Slashdot Mirror
Apogee(r) Bans Negative Reviews?
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?
Not smart, perhaps, but legal.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
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's my letter which I sent to Scott Miller of Apogee complaining about their licence:
;-)
> 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?
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Maybe this is Apogee's (note the gratuitous possessive) attempt to become relevant again-- their answer to Romero's "Suck it Down!"(tm). I really don't care one way or the other-- I haven't seen any good code come out of Apo-gee since they published Commander Keen 4. Thanks to this stunt, I'm going to walk up to every stranger I meet on the street, tell them that "Apogee sucks!", and convince them not to purchase Apogee products. If I can get through to even one person before they drag me off to the mental ward, then I will have made a difference.
Five tons of flax.
hahaha... he said, "For example, we would allow our logos to be used on a porn site."
I'm assuming he meant to say that they would NOT allow that. But that's exactly how his statement appeared in his email to me, I cut-and-pasted and double-checked it. I'm sure it was a typo on his part. :)
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Hey, my first name is Benjamin, and I resent it being used in this context! I'm gonna sue you for defamation.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Why is that unfortunate? I always thought that the unfortunate bit was the companies trying to ignore that rule.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
When was the last time YOU read the Constitution? Remember that the Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution, and thus, laws allowing for the restriction of free speech, etc. are unconstitutional, no? Granted there are laws about libel, allowing parties to sue for such, but statements of libel must be shown to be untrue (or something like that---I don't know who has the burden of proof here). I would be surprised if a judge found a negative review of a stupid game libelous. I could be wrong though.
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;
end of line
>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?
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
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
these morons sure have balls of steel(tm) to drop a bombshell(tm) like this. time to kill(tm) any copies of duke nukem(tm) that might remain on my hard drive.
Oh, crap. Will you take a post-dated check?
I kinda thought that that line from Lo Wang was funny... Which engine was that just like? Blood or Duke?
Eh...
Get a load of this:
Here's a partial list of Apogee trademarks:
Apogee logo
3D Realms logo
Duke Nukem
Bombshell
Dr. Proton
General Phil Graves
Come get some
Hail to the king
King of action
King of carnage
---> The yellow "Duke Nukem" title logo ---
The yellow nuke symbol
Planet of the Babes
Time to Kill
Zero Hour
Max Payne
Talon Brave
Prey
Shadow Warrior
Lo Wang
Pinball Wizards
Balls of Steel
How can they trademark the symbol for hazardous radiation? I guess every nuclear power plant in existence is now violating Apogee's license agreement.
Not necessarily. "Sick-outs" are fairly effective in some circles.
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.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but those are the stupidest arguments I've heard in a while.
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.
Hey,
Network Associates threatened to sue Bindiew for publicising a remotely exploitable buffer overflow in Network Associates' Sniffer Pro Product. I wonder if criticising a product because it has faults is illigal.
Probably. Who cares about things like free speech?
Michael Tandy
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
What if we spell it vertically or diaognally, or backwards? :)
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
The question is whether or not the "Negative" clause even applies to reviews. There is another clause that says that discussion is allowed.
Another far-too-rare comment from someone who bothered to read the document they're commenting on.
To me (IANAL), "Duke Nuke'em sucks" would not be allowed under the license as stated.
I'd like to add that the first paragraph says that "[b]y accessing the Property, you agree to the terms and conditions as outlined in this legal notice." Now, IANAL, but it seems to me that "Duke Nuke'em sucks" is allowed, as long as I don't actually play the game (take your example from MS bashers! ;).
Or do we have too many clueless lawmakers.... maybe it's time for action?
First Po^H^H^H Amendment, that is...
I mean, seriously, this has to be unconstitutional and not worth the paper it's written on.
BTW, Duke Nukem sucks. It's one of the worst games I've ever seen. I couldn't be more negative in my feelings about it.
Maybe thats their idea. Perhaps they realise that its a stupid law and so they're going to take a dive.
Of course, they will have a bit of a problem since you haven't actually agreed to the licence.
I'm surprised John Romero didn't take the hint from his former publisher and use this language for Daikatana. From all the negative press I've seen (and screenshots), it could use just this kind of protection.
I like music
It's that simple. In their zeal to secure financial contribs from media companies, they sold us down the river. It is now up to us to boot these scoundrels out of office.
Don't complain if you're not willing to do something to correct the situation.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
"Anything you transmit or post may be sued by Apogee or its affiliates for any purpose..."
So don't include pictures of family friends or pets in your postings about Apogee!
Does the concept of civil disobedience mean anything to you?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Man, the old Apogee games were fun. A company that started out on shareware, bases its only success on word of mouth and getting passed around in BBS's, one of the many homes of free speech, smacking down on the free speaking public. Nice to know that you care so much about your users. I really liked playing commander keen, but the graphics weren't as good as Quake III's. Am I bashing your company? I hate UCITA. Thanks for selling out.
Eh...
I suspect this will lead to a new social convention, if you can't say something nice about someone... leave a comment saying you can't say something nice about them. ;-)
Something has to give, and it will, I have faith.
--Mike--
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Marko Karppinen
Before I even consider purchasing a game from them I would want these questions answered to my Satisfaction: How do you expect a free market to exist and function in a way that benifits consumers as well as businesses when your Company gives themselves the right, in your terms of use, to ban, sue or remove articles from anyone that says anything negative about any of your trademarks, products, or services? What kind of motivation does a company have to fix bugs, add new features, or generally compete in any market when you are protected from negative reviews by your terms of use agreement? What kind of protection does this afford consumers in the future?
Bob: Say, Bill - how do you like the new Apogee video game?
Bill: Well, I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Bob: Ohhhhh, that bad, eh?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In the end, I think it's coming to the point where the social contract is breaking down, people aren't playing ball together any more. For example:
'You sell good software at a reasonable price, I'll buy it.'
'No, I'm going to sell shitty software at exorbitant prices. You have no choice or input.'
'Ok, I'm going to pirate your software.'
'I'm starting the SPA.'
'Bite me.'
'Fine, I'm bringing in the UCITA. Rent software from me. And I'm going to infringe on your rights. Top that!'
'Ha! Bite me, x2. I'm going to completely ignore the UCITA. Here, distributed clients. Try to catch me.'
Sounds sorta backwards with all this bitchslapping going on.
II.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just happened to notice that the title on their page is spelled wrong.
Also, I have a question? Are they going to legally pursue "houses of ill repute" -- their implied slogan is "come get some," which, as per the list on Apogee's page, is a trademark?
Madness is only a state of mind
"When was the last time YOU read the Constitution?" A better question might be when was the last time the _REPRESENTATIVES_ read the constitution!
Take for instance "Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." and the recent crap about rape victims bringing cases in federal courts!
Two points in his response :
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!
-- The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
Try reading the list of games, 1992 to present, that they've published. Then sort by your definition of what was original/funny/playable at the time. My impression was that they had some early breakthroughs (Wolfenstein, Duh!) But, lately they've slipped over the edge into repetitive copy-cat titles. If any company wants to lawyer themselves up their own assh0les, Apogeee's not a big loss.
Peace.
Sorry to burst your bubble CmdrTaco, but the "Pinball Wizard" trademark is perfectly acceptable, even though there was an old song by the same name. Two companies may trademark the same word as long as their customers could not potentially confuse the two products. Here's a quote from the USPTO's Basic Facts About Trademarks:
To determine whether there is a conflict between two marks, the PTO determines whether there would be likelihood of confusion, that is, whether
relevant consumers would be likely to associate the goods or services of one party with those of the other party as a result of the use of the marks at
issue by both parties. The principal factors to be considered in reaching this decision are the similarity of the marks and the commercial relationship
between the goods and services identified by the marks. To find a conflict, the marks need not be identical, and the goods and services do not have
to be the same.
