agree to play by their rules. It's not like it actually covered any of their software.
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
Trademark dilution (Score:2)
The standard disclaimers apply, IANAL etc.
But the Trademark dilution act is fairly clear on this point.
Fair use? (Score:2)
Under fair use provisions, aren't I allowed to use trademarks for educational or journalistic purposes without the permission of the trademark holder? In other words, I don't have to agree to their annoying license to mention their name in a negative review.
If I'm right about this, their license is just smoke to make it look like they're actively protecting their trademark, as they're required to do. UCITA applies to software shrinkwrap licenses, which is somewhat different.
BTW, if you were a reviewer, you could always circumvent UCITA by having a colleague install and use the program while you watched and reviewed it.
They won't but someone else will (Score:3)
And what about the behemoths that don't care if the allienate those of us that support freedom. To a microsoft or an AOL the damage that negative comments could do to their bottom line far outweighs the negative feedback about the software product. And if they were to design a product that atuomates the locating of negative feedback would making coments to the fact that they locate negative feedback also be covered by UCITA?
UCITA is bad. Especially for those of us who live in states like MD where the UCITA, even a weakend version of it, is scheduled to become law in the near future.
Comment removed (Score:5)
*READ* what he said (Score:5)
Basically it says that they would never do such a thing and shrugs it off as mere sensationalism.
I'm really pissed off at CmdrTaco's arrogance. That's NOT what he said. What he said (quite rightly) is that people are not bothering to read and understand what the license agreement said. It does not say that Apogee has the right to ban negative reviews (as if they could reserve that right anyway), it simply grants the use of their copyrighted materials for use by their fan base, but only under certain conditions. Obviously they want to be able to retain some control.
I don't blame Miller for laughing it off -- because the whole premise is laughable. Wouldn't be a great world if people actually thought things through before jumping to conclusions?
--
Sincerety (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts (Score:2)
If you pay to license their trademarks, you can't bad mouth their company. I believe in the previous thread, somebody used the example of "If you open up a McDonald's franchise, you can't go on national TV and say McDonald's food sucks, and expect to still be running a McDonald's the next day." Same thing.
That license didn't have anything to do with bad independent reviews. But if you wanted to use, say, the Duke Nukem name on a product, you can't turn around and badmouth Apogee.
Again, that's a fairly standard and semi-reasonable restriction for a trademark license.
Inexpensive Legal Battle (Score:2)
Just because Apogee says the would not take such advantage doesn't mean we have to wait for someone who will.
Maybe someone here can accelerate the destruction of UCITA by creating an artificial battle. Slashdot can create a piece of content and apply a ludicrous license restriction permitted by UCITA but not by common sense. Some brave soul can step up to violate the restriction, and Slashdot can take him/her to court for $1 in damages. A few low-priced comptent lawyers should be able to adequately argue UCITA's overreach and force it to be overturned.
Keep it all in the family :-)
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree with the absurd (Score:1)
Re:New rule:Vote for law later overturned, get boo (Score:1)
Okay... what do you do to legislators that pass diliberately vague laws (DMCA) with the intention of having the judicial branch iron out the details??
Re:I disagree with the absurd (Score:1)
And as far as I know, it's a practice followed by Oracle as well... the only way you can mention performance in a review is if someone from the company arrives and helps configure your machine and software to make sure that you don't do something like plot a head to head comparisson between a highly tuned SQL Server vs. an untuned (or even worse, hobbled) Oracle 8i configuration.
Actually, that is what he said... (Score:5)
I'd call that "shrugging it off as sensationalism".
Apogee isn't attempting to ban all negative reviews, they "just want to grant some special privileges to fans."
However, Apogee seems to be offering "special privileges" to people who don't need them. The contract offers, in parts, permission to use trademarks to identify Apogee stuff (always legal, no permission needed), and permission to use screenshots (clearly fair use). They also grant permission to help them distribute the information they make freely available from their website, so long as you don't charge for it. Gee, thanks Apogee! Maybe you need permission for that, but they could have granted it in a single paragraph.