Hmmmm...
Can I still say that someone has "balls of steel" if I mean it in a good way and I append (R) to it? How would I pronounce (R) when I say "balls of steel"?
Apogee also lists "Bombshell", the universal radiation symbol, and "Prey" as trademarked. That's interesting...
Personally, I think mandatory seat belt laws are some of the stupidest laws ever. Like those against committing suicide.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
I've got my shotgun ready.
________
1995: Microsoft - "Resistance is futile"
The problem isn't that UCITA gives software makers sweeping powers to do this or that. The real problem is that it treats the shrinkwrap/clickware contract as an actual contract. You can specify many things in actual contracts. For example, "You can not say bad things about X" or "You will give us $100 every time you use this product". Don't like it? Don't use the product. Of course this is wrong, but it's also now law. Yay! Our lawmakers should come with point-of-sale terminals, so that buying them is more convenient.
Go read it, and things don't seem quite as bad...
I read this as you can't use these TMs in the sort of extra-curricular areas sometimes seen on webpages -- like the "TM-deleted" strip bar. You can't damage the value of the TMs. But I don't see how a poor review would necessarily do that.
If they try to enforce it that way, I doubt it'll hold up in court (again, I'll offer my $5 to whoever has to take it to court). Fair use is a law that's been upheld in the Supreme Court -- no law that the States pass can circumvent that. Parodies of Duke are still protected.
What really kills me is that they don't allow you to hyphenate the title, even at the end of the line, or to use the possessive. (I.E. you can't talk about Duke Nukem's anything!) I guess you can't even call him Duke. Full names only, please.
Can you take something that is public domain or otherwise protected, use it in a product and protect it? They also list the Radioactive symbol (although I suspect only their artistically modified version).
This game was put out by Apogee. I'd tell you more, but there is an Act of Congress and a Federal Law that prevents me from speaking my mind.
Interesting, a Federal Law which limits my First Amendment Right to Free Speach. I guess it just goes to show, now more than ever: The business of America, is Business.
Oh, 310th post!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Seriously, by agreeing to the terms of use set forth by the company that this thread refers to I am agreeing to *not* say anything in a negative context. The legalese of their statement neglects the definition of negative context...so it's wide open for any interpretation, as usual. I was looking forward to their next product, too bad they had to tread upon my rights as a consumer and an American. Next time somebody writes up a 'Terms of use' paper, they ought to go examine the Bill of Rights in depth, and then call their congresspeople and have them start lobbying against the UCITA.
perhaps lackluster sales will persuade them, read the following Apogee(r):
You have lost a paying customer.
indeed, someone above proclaimed that if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all. I will do just that.
zerodvyd
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. 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.
We want endless gardens of data, where the bits can flower, flourish and reproduce. -- Andy Mueller-Maguhn
Can they legally do this? I would think that would defeat the whole Free Speech thing. This is getting WAY out of hand? How can you tell people they can't say bad things about your product? If I don't like it, then I'm going to damn well say it. Here's how I look at this. If you have to outlaw people saying it's a bad product, then you already know your product sucks and need to do something about it instead of outlawing free speech and thought.
Any communication or material you transmit to the Site by electronic mail or otherwise, including any data, questions, comments, suggestions, or the like is, and will be treated as, nonconfidential and non-proprietary. Anything you transmit or post may be sued by Apogee or its affiliates for any purpose, including, but not limited to, reproduction, disclosure, transmission, publication, broadcast and posting. Furthermore, Apogee is free to use any ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained in any communication that you send to the Site for any purpose whatsoever including, but not limited to, developing, manufacturing and marketing products using such information.
So now you grant them permission to sue your letters, too! :)
People who are mean, suck. The opposite is not true.
Okay, Apogee, you can send in the lawyers, I think that Shadow Warrior wasn't worth the $10 I paid for it out of the bargain box. Now, I thought Duke Nukem was mediocre, but not nearly as good, or playable as Quake or even Doom. I have Balls of Steel, so I say Bring it On.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
The internet brings communication to a new level. Changes in the technology of communication cause massive social changes (look at the printing press and the Roman Church). Our society will undergo huge changes in the next 50 years, probably doing away with copyright and other arbitrary protections of information that can be distributed instantly and cheaply by everyone, not just media companies. Personally I could give a shit anymore, there is no way to enforce these laws on large numbers of people freely distributing information. Eventually the laws will catch up. This catch up process definately will prompt massive economic and social changes, but well, too late, the cat5 is out of the bag and not going back in.
Thats what they are trying to say. But does that also imply we are told NOT to point out the faults in a company we want to have one or the other business with (even writing reviews).
It may even lead to some frustated reviewers boycotting Apogee(r) products! And what do Apogee(r) get in return of all this?
So if Slashdot runs an Apple story, with the Apple logo on top, and everyone trashes Apple...then we (Slashdot community) are in violation of UCITA? That would be using "logos in a derogatory way against them" - right?
Constitutionally Correct
By my reading of your analysis, this also means that screenshots cannot be employed in reviews critical of Apogee's games.
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.
I don't think this is as bad as it sounds, you have to agree to the license before you are bound by it.
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
Babar
Damn. I guess I'm going to have to remove that sticker from my pickup truck that has Calvin peeing on the Apogee logo.
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Depending on the context and the state that you're in that could be considered assaulting a police officer...
Microprose.
begin 644
Now what contract have any of us entered into with Apogee that stipulates we must give up our right to free speech in order to make use of their trademarks under constitutionally protected fair use? None at all. Their whole website "license" is nonsense and doesn't bind me beyond the rules laid down in federal copyright and trademark law. What they're attempting is far worse than click-through licenses... this is an attempt at a riduculous "by reading this" contract that is about as enforceable as the following:
By reading this post, you agree to compensate the author $5,000 each day for the rest of your life.
Now pay up.
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
What I mean by this is that Apogee (and I'm not trying to salvage this company's rep...) must have a suite of lawyers and marketing professionals, whose sole mission is to produce the kind of vomit-inducing rhetoric that we see on the Apogee site.
My wish is to personally uncouple technology (big wish) from profit minded lawyers and marketers... of course, GNU/Linux is my example, I think someone once asked Linus how he would try to capture market share, and he replied..."I'm not trying to capture anything"...
What the heck?.....BIOTECH!
actually I was thinking more of a random visit to a random website - you click on a new link (say in some spam, or as a result of a search from some search engine) to check out a website sight-unseen and suddenly discover yourself bound by some legal agreement you haven't had a chance to read because you've never been there before (similar to the way you UICTA allows you to be bound to the legal mumbo-jumbo that you can't read in some shrink-wrapped package because it's shrink-wrapped)
Wrong! the reason tobacco companies are on the run is because of class-action suits by states reclaiming the health costs associated with treating smokers (with medicaid $$$ and the like) -- and non-smokers to be fair. The reason most given behind mandatory seat belt laws are that it raises insurance rates. I mean smoking, OK the secondhand smoke hurts other people but why not just ban it inside? why tax it?. Have you ever really thought about the fact that putting on a seat belt only affects yourself? Why should we have a law? The other day on NPR I heard an interview with a doctor who thinks we should have a fatty-food tax because Americans are obese and the health costs are astronomical.
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Everybody should be very skeptical about wild claims on Slashdot.
"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.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
With regards to one of their rules which states something like "You may not use any Mark, or part thereof, in any domain name..." Does this mean that sites like NUKEM Group www.nukem.com is violating Apogee's copyright?
What if the game makes music? What then? Hmmm... Maybe something like Apple Records vs Apple Computers.
Check out http://www.3drealms.com/images/duke/ dukesymbol.jpg
It's basically a slightly stylized version of the the international symbol for radioactivity.