Then they ask for notification for every time you use one of their trademarks ("You must notify Apogee prior to any use of the Marks and/or the Materials.").
Furthermore, they claim that merely "Accessing the Property" means that you agree to the contract. Hmm... That doesn't sound like granting special privileges to people who want them, it sounds like roping anyone who wanders into their web site (if that's even remotely legal).
The contract is misunderstood because it is very poorly written, and about 5 times longer than it should be.
I took the time to read it, I don't think it says what he's claiming at all. Nobody needs permission for the things it offers, they are either normal use for trademarks or fair use of copyright, and it appears to try to place greater restrictions than would exist without their "permission".
My personal opinion is that their legal staff is a bunch of second-raters like the rest of the company, and didn't accomplish what they were told to do.
Re:Poor Excuse for a professional (Score:1)
Probably not many at all. The on-line audience that would see his e-mails is a very small number, but the most vocal. They certainly talk up a storm, but constitute a small percentage of their sales. Don't believe me? Look at the phenomenon of "Deer Hunter" and "Who Want to Be a Millionaire?". Those are the people that make or break a product and keep more hardcore game titles like "StarCraft" and "Half-Life" on the top ten lists over a year after their release.
CP
Re:*READ* what he said (Score:1)
First, they define marks:
Trademarks, logos, images and service marks (the "Marks") displayed on the Property are registered and unregistered Marks of Apogee.
...(snip)...
Here's a partial list of Apogee trademarks:
Apogee logo
3D Realms logo
Duke Nukem
The logo ones, of course, are fine. The problem is when they start listing things as trademarks that aren't logos, such as Duke Nukem. Now, the words "Duke Nukem" are "Marks", and subject to these restrictions:
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. Such use will terminate your license to use the Marks.
Obviously, those aren't legal, and probably weren't intended. And when they say things like you need permission to use an Apogee character's phrases, they obviously can't stop you from using, say, "hail to the king, baby" in a movie, or we'd have to go and destroy all copies of Evil Dead.
So, in the end, the license agreement DOES say they have the right to ban negative reviews. It's entirely absurd, of course, and just sloppy legal wording, so hardly anything worth a slashdot article. Nevertheless, once it became a slashdot article, Miller could have at least paid some attention to it, rather than, well, shrugging it off as mere sensationalism and saying they would never do such a thing.
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
Re:here is the link to the actual article (Score:1)
Aha! He's going to try to PATENT absurd interpretations of legal documents! WILL THIS TREACHERY NEVER END?
trademarks( the marks) and properties(the property (Score:1)
The part that threw me was the inclusion of the phrase "as well as your use of Apogee's various games (collectively, the "Property")". "Property" is not subject to as many restrictions in the license as "Trademarks, logos, images and service marks (the "Marks")" but it was very confusing to me exactly to which restrictions it was subject.
I didn't notice any posts yesterday that picked up on this, so the distinction is not clear to a lot of other people besides myself. But Mr. Miller has my sympathy. Apogee has opened up their screenshots, logos and icons for use in fan sites, with none of this "George Lucas owns your material" crap. And given the vitriol I've witnessed by
having to spend a few days in the furnace.
The /. point of view (Score:3)
These topics [slashdot.org] contain icons [slashdot.org] that enhance [slashdot.org] the interface [slashdot.org], allowing the reader [slashdot.org] to quickly [slashdot.org] scan the top [slashdot.org] tool bar to see the topics posted [slashdot.org] on the main page [slashdot.org]. Some [slashdot.org] of these icons are funny [slashdot.org], some are seasonal [slashdot.org], and some icons make most Linux users want to cry [slashdot.org].
The majority [slashdot.org] of these icons [slashdot.org], however, are the copyrighted [slashdot.org] trademark [slashdot.org] of multi billion dollar [slashdot.org], multi national [slashdot.org] companies [slashdot.org] who spend millions [slashdot.org] and millions [slashdot.org] each year maintaining a good name [slashdot.org] in the industry [slashdot.org].
The proposed EULA from Apogee just sucks [slashdot.org] because good people [slashdot.org] have to fear the wrath of evil companies [slashdot.org] infringing on their right [slashdot.org] to free [slashdot.org] speach [slashdot.org] under the first amendment [slashdot.org]. I ask you [slashdot.org], does Rob have the right [slashdot.org] to make his own topic bar? Can [slashdot.org] he add [slashdot.org] an icon [slashdot.org] for what [slashdot.org] ever he wants [slashdot.org] without fear [slashdot.org] of retrobution [slashdot.org]? Is my linking [slashdot.org] to these trademarked [slashdot.org] work a violation of some law [slashdot.org]?
C'mon, think about it. It's just not smart [slashdot.org].
___
Pinball Wizard (Score:1)
I played EpicPinball (tm)
From DeepSea down to Andriod
I must have played them all
I even bough the trilogy
From my local mall
That dumb, capitalist company
Sure has lost their balls
Re:it's a contract, not just a grant of rights (Score:2)
While in the long run, doing something legal or political about UCITA may be a good thing, in the short run, you have a much more direct weapon at your disposal: don't do business with companies that you know impose onerous or overly complex contracts.
Miller's claim is that their license agreement is harmless and doesn't impose any significant conditions on you, so you shouldn't mind agreeing to it. He isn't claiming that they can't make you agree to it in this way. I'm saying that Miller is wrong and that their license agreement may seriously limit what you can say about their products, and if that bothers you (it bothers me), just don't do business with them. There may be other "hidden" agreements of unknown legal validity, but this one you know about, and this one you can do something about.
If we keep publicizing companies bad license agreements and consistently don't buy their products, this practice will stop sooner or later.
Another letter to Scott Miller (Score:1)
It's Time to Kill Apogee and send them and 3D Realms to the Planet of the Babes. They knew me and my Lo Wang were the King of carnage and King of action respectively yet they decided to tell us to Hail to the king? I don't think so! They better Come get some and suck my Dr. Proton before I carve The yellow "Duke Nukem" title into their Balls of Steel! It's Zero Hour. I'll give them Max Payne! I'll make them and General Phil Graves my Prey!
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.)
Immediately, I wondered Apogee PR dude Scott Miller's response would be if someone sent him this, so I sent it to him. Here's the reply:
A standard response to the madness! :-)
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. Somehow, someone found a link to it and of course jumps to the wrong conclusion, because...hey...it then can become a hot topic.
Also, screen shots are covered by free speech--another fact that people who've made ignorance-based assumptions on this issue do not know...but now you're part of the minority who can help defeat the madness. (It's a tough job...just warning you. )
We might need to make it more clear that reviews are--of course!--not what concern us (nor could we legally prevent negative reviews--that's patently absurd). It's to stop web sites from using our logos next to overly foul, abusive, racist, etc. language or art. For example, we would not allow our logos to be used on a KKK site. BTW, this page was not for public view, and was a work-in-progress.
Thanks for understanding.
Back to important work...
I must say that I'm suprised he make any comments about my intelligence or non-lawyerness. I guess someone reminded him what Public Relations means.
A quick summary: (Score:3)
Do you think that the average lawyer will go do sysadmin stuff, and then complain because the manuals use technical terms? Well, I do too, but that doesn't mean we're right to do it to them.
Secondly, I don't think he was unprofessional. I think he was human. The people flaming him were unprofessional in the most literal sense; they were flaming him about something they knew nothing about.
Get over it, guys. The license agreement offers you additional terms under which you may use their trademarks and their copyrighted material, and that's all good for you. Insofar as you don't need a license to use these materials, the license doesn't affect you anyway, really.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:My thoughts (Score:1)
"If you open up a McDonald's franchise, you can't go on national TV and say McDonald's food sucks, and expect to still be running a McDonald's the next day." Same thing.
There is an increasingly distressing tendency of people these days to make a flawed analogy and then announce "same thing" as if the two things are identical. This is what the license [3drealms.com] says:
Please review the following terms and conditions carefully. This Agreement is a legally binding contract between you ("You") and Apogee Software Ltd., a/k/a 3D Realms, ("Apogee") regarding your access to and use of its web site (the "Site"), as well as your use of Apogee's various games (collectively, the "Property"), the information contained therein and its copyright and trademark policies.