(See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/stu dents/symbols.html)
Now, on the policy page: http://www.3drealms.com/policy/index.html
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)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Wow! This guy sounds exactly like that Steve Woston troll! That's amazing!
Hats off to you, Mr. J-J-J-Julius!
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
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
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
IF this Could actually hold up in court don't you think Microsoft would have done it already? OH yea and by the way
Every Apogee Game I have ever played. Sucked. WIth the exception of Rise of the Triad. That was fun.
Hey Apogee AApogee ApPOoOgEeeE Another thing you have against you. Unlike a private citizen your company is a public figure of sorts. Therefore, I can say what ever I want about you as long as I am not aware that any thing i am saying Is incorrect.
Thefore Since I am certain your Games SUCK. For I have played them. I can only conclude That YOU SUCK.
.
And By Me Stating that you suck. In my knowledge that is also a factual Statement. Because in order to pull a stunt this Blatently Homosexual, you have to be the best suckers in the world.
Moderate this up. Moderate it down. I dont care sorry for the foul language.
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
he's a no bullshit kind of guy?
why did he have a lawyer write up a "we're whiney snotheads that dont want to have bad press, or someone to say bad things... make them stop" crap?
I'm sorry, but if they write a crappy program I will shout from the mountians and post on every billboard that they suck. the sad part is no matter what their lawyers write, I can truthfully bash them and there is NOTHING they can do about it.
If it's the truth, they cant make you not say it.
(The government can though...)
There is NO reason to have anything like that, (Oh, btw, I use the nuke symbol in several programs and will not quit, apogee doesnt own it, and I ignore their attempt to trademark a public symbol...)
Duke nukem was a cool game, for it's time... now they cant produce any more blockbusters so they try and get cash by litigation....
good luck.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hey,
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.
I wonder what the law says about Ah-pogee as a spelling?
Michael Tandy
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.)
Or the MacIntosh speaker company vs. Apple Computer? It happened. A company called MacIntosh speakers sued Apple because of the use of McIntosh name (note the different speeling), and Apple had to hand over a whole wad of money.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
Fuck this. Using no vowels sucks. Plus I couldn't think of a replacement for the "u" in trout.
try \/
D00D! 1t's 4 h3rr1ng, n0t 4 tr0\/t!
ASCII Art to the rescue again!
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
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
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
"When jabber jibbers, the jive jibes!"
:)
Wow... I think I have a new sig...
May I quote you?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
He's writing too many emails, and losing his English. First of all he said "we would allow our logos to be used at a porn site" which was an obvious slip. As for his last paragraph, what he MEANT to say was that he expected commercial review sites to have attorneys. He just got his wires crossed.
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 have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I believe you are one of only a few people who noticed that this was standard trademark law and not the UCITA.
I blame it on too much caffeine in their diets. It has made them edgy.
To bad, I remember the days of playing some of their games. It was fun. I guess we could always boycott them too. You know, if this continues, their will not be any words in the English language left to legally use in the United States. I doubt this is enforceable. The contract obviously is in violation of Free Speech.
One way around this is to adopt phrases and words (jargon/slang) to "refer" to {said company} and products from {said company}. The actual document of jargon would be not a violation of the agreement. It would just say {the soldier}={said company}. No trade mark infrindgements can occur. They would have a hard time of trade marking our jargon since they didn't come up with it. Then we create a central source on the web of the jargon for company names and products. In some cases, they would have no idea what we were says. For example, "{the Soldiers} new pet toy blows chunks!" would be equivilant to "{said company}'s new liscence agreement sucks!"
So much for freedom of speech! America--land of the not so free to say what we want. This really sucks. Does this mean Microshaft will do the same thing? This gives companies an open invitation to make crappy software! One good side of this, people may be forced to look for open source solutions when they realise they spent big bucks for crappy bug filled soft!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
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.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
If they don't want any negative publicity or reviews, then don't give them any positive reviews either, and just ignore them altogether. If the gaming press wants to still pretend that they have any kind of journalistic integrity, they should cut off any contact with any company that attempts to take advantage of this.
It sounds like you can't even use the word "apogee" without Apogee's(r) blessing? Thanks a lot guys...now how do we describe the part of the orbit that is farthest away from the body?!
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. ^_^;
No one needs to defame Apogee trademarks, the games speak for themselves.
How about Rex Nebular???? That sucked! Who made that?
http://packetnexus.com
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:OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Yes, check out http://scifi.ign.com/feature/2525.html
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
They don't trust the lawyers, but they have to play along anyways (or at least they believe they have to).
-Jo Hunter
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
I've always wondered how this can be legal. How can a company have an agreement like this and not display it until after I open the product or visit the site? I don't know much about law so this has always bothered me. If I never read the liscense when browsing the site, is it ok to break the liscense? I wouldn't think so as that would be "getting around the agreement". But, if the company fails to show me thie agreement first, how can it apply? The same goes for software which has the EULA inside the shrinkwrap.
Enlighten me??
Thank.
Check Out Knexa.Com
Check Out Knexa.Com
KNowledge EXchange Auction
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:
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
big deal.
I don't think this can be extended to include reviews which would, of course, say that Apogee(tm) Duke Nukem(tm) Sucks Big Time and that Games By Apogee(tm) are Dated and Lame and other Truths.
Oops! I guess I can't play that crappy "game" Duke Nukem anymore. I think I'll go off myself.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
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.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
In this light, I wonder if the "seineewerasreenigneepacsten" issue would have played out any differently..
http://www.3drealms.com/images/d uke/dukesymbol.jpg
..my wife purchased tha game, installed it, started, click through there liscense, and gets to the starting screen. Now I sit down and play, Does the liscense apply to me? I never agreed to anythng, and no one told me whether or not a liscensing agreement existed, much less what was in it.
I can see it now:
what do you do for a living?
I start games for fan sights..
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, what we might need to make more clear is that reviews are not what concern us. It's using our logos next to overly foul, abusive, racist, etc. language or art. For example, we would allow our logos to be used on a porn site They -would- allow Duke to be shown having sex with some woman? Or is this a typo?
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
If I had mod points I'd mod you up. I did a fair amount of TM resaerch a few years ago (I was flirting with the idea of TMing a name for some programs I was writing - I then decided against it), and I know that this license claptrap is pretty standard fare.
The only thing I'm disappointed about is that I had to scroll so far down to see some common sense...
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
This license grants you, the user, the right to use eVapor. We eOpenLinuxVaporSoft.net.com disclaim any and all liability. We do not claim that eVapor is suitable for your specific use. You are specifically prohibited by this license from publishing negative reviews in any form through any media. This shall include, but not be limited to: books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, electronic mail, mailing lists, web pages, conference calls, radio and television broadcasts, fliers tacked to telephone polls or physical bulletin boards, or statements made at technical conferences, college courses and training.
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.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I think they are a crappy company, and that they make crappy software. My opinion is that they should close up shop and refund customers of their money for all the crappy, negative, low-quality software they produce. And if they'd like to sue me because I said this, well I guess I'll be the one taking them to the supreme court.
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
I will say that anyone who thinks we are trying to control reviews and such are clueless morons.
Mr Miller, you are a sad excuse for a professional. People expressing valid concerns for a badly worded agreement do not deserve to be treated as clueless morons by an ignorant, giggling employee like yourself. In other letters you claim that the the agreement will not be used against reviewers, but fail to explain why it's worded to allow it to be in the future. After getting burned by Unisys over the GIF patent (don't worry, we will not collect royalties for this) why exactally should we trust your poorly written word?
You also claim that most fan sites had lawers? Exectally who is being clueless here?
Finkployd
Well, that sort of thing should actually work if you do it right:
Of course, thankfully reality is not quite that derranged.