In other words, you are agreeing to this "contract" by looking at their web site. It is not at all like agreeing not to badmouth McDonalds if you become a franchisee.
It is more like agreeing that you won't badmouth McDonalds by the very act of buying one of their burgers, or even walking past a McDonalds and looking up at their signs.
I also totally don't buy their claim of not planning on enforcing such a contract term if it so suits them. Even if the people in charge now wouldn't do such a thing, it's entirely possible it will be bought out by people who would have no compunction of doing it.
You'd have to be insane to attempt to enforce such a clause, as the resultant bad publicity would make you entirely despised, but there are lots of insane and stupid people out there and a disturbing number of them are in charge of corporations.
I'm sure some lawyer somewhere would be thrilled to do any stupid-ass crazy corporate thug-stomping heavy routine that paid in money. In any case, it won't be companies that produce good products that will attempt to use such terms. It will be thuggish crook operations that sell toxic or dangerous garbage and don't want it exposed. Scientology [xenu.net] interestingly enough has such a gag contract on anyone receiving their "services" but even they have never been crazy enough to try to enforce it with a lawsuit.
In conclusion, I am aware of that terms of use document, I used the page it's on, thus by their reasoning "agreeing" to it, and Apogee [3drealms.com] sucks dick. Duke Nukem [3drealms.com] is a child molestor. Apogee can lick my Balls of Steel [3drealms.com].
I don't consider such a contract binding even by current law, as unlike a "click-through" you can access it without even seeing it, as it's hidden in a little link on the bottom. Imagine a company distributing "reviewer copies" of a book and saying you couldn't give the book a bum rap!
CNN researched? Are you sure? (Score:1)
Re:Ok.... (Score:2)
contrary to popular belief, the internet provides just the sort of environment which in which such laws are relatively easy to enforce.
I've read pretty much everything by Lessig that I've been able to get my hands on. What you say here was made very clear to me by his book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Which is probably why I, and many others here, have said repeatedly that IP law is very broken now and needs some serious fixing before it does more serious damage. But, as you say, big money speaks a lot louder than we do.
A reply from Apogee... (Score:1)
To: Domini @ Slashdot
Subject: Re: Is it really true?
From: "Scott Miller"
-------------------------
standard response to the madness!
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. Somehow, someone found a link to it and
of course jumps to the wrong conclusion, because...hey...it then can become
a hot topic.
Also, screen shots are covered by free speech--another fact that people
who've made ignorance-based assumptions on this issue do not know...but now
you're part of the minority who can help defeat the madness. (It's a tough
job...just warning you. )
We might need to make it more clear that reviews are--of course!--not what
concern us (nor could we legally prevent negative reviews--that's patently
absurd). It's to stop web sites from using our logos next to overly foul,
abusive, racist, etc. language or art. For example, we would not allow our
logos to be used on a KKK site. BTW, this page was not for public view,
and was a work-in-progress.
Thanks for understanding.
Back to important work...
Scott Miller
Apogee Software, Ltd. and
3D Realms Entertainment
http://www.3drealms.com
"patently absurd" (Score:1)
here is the link to the actual article (Score:2)
Re:someone's eating crow tonight? (Score:5)
From what's developing, the original post was dead-on and the cause for concern in my mind hasn't been reduced one whit. Slashdot sometimes goes off half-cocked; this is not one of those times.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Poor Excuse for a professional (Score:1)
The response for those who dont' want to search (Score:2)
A standard response to the madness!
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. Somehow, someone found a link to it and of course jumps to the wrong conclusion, because...hey...it then can become a hot topic. Yippee. Don't we live in a fun society?
We might need to make it more clear that reviews are--of course!--not what concern us (nor could we legally prevent negative reviews--that's patently absurd). It's a web site using our logos next to overly foul, abusive, racist, etc. language or art. For example, we would not allow our logos to be used on a porn site.
Back to important work...