DNA just wants to be free...
It might be the year 2000, but 1984 is getting closer and closer....
Slashdot is old news. To get the real scoop, try GeekFlavor.
"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!
"The dead do not shoo-bop-aloo-bah." -- Kai, 'Lexx'
Must... resist... urge.. to... Must.. not... say... bad... things.. GAH!!! Apogee sucks much ass(r)!!!! Damn... Oops.. im logged in.. not an AC... Damn...
Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
The US needs a 4th branch of gov't, created by constitutional amendment.
I propose that all laws, no matter what the law, NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW, that all new laws have an automatic AND UNIFORM 10 YEAR expiration date assigned to it. Existing laws get assigned expiration dates in staggerad rounds until they are all assigned one to prevent a mass law expiration of all current laws 10 years from now.
The new branch of gov't shall be composed of elected officials who shall be required to either renew or let expire laws up for renewal. And the expiration dates are absolute. No time to review == automatic expired law. No going back for it later, either. No executive priveledge. Prioritization will be necessary. Representatives, as in the senate, will come from the states to give equal representation by the states in the 4th branch.
Expired laws must start all over again with a bill in the house or senate.
Also, RENEWALS MUST BE SUSTAINED BY A 2/3 SUPERMAJORITY. 50%+1vote laws passed by legislative/presidential branch either gain enough support to survive renewal or get dumped. Sort of an eval period.
Apogee peaked shortly after Commander Keen, didn't they? Who's suprised that the blood sucking vampires that took possetion of its corpse continue to suck even harder at the husk?
Really, ISTR that Apogee sort of helped get id off the ground with Wolfenstein, but ain't sure. Anybody got a quick history lesson?
I'm ashamed to live in the same state as these morons at Slashdot who let this sort of nonsense through. Of course a company owning a trademark is going to sue if you use their trademarked logo, images, etc. in a derogatory manner, but this doesn't even come close to allowing them to sue to stop things like negative reviews. What a bunch of dumbasses (sheesh -- now that you're a wholly owned subsidiary of Andover couldn't you talk to *their* lawyers before posting such nonsense?)
Do you remember that lawsuit from a bunch of cow herders, who sued Oprah Winfrey. During one of her shows, someone described some of the ways cows were treated, as well as some of the biological effects of eating beef. Oprah said that she wouldn't eat beef anymore. Fearing the massive loss of business by the Oprah fans, the beef industry sued. Luckily, they lost.
make world, not war
but I'm really sick of UTICA, I'm sick of being under fire from people who know little or nothing about what we do, and I'm very tired of having to justify my protests about giving up my rights. Personally - I think we should all just turn off our servers for a day and let the rest of the world see what happens.
Whatever you do... don't read this.
Does the concept of civil disobedience mean anything to you?
Yes it does.
You obviosly don't know what it means yourself however. Taking out your petty grievances on your employers property is a criminal act. Even if you try to shroud it in your own mind as something else.
I'm very sorry if you are so abused by the system you live in that you feel you have to act out in such an infantile way. But, civil disobediance is normally reserved for people with a cause, and a clue. .
You are right about Apogee talking about "materials", "marks", etc.
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.
Which were stolen from movies like Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Bridge over the River Kwai.
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
A reeeeally long time ago. Guess their biterness has finally settled in a tad. ;)
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
civil disobedience (svl ds-bd-ns)
n.
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
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.
Then perhaps I should rephrase; do you know what active protest means? It's not the Apogee thing in particular that's getting my goat, but I can see where it might be the last straw for a few people. And the next action taken under UCITA to stifle free speech (the name "Duke Nukem" is trademarked, non?) will be the last straw for a few more. And the next one, etc., etc., ad nauseam. UCITA is a dangerous law for states to pass. I'm glad I live in Canada, though I fear our federal government would just buckle under and pass a similar law given the slightest pressure.
Having a company tell me I can't tell others on my site what I think of their products because it's in a "negative context" is utter bullshit. No one would accept it from their government; why should they accept it from a company they have no control over?
UCITA is a law by the big software lobby, for the big software lobby. I see no problem with protesting its possible passage or enforcement. Sometime soon, there may be server admins sufficiently whiffed off to get fired and risk jail to protest that law. The idea of a server outage was discussed during another UCITA (or was it DMCA?) conversation on Slashdot, so it's not as if this is a new idea.
I'm glad I live under a system where I won't be shot, killed and squashed simply for gathering to demand freedom to vote, but that doesn't mean I should sit down, shut up and take what people with more power and money give me. Maybe some day, when no one is trying to muzzle me for their benefit, I'll have no reason to complain. Until then, I may not like your opinion, but I'll die (or go to jail, or get sued) for your right to express it.
For the record...I'm not a server admin, so I'm most likely way off. I doubt an outage would take place without wide support among admins, some organization, and a few warnings first. Give the governments a chance to listen to someone other than lobbyists and maybe even back down before having to take an illegal step.
The cause: UCITA is dangerous.
The clue: That's for you to decide if I have any...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
So if that were enforcable, Microsoft could shut down all the topics and threads on Slashdot in one fell swoop? heh.
If only I could get that printed on my check blanks....
Ever hear the term, "Hate Crime"? Yes, your thoughts are now subject to criminal prosecution of a felony in many states. Sad, yes, but it's getting worse with the far left in the US wanting to inlcude speach within the bounds of "Hate Crime" statutes/code.
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.
Does `negative' mean a sort of `constructive criticism' only? That's fair enough, but maybe they deserve to have negative comments...
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
AFAIK, Texas hasn't passed UCITA (and I live here, so...). No one has seemed to pick up on this yet:
Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction You agree that these Terms of Use are governed by the laws of the State of Texas and that proper and convenient venue lies exclusively with the courts of Dallas County, Texas. You agree to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the State and federal courts sitting in Dallas County, Texas, U.S.A. or in the United States District Court by the Northern District of Texas in the event that any litigation results concerning any aspect arising out of these Terms of Use and Service. You agree that the statute of limitations for any claim against Apogee shall be brought within one year from when the claim arose, and any claims not brought within such period of time shall be deemed waived.
I'm no lawyer, but this looks just a *little* bit illegal to me, that and the fact that there is no 'accept' button to actually agree.
Also, this apparently isn't a shrink-wrap license, but a license for usage of the website (one that you agree to by just reading it).
Well, if Apogee can do it, so can I.
By reading this comment, you agree to be on favorable terms with the poster, to never take legal action against him, to give him $20 whenever you see him, and to not use vowels in any communications with him. You must also go cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a trout. You must fully follow these terms in order to be in compliance, violaters will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
The license isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. For example, Pinball Wizards being copyrighted: The logo is where the issue lies, not the words. If you go around using that picture, you have to give them credit. It has nothing to do with any 60's rock bands. What's so bad about that. It is their picture. Also, you ARE allowed to talk smack about Apogee and its works; however, you can't use their trademarks to do it once you agree to the license, which you DON'T have to do as long as your not making something tangible from their stuff, such as a website. You can make as many anti-apogee sites as you want, as long as you don't use their logos and don't put any little TMs or Rs after any of the words. You people are overreacting, talking about "taking a stand" and whatnot. How about reading the sources before blindly jumping on Slashdot's anti-patent bandwagon?
It gives people something to point at when
UCITA proponents say that "no-one will will
use that provision to stifle reviews"...
Sigh. I remember Apogee was cool. I remember
when they broke the mold for distributing computer
games and really made shareware cool. I guess
every company grows up into a suit-infested
behemoth.
BTW, if I start a company today, could I put
binding things in the company article to make
sure that something like that could not happen?
For instance, make any licensing changes be
run by slashdot?
-- The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
The UCITA states that license provisions cannot be contrary to "public policy" (one of those vague legalistic phrases). The Constitution should qualify as a "public policy" exception. However, one would have to fend off a legal challenge from Apogee in order to ensure that criticism of the product qualifies for this exception.
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.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
Uh dear...
--
Flame the products that suck. Praise the ones that rule. The US no longer protects free speech, but we do! We're outside US jurispridence!
"Based on the license's remarkably nebulous wording, there isn't any exception made for comments made by non-licensees; so long as the content appears on a licensee-hosted site, you can be held liable." [Emphasis in the original]
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.
BULLSHIT!
Sorry, I'm not often moved to profanity in a public context, but I simply can't find another word that properly describes this... HORSECRAP! (there, there's another)
In an email published here the Apogee mouthpiece claimed:
Which (must controll language) turns out not to be the case. There are lots of situations in which use of a trademark without permission is perfectly permissible. The most obvious is 'fair denominative trademark use', which says that you're allowed to call Duke Nukem Duke Nukem wherever you want -- even if you're calling him a chump.
Geez, don't these people remember the 'Barbie World' fiasco? How about Orbison v 2 live crew? Heck, all you have to do is look at McSpotlight to see how far this reaches
They might also do well to examine the extent of the 'parody' allowance. This one's not as clear as the nominative case, but it allows just about anything when it's upheld. If they really think they can close these first ammendment gaps in the trademark law by appealing to a UCITA license, I'm sure every civil liberties lawyer in the nation stands ready to disabuse them of this notion.
Actually, maybe it's time we make this point so clear they can't overlook it. I've got their site in my cache, the GIMP on my disk, and a restless urge to parody. Come on, some of you must run ISP's. Who's got a free meg and some courage?
-- csh
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".
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
It means you can't have your Lara Croft Pr0n site called "Duke's Babes!" and use their copyrighted material.
You can't have "Duke Nukem's Guide to Making Bombs with Common Househould Items!" with their tm'd graphics.
And finally, "Sir Dukesalot" - a cheesy family restaraunt with Billy, an 11 year old webmaster - is not allowed to use Duke's image. 3dRealms has a reputation to uphold people! Wait...
And, as the official word said, they aren't worried about reviews. At least they are telling you that doing X is wrong instead of just prosecuting, etc.
Please read the following COMPLETELY before making any judgements. My own thoughts are mixed.
:) I have written a review of your Duke Nukem 3D game(yes, I know it's old, but I participate in a web-ring of classic games), and I was about to post it when, on your web site, I stumbled across your "Intellectual property Rights -- Terms of Use" page, and I did a bit of a double take. As my review mentions uses several of your trade marks, I am seeking authorized permission :) You think it's all right?
:-)
;-)
:)
;-)
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
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
In the case Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court held that claims of product libel must be backed up by showing "actual malice" on the part of the accused. In Bose, it was held that the right to constitutionally protected speech outweighs any interest of corporations against product libel except under these narrow circumstances.
UCITA wouldn't be designed from the outset as violative of established Supreme Court First Amendment precedent, would it?
What are the limits on that? Is it legal to tell the officer "You are dumb"? IOW, what's the test for it to be "fighting words"?
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
The best defense against bad reviews and negative comments is to have a good product. Just like pleading the 5th can make you look guilty, trying to supress negative comments about your product just makes it look like you're producing crap.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Wish I'd had moderation rights on this one, since I've got some similar stories. Screw whether it's offtopic or not, how else is anyone going to hear about this?
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
LouZiffer
OK so Apogee (gee I wish /. allowed the copyright symbol in their html tags so I don't get sued) doesn't want us to speak of them in a negative tone, fine I won't. I won't talk about them at all. I won't buy any of their "games" either. There are plenty of companies who believe any publicity, even negative, is better then none at all. Maybe they want some of my money (as long as their games don't suck like some other unnamed company).
This isn't a case of the evils of UCITA. This is a case of jumping to conclusions. If you read the document the restrictions about negative comments, etc., pertain to licensees of Apogee's trademarks.
/. into removing readers' posts for allegedly violating an online EULA?
Fine. So I have a fan site for Duke Nukem, which uses the game's logos/characters/etc. under license. And I also have a discussion forum, where fans can discuss the game all they like.
Am I then responsible (under the terms of Apogee's license as written) for a visitor who posts "DOOK NUKUMMM SUX GEORGE BROUSSARD'S DICK!!!1!!!1!!"? Is my license revoked simply because I choose to allow visitors to disparage Apogee products in the interest of free speech?
Based on the license's remarkably nebulous wording, there isn't any exception made for comments made by non-licensees; so long as the content appears on a licensee-hosted site, you can be held liable.
You think this isn't possible? Try telling that to Microsoft. Or have you already forgotten they've tried to strongarm
Apogee's license is poorly written at best, and Scott Miller's flip comments that we are "clueless morons" who simply don't understand licensing laws belie the arrogance of a company which, the last time I checked, hasn't released a decent game in four years. Perhaps their license agreement will be moot, since I (and apparently many others) won't be creating fan sites--or buying their games, for that matter.
Because until today, I had nothing but praise
for Apogee... I loved Commander Keen.
Talk about a backfire.
There's more of an interesting argument here than immediately meets the eye.
First, UCITA is simply contract law, and the license provisions are simply an aspect of the contract. You have the right to trade away your rights as part of a contract. However, you could argue that such contracts are not in the public interest and should therefore be invalid and unenforceable.
Second, in the copyright/fair use area, UCITA is state law while the Copyright Act is Federal law. You could argue that for these purposes, the "fair use" doctrine is Federal law and therefore preempts this aspect of UCITA.
John
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
>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.
Apogee's lawyers have Ballz of Steel. 3-D Realms lifted "Come get some" and "Hail to the king" straight from the Evil Dead series. Duke Nu-kem's a cheap Ash clone (so's the character in Doom, for that matter, but id doesn't claim trademark status for the material they borrowed). We've reached the Zero Hourr; it's Time To Killl UCITA before this nonsense about Gen-eral Phil Gravez and Dr. Protun gets out of hand. Here's a Bomb-shell for the Apojee lawyers: trademark laws only apply to commercial uses! We can badmouth Shadow Warrier, Talon Brave, and 3-D Realmz all we want in ordinary speech (such as a review) under the first amendment. King of Akshun? King of Carnidge? Ha! Suck my Lo Wang, lawyer-dogs. You have about as much chance of suppressing bad reviews as finding the Planit of the Babes.
THE KEY POINT: If you want the laws to change, you're going to have to GET POLITICALLY ACTIVE.
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!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
This is just completely out of control. Didn't they know that we have "Balls of Steel(tm)"? How can they "Prey(tm)" on their helpless users like that? They need to "Come get some(tm)" sanity from slashdot users.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
>>> Come get some - ask Bruce Campbell about this one Hail to the king - and this one too... Allow me to correct your ignorance. Hail to the king was popularized in connection with Elvis -- did you miss that?! I thought so -- consider yourself among the informed, now. ;-) In the Evil Dead movie, Ash's line was "Who wants some." See the difference? Be honest with yourself, do you? There you go...all better now. :-) Scott
From the document itself:
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.)
You may quote me, provided that:
Babar
As always, most posters scream without having read the article in question. Maybe a little digest would help...
What they're saying is this:
The copyright in and associated with all material, including without limitation all informational text, photographs, illustrations, artwork, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, audio, video, messages, files, documents, images or other materials (collectively, the "Materials"), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, at or on the Property, as well as all derivative works, is held by Apogee or by the original creator of the material and is protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.
Ok, boys and girls, what they're talking about here is material such as screenshots, original logo's and the like. They have paid their employees good money to create these screenshots and logo's, and they think it's only fair that they decide how this stuff is used. Let's not get into a "copyright is evil" debate here but let's take a deep breath and realise that all companies and artists use copyright to protect their creations.