He's a dope. (Score:1)
Saying that people know more about making ice than the law is unimpressive because there is little to know about making ice and because making ice is a common practice. The only reasonable response is "well, duh."
There's probably a word for that sort of misintention, but I don't know what it is.
Re:someone's eating crow tonight? (Score:1)
Re:Song Lyrics ( OT ) (Score:1)
folls[sic] rush in where wise men fear to tread.
But rather:
fools rush in where angels fear to tread
and
Fools rush in where wise men never go
Of course the canonical reply is:
Since wise man never go there, and it's where angels never tread, how do they know if what's there is worthwhile?
I, for one, hope that Slashdot NEVER becomes mainstream, once you've become mainstream you've lost what you are. The "tirade" by CmdrTaco shows that he his HUMAN, and this site is a result of that humanity. One of the problems with the world today is the increasing lack of empathy by corperations, et al. This, I believe, is due to the fact that we view most companies as faceless, unfeeling beings, and since that's how we view them, they start to view themselfs that way. So if it takes Rob going off half-cocked now and again to keep
Re:Trademark dilution (Score:3)
Not fair use, just normal Trademark use. (Score:2)
<p>Basically, the only protection a Trademark has is that you can't use it (or an excessively similar mark) to identify another product in the same field (this includes using it to identify <em>all</em> products in the field, like calling all gelatin desserts "Jello"). Also, if they don't enforce it, they lose it.
<p>A Trademark is just a name registered for a certain product. As long as you use it to refer to that product, no matter what you say about it, they can't touch you.
<p>It is significant that it only protects within a certain field. Anyone could produce a "Duke Nukem" insecticide (as long as the name was not clearly derived from the video game character). That is why you can have a McDonald's restaurant and a McDonald's shoestore in the same town (although they'd probably get sued if they sold big floppy red ones).
Re:Inexpensive Legal Battle (Score:1)
On second thought, though, maybe I'll just move to Canada, where there is no UCTIA.
Did you? (Score:1)
Note that that applies to the web site and the games (top of the license).
Sounds pretty clear to me. If you post a negative review that mentions the trademarks (and they've trademarked anything identifiable), they revoke your license to use the marks (ie you have to pull your review). If you trust them not to use the power even though they explicitly created it, that's your own business.
it's a contract, not just a grant of rights (Score:2)
The license agreement is a legal contract between you and Apogee: in return for using their web site or their software, you agree to certain terms. In some areas, the agreement grants you extra rights (the right to use their software, the right to access their web site), in other areas it limits what you can do with their intellectual property.
In particular, within some limits, without a separate contract, anybody has the right to use their trademarks in the context of making negative comments about their products. But that right can certainly be curtailed if you enter into a contract with the trademark holder. Those kinds of limitations are a priori valid, although in specific cases they may be invalid or unenforceable.
As for Miller, he is not a lawyer, and even if he were, his opinion on the matter wouldn't be relevant. Nor, in fact, does my opinion on it matter. What matters for this agreement is what matters for any legal agreement: do you understand the terms, can you fulfill your part of the agreement, and what are your risks. If you can't answer those questions, don't enter into the agreement.
Don't sign or otherwise agree to a contract if you don't understand it or don't like its terms.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. For legal advice, see a professional.)
Slashdot's Flippin' Out (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with the absurd (Score:1)
Re:*READ* what he said (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot's Flippin' Out (Score:1)
Ummmmm, Apogee's "read-through / click-through" license tries to force people into implicit agreement with a contract that is explicitly unconstitutional (free speech, fair use, etc).
CmdrTaco has expressed his concern, putting a little light on the subject. How does this qualify as "cluelessness"?
Re:Rely on the goodwill of a corporation? (Score:1)
This is probably one of the most important elections to cast your vote in. Don't forget that.
- Rei
Re: (Score:1)
/.'s Criticism Not Coming Out of the Blue (Score:1)
Even if Apogee does not intend to litigate against critics of its product, somebody will.
Re: (Score:1)
Cover your ass(ets) (Score:2)
Hence you get licenses full of CYA clauses that all but take away your right to use it.