Now, what is it they want you to do with these copyrighted items?
you will be granted a limited license to use the Marks and Materials for personal, informational, and non-commercial purposes to promote Apogee's games, provided that such use conforms to the criteria set forth below
They are kind enough to allow you to use their logo's and screenshots on your personal 1337 G4M3RZ site. This is very kind of them: not every company allows just about everyone to use their copyrighted material. Try it: post some screenshots of, say, Half-Life that you haven't obtained permission to use for on a site that gets some traffic (and hence attention). Sierra will force you to take them off as soon as they see them.
They would, however, like to have some say as to how this material is being used. By law, they have a right to this, seeing as that they own the copyright to it (once again, no "copyright sux & I'm 1337 H4X0R so I know" flame wars please"). These terms are as follows:
3. You may not use the Marks in banner advertisements or other internet advertising mediums
Fair, right? They own the copyright to them, so if you're making money (banner ads) by using them, you'll have to okay it with them first (and probably pay).
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.
"Uhm..does that mean I can't write `Apogee's new game'?" I doubt it. I think they mean that you can't mangle their trademarked brandnames. This is not to prevent Joe Gamer from making typos on his website, but probably to prevent anyone from luring traffic to a site called "ap-ogee.com" or from producing a game called "duke nuke'em". You may think this is absurd, but whole industries revolve around producing cheap imitations of hot-selling stuff and trying to get away with it by changing a trademarked brandname in some small way. A friend of mine once accidentally bought a video of a movie called "The Lion's King", for example. So I'd say this clause shows some smart thinking on the side of their lawyers as to how they can prevent this kind of stuff from happening. It's only there so they can take action against anyone who makes money by mangling their trademarks.
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.
Another post on this topic contained a copy of an email sent by some Apogee-employee who said that what this clause means is that you can't spice up your Nazi-fetish homepage with Apogee logo's to make it seem as if Apogee condone National Socialism. Notice the use of language in the original clause, if you will. The words used are quite strong: "derogatory" and "defamatory". They're not talking about less than positive reviews here, they're talking about Nazi's, kiddieporn and Apogee hate-sites. Once again, they own the copyright to all their logo's, brandnames etc, so if they don't want you to use their stuff on a Nazi, porn or Apogee hate site, they have a right to forbid you to do it. I'd say it's fair. In fact, this clause is similar to the law that protects you from slander. Sure, that may seem to go against your right to free speech at first sight, but what it really does is protect your right to remain free from harm and unjust accusations.
6. You may not use the Marks as part of any third party products, services or trade name, without Apogee's express written permission.
Oh no...that means it's illegal to put an Apogee logo on my crap game-cd that will be given away with every pack of OatBran...just when I thought it was such a clever idea of me, seeing as that millions of people will buy more OatBran because they think it comes with a free Apogee game!
7. You may not use the Marks in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with, dilute or damage the reputation or image of Apogee or any of its products.
This is saying the same thing as points 4, 5 and 6, worded slightly differently to make sure that they've covered all the possible forms of copyright infringement.
8.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. If you learn of such unauthorized use, please inform us.
Now this is evil...they're saying you can't generate traffic to your site because you've used (part of) one of their copyrighted "Marks". This form of copyright infringement happens a lot, so it's kind of smart of them to explicitly forbid you to do it (try typing: www.macronedia.com instead of www.macromedia.com and see where you end up, for example). I'm not sure how this clause would hold up in court, however, and I'm certain it doesn't mean a thing outside of the US, so I'm guessing it's fairly safe to register www.apogee.tm (Turkmenistan).
The rest of the licence covers the procedures you need to follow if you want to use their copyrighted material. There's also a list of the Marks they own. Nothing shocking, really.
The point of this little expose is that the license does not, in my mind, contain anything shockingly Orwellian. It's the same kind of license that bookpublishers, painters, musicians (which is why Metallica is sueing Napster: Napster is making money by allowing millions of people to infringe Metallica's copyrights), software companies, etc. use to protect the investments they've made in promoting a brand or creating something. I'd say this is hardly something to get so worked up about.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
That's what I call it at least, the Thumper Principle.
Remember Bambi? Remember Thumper?
T: "He's (Bambi) kinda wabbly, isn't he?"
M: "Thumper! What's your Father say!?"
T: "'If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all...'"
Reminds me of a little work incident a few years back.
There was a foreign engineer working with us on a software project.
After a few very productive months, his manager came for a visit.
Over a lunch, he asked how we liked working with his programmer.
Someone had the lack of foresight to mention that the guy was a very good golfer.
A few months later, after the contract ended and the guy went back home, we heard that he'd been passed over for a raise and promotion, due to his 'unsatisfactory' performance on our project.
The sad part is, the man was a genuinely good coder, and a hard worker. We liked him, and involved him in our after work activities. He was a quick study, and learned golf very quickly, which impressed his golfing partner enough to mention the fact over lunch, instead of exhalting his programming skills.
Had we thought far enough ahead to consider that the rest of the world pays more attention to the Thumper Principle than we do here in the States, we would not have accidentally ham-strung a good man's career.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Here's a partial list of things which belong to Apogee, and my opinions theretowith:
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.
doesn't fair use override many of the provisions of their license? aren't people are explicitly allowed to use trademarked/copyrighted material in (for example) a critique or review of the product? clearly, this cannot be limited only to positive remarks...
in other news...today microsoft announced that the microsoft name and all associated brands are trademarked, and may only be used in positive reviews of their products...
Well, well...
How long until I can be legally protected from negative moderation on Slashdot?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
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?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the Church of Scientology has been doing to anyone who tried to criticize their work? I'm willing to be some computer company lawyer looked at a Scientology case and said, "Wow! It'd be neat if we could do that. Wait.... We have the money to bribe the government into doing what we want. So we CAN do that!"
Oh, and interesting note. My local school board has censored the EFF's website and denied all access from any school computer. Wonder what they're trying to hide...?
-RickHunter
Or you can get a declaratory judgement. Or get an injuction against enforcement of their trademark in cases where such enforcement would be against public policy (I do think one can get an injuction against enforcement of a law, e.g. the CDA, but whether one could use that here is debatable.) I am not a lawyer, any here care to comment?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
> 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.
I thought that was what the libertarians were after? I understand, right now it seems likebig business is a bigger threat than big goverment, but these business are using legal threats and lawyers to do their dirty work for them. These businesses are using bad laws. Repeal the bad laws, keep the good ones, rip out big business's Fangs of Venom(tm, patent pending) and at the same time, reduce the scope of federal power. I am talking about the US here, no offense to people who don't live in the same country I do.
I was going to email a great long argument to the email address given at the end of the agreement, but gave up and shortened it to:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
I'm assured that if this is taken to court, Apogee will loose very badly, to put it mildly, I'm glad to say...
Excuse me, but what happened to freedom of speech?
If I used an Apogee product thought it sucked, I'd write a 'negative' review of it -- AND THERE IS NOTHING A-FUCKING-POGEE CAN DO ABOUT IT!!!
Nothing overrides the Constitution. Unless it's Incorporated.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Wow ... I might have been interested in exploring that web site, but after reading their "terms of use", I just closed the window and will never go back ... or buy any of their games.
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.
What this is about is:
Apogee is granting rights that you don't have by default, in exchange for certain terms.
You don't, by default, have the right to, say, put the Duke Nukem logo on your web site. But if you agree to the terms, Apogee will let you do it. And if you break the agreement, you no longer have permission.
With a bit of GPL software, you are granted certain rights that you wouldn't have otherwise. The owner of the copyright on the software (GPL is a license based on copyright - GPLed software is copyrighted) gives you permission to make and give away copies, if you agree to the terms. And if you break the agreement (by, for example, selling a copy-protected binary version without making source code) you no longer have permission.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
What'll they say to that?
/\p0g33... looks better in this font on my machine.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Unfortunately, trademarks apply to specific areas, or trades. The Who has prior use of Pinball Wizard as a song title. Apogee can claim a trademark on Pinball Wizard as the name of a computer game, and if I wanted to, I could open my own line of Pinball Wizard sperm banks without infringing on anyone else's trademark.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
No. The way this provision works is that if you buy the software, you agree to the license. If you violate the license, then, technically, you either owe the company more money or you are not allowed to use the software any more.
Thus, if you watch your friend play the game, you can say anything you want about the software without violating the license.
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
I have never seen so many dumbass comments in my life! Most (not all...whew!) people are simply beyond clueless about free speech and law--that much is apparent...and scary to think about! Okay, people, Apogee is not out to stop free speech. Sheeshes! Here's how I'm responding to all the chicken littles and who sent me email: 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. ----- Okay, we can all return to our normal life now--after all, tomorrow will present a new burden on society, demon to kill, and issue to get us all hot and bothered about. Ain't life silly in that way! :-) Scott Miller, Apogee / 3D Realms
(my bolding...) I just wonder what was on this lawyer's mind... :-)
Well, their spelling isn't much better than mine, look at the title as well.
BTW, what are they trying to see by:
That you can't link their web site without permission...?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
For every silly, pointless clause like this in UCITA there is another group of angry people, and another way to say "are you kidding me? Free speech? Hello!" It's this kind of violation of our rights that really grabs the attention of people (and lawyers.) The other problems of UCITA are too obscure to find much of an audience- this one, on the other hand, is understandable to the public, blatantly unconstitutional, and will (hopefully) take down a large chunk of the UCITA when it is taken to court. (And it will be taken to court- you don't think this kind of thing makes the ACLU salivate?) I say bring it on... the more flagrant and understandable examples we have of things like this the briefer the amount of time we'll have to put up with crap like UCITA.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Seems to me like this document is still in its early alpha stages.. Did anyone else make it all the way through and notice this:
"... see our full privacy policy at [Insert Privacy Policy Link]."
This was near the bottom, in the "Apogee Privacy Policy" section. Interesting.
--
"A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Maybe someday /. will get back to publishing "News For Nerds". You guys have a really serious problem with accuracy and interpretation.
The list of Apogee's trademarks also includes such gems as "Prey" and "Come get some".
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Well, a lot of things here is pretty darn good, but sometimes jumping the "bandwagon" is not needed or even good.
:-)
;-)
For one, it basically says dont mess with the trademark. If you USE it. It has nothing to do with reviews.
The following is a letter from 3d realms:
---- From Scott 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. 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?
Sheesh! Back to important work...
-----
IANAL - But well, I read it and I was not even remotely thinking.. STOP REVIEWERs. Now you think...
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
If they grant you special permission to use their logo they dont want you slinging mud. Journalistic laws get around this by allowing you to use it without infiringing, this should be easy to knock down.
However, regardless of your obvious inflammatory spin on the situation, which I consider to be bad journalism, you fail to miss that it does not ban bad reviews. It bans bad reviews by people who are given special privelege to use logo's and such.
These are two separate issues. This does not effect most of use who post an actual review, it only effects people who review in slanderous or libelous ways.
/*---------------------------*/
Man? What is man?
But a collection of chemicals with delusions of granduer.
/*---------------------------*/
Man? What is man?
But a collection of chemicals with delusions of granduer.
Agreed.
What I was questioning was shutting down your employer's servers. If you think THAT is an act of civil disobedience then perhaps I'm clapping with one hand here. There is a difference between criminal and civil abuses.
I don't know which trademark was the one I saw exiting a bar, obviously drunk.
Kinda gives that "...got such a supple wrist" lyric a whole new meaning, don't it?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Come get some - ask Bruce Campbell about this one
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").
BlackNova Traders
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is this the contrapositive of "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"?
I.e. "Somebody got fired for NOT buying IBM"?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Again, very similar to the situation with Microsoft getting the royal treatment on e-Bay.
They still suck!
Slashdot is old news. To get the real scoop, try GeekFlavor.
You forgot Apo-Jesus.
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent." -- Marlene vos Savant
This isn't a case of the evils of UCITA. This is a case of jumping to conclusions. If you read the document the restrictions about negative comments, etc., pertain to licensees of Apogee's trademarks.
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.
I wonder if Judge Jacksons 'Findings of Fact' might also be affected by UCITA, at least he states there, that windows is overpriced, isn't that enough criticism to have it banned?
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.)
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
From: Webster's Online Dictionary
http://www.miriamwebster.com/
Main Entry: 1trademark
Pronunciation: -"märk
Function: noun
Date: 1838
1 : a device (as a word) pointing distinctly to the origin or ownership of merchandise to which it is applied and legally reserved to the exclusive use of the owner as maker or seller
From: The 'Lectric Law Library
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t039.htm
TRADEMARK OR MARK - A word, a name, a symbol, a device, or a combination of them that indicates the source of goods or services. Distinguishes the products or services of one business from those of others in the same field. The owner/assignee/licensee of a trademark/mark has the right to exclude others from using that trademark/mark by being the first to use it in the marketplace. Rights in a trademark/mark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark. The owner of a trademark/mark has the right to exclude others unless the trademark/mark has been abandoned.
I would suggest follwing the link and reading all of what was written under the second definition.
This seems to be indicative of words being tradmarks. Also from the second link: Implicit in the concept of a trade mark "is a requirement that there be direct association between the mark . . . and the services specified in the application, i.e. that it be used in such a manner that it would be readily perceived as identifying such services."
Now if I were just to say "prey sucks" for example, in a way that had no contextual linkage to the game by the same name, they would have absolutelty no recourse since I could be referring to a band, a book, a poem, or something completely unrelated. However if stated that "although I like most of Apogee's products their new game 'Prey' completely sucks ass". At that point the word prey would be their mark, since there is a direct correlation between their product with their trademarked name and the issues being discussed.
Which finally brings us to the meat of the issue. Whether it is their intention to only use it in response to fan sites, or whether they apply it to sites and/or other publications that review games, the point stands that it is possible that this license can be construed to force publishers/siteowners to remove less than good reviews of their software while it is hashed out in court.
Also there is the issue of screenshots. This could have a very damaging effect on publishers' ability to publish pics from games that have less than favorable reviews. And to throw my own two cents in, I have Duke 3d, it was amusing for a short while, tho the deathmatches kinda sucked. I may buy more Apogee products in the future if and only if they don't abuse this. I hear one peep about it and I'll 'broadcast from the rooftops' how they won't let people negatively review them and I will do everything in my power to see that this their abusiveness hurts them as much as possible.
You may be surprised how fast a hard core gamer gets pissed when they hear about game companies impeding game reviewers.
You must notify Apogee prior to any use of the Marks and/or the Materials. Once you have notified Apogee of your intended use, you will be granted a limited license to use the Marks and Materials for personal, informational, and non-commercial purposes to promote Apogee's Trademark I have to notify them before I type the following: "You should play that Duke Nukem, its the best 3D shooter", or prior to notification: 'You should play the 3d Shooter that isnt Doom or Quake or Unreal, you know... the other one?..."
Use... 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. Hello! what if the rendering program auto adds the dashes. I can't say "Duke Nukem's dominance of the market...," instead "Duke Nukem dominance of the..." There are so many things wrong with this... acurate file names might not allow spaces etc...
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. I'm sure everyone else is breaking the law in this post, but here's my voice to the choir: "Unreal has far better graphics than DukeNukem."
7.You may not use the Marks in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with, dilute or damage the reputation or image of Apogee or any of its products. You mean like, "Pinball Wizard by the Who should not be confused with the later trademarked game from Apogeee." If anyone didn't know about either of these, I just caused a moment of confusion, hee hee, intentionally, diluted the use of "Pinball Wizard" and damaged the reputation of Apogee by mentioning it.
Permission Required
As well as notifying Apogee of your intended use, you must also receive permission from Apogee for the following uses of the Materials and Marks: 4.Use, excerpts, or copies of any Apogee printed materials, including hint books.excerpts? you mean the fair use definition of excerpt? 6.Linking the Site to any other third party web site through a hypertext, text, banner, logo or contextual link ("Graphical Image") which permits a user to go from one party's web site to another by clicking on the Graphical Image. 7.Framing the Site, Materials and/or Marks within any third party web site.What!? now I can't have a reviews page on a web site with links to anywhere? Duke Nukem is a punk! and so is Apogee!
---
This is a statement of basic copyright law. And so, yet again, we have 438 (at current count) people posting in complete and total ignorance. The point of this article is to stop people from using Apogee's trademarks for their own profit. Thus, I cannot start a porn site advertised as "Duke Nukems Sexy Ho's" without their consent. That is all.
Everyone here with a moderation above 2 (all 108 of you) showed a complete disregard for the truth, for the point of the law, and for apogee's explanation, and instead spent lots of time on a "fwck UCITA, and fwck those sell-outs" screed.
It is szd to see that slashdot has become such a monoculture. Stop reacting so much. Christ, the whole world isn't after you or your freedom. Relax.
ps Look in this thread for a replay from apogee. Then, if you have the balls, apologize on this forum for being a tool
http://www.shugashack.com/news_reply.x/6866/
Ever since I was a young boy-
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!
http://siokaos.org/
This is an agreement between you, the slashdot reader, and me. By reading any portion the subject or content of this post, you are agreeing to accept the terms of this agreement.
By accepting this agreement, you agree to tell everybody you meet what a great guy I am, and also to force them to read this agreement. You also agree to mail this agreement to everybody who does not have access to slashdot.
In addition, the reader promises to do a chicken dance once every week at their school/college/workplace.
Thank you.
---
I love this one:
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...
Hi. I'm Allan Cox, Open Source advocate, Linux advocate, and primary coder for Linux's TCP/IP stack. I hope I'm welcome in the SlashDot forums, as til this point, I've been a totally arrogant, antisocial bastard to the community which barely pays for my lifestyle.
In regards to the TCP/IP stack in Linux and my arrogant attitude, I must apologize: as you all already knew, and I just recently admitted to myself, FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack is far superior to Linux's, and to top it off, Microsoft has proven many a time that even the TCP/IP code found in Windows NT functions better than the drivel I have generated myself. Boy, what a humbler that is! It was like RMS and ESR yelling at me on my own front porch (well it's not really my front porch, it's the landlady's, in front of my one-bed, half-bathroom hovel, but you get the point)!
I'd also like to say, in regards to those who read and post in SlashDot's forums... I am sure I will be seeing Allan Cox. [note the period], Alien Cox, Allan Cocks, Allan Coox, and the like. Please, please, please, for those of you who take SlashDot posting seriously (as I do now, amen!) do not let these crank posters (heretofore to be called "trolls") ruin CmdrTaco's bountiful SlashDot experience! "Trolls" take some delight in confusing the populace and causing disparity in the community. Take the time to learn the real from the fake, as I have (re: how I admitted to myself my TCP/IP stack for Linux actually sucks)!
Thank you.
I'm glad I live under a system where I won't be shot, killed and squashed simply for gathering to demand freedom to vote
Nah, just beat up a bit and teargassed, maybe. The dogs and axehandles haven't gotten out in awhile, they seem to have gone out with the national guard massacres of college students in the states, but otherwise correct.
You should send this to 'the company whose name we cannot use in a derogatory manner' and ask them to reconcile their license agreement with the Trademark Dilution Act. I'd love to see the rationale involved!
Eric
APOGEE SUCKS WELL!!!
Or...
APOGEE SUCKS REALLY REALLY WELL!!!
In fact, they suck so well that you can hardly stand up at the same time.
Or...
This game XYZ by Apogee sucks so well that you can't even sit still in front of your PC while playing with yourself.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
"I respect gun laws, though they do need to be changed."
Not "changed" as much as "enforced".
Hint: Most things the Million Mom Mayhem demanded are already laws in one form or another in my state. Making them federal laws will accomplish nothing more than giving Clinton and his allies the ability to say, "See? We're doing something! We're trying!".
Making it a federal law doesn't make it any MORE illegal, you know. It just changes the enforcers from state/local PDs (who still answer to the citizens) to the FBI and BATF who don't give a flip.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
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.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
As I understand it, Apogee can't "license" the use of their trademarks in normal discourse. Trademarks are there to identify products; the intent is that the consumer won't get confused about what product you are talking about, but as long as you use the trademark to refer to the correct product, and as long as you are otherwise fair, I believe you should be able to make both positive and negative comments.
Furthermore, every executive at Apogee participates in nightly Satanic rituals involving sucking Satan's cock.
Apogee JDETM blows chunks, and for that matter blows me.
Their Windows CE Toolkits are complete garbage, as are the human garbage that owns the trademark.
It has been alleged that the Apogee trademark itself has been seen in disreputable bars at night, partaking in lines of cocaine and ketamine before attending all-night raves where children are molested and Microsoft products installed.
Apogee Apogee Apogee Apogee. IHNJ, IJLS Apogee.
Sue me or shut the fuck up, Apogee.
I stand corrected on the definition of civil disobedience.:)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Slashdot should be celebrating this news. Apogee is courting just the sort of court case that could destroy UCITA at the supreme court level.
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!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
The license gives one additional rights to do things not otherwise allowed under trademark law. Despite what it says, it can not make it illegal for you to do things that would otherwise NOT be a violation of trademark law. E.G. if trademark law allows you to use a trademark for identification purposes, a license can not take that away. Licenses can only give, not take. Contracts (that is what UCITA has to do with) can take away, but there are limits on what they can do, how they can be agreed to, etc. I am not a lawyer, any care to comment?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
No, slashdot isn't "news for programmers."
If gdb 5.0 wasn't newsworthy, then why would mod_python 2.1 be important?
No, I'm not talking about suing them.
- -oh-ya-don't-forget-to-charge-him-for-mi nor-upgrades people.
Just put "Don't buy Apogee Products - Click here to find out why" (a better variation in my opinion would be "Apogee Blows - Click here to find out why") at the end of random web pages on your sites. Someone should establish a central site with a Explanation (hell, a link to this post would work). Enough bad press over it and a couple well placed links on popular sites and they will probably turn around as any for-profit company who values their business should.
Hopefully the Constitution still works in our justice system. If it does then at least when someone actually sues over this hopefully freedom of speech will win out over corporate-money-grabbing-put-down-the-little-guy-
Not that Slashdot ever checks with the accused before they post this stuff. Journalistic integrity, perhaps?
I got an ideal for a fourth branch. We'll call it "the people that point out stupid shit."
A group of people, about 30 or 40 that can travel around the country. They could be like supream court justices they way they are appointed. Job for life, can't be impreached or detained by law in the line of duty. They could be recommeded by the president and ratified by both branches of congress, or something like that.
Now this branch can't make any laws, can't judge any laws, or even enforce existing laws. Nether can they directly affect any of the other branches of government or business except in the performance of thier duty.
Let's see. I see them in a white robe, just the oppisote of judges robes and they would carry a symbole of office like a scale or the sign of reason. (Whatever that is.)
Now then. The members of this branch will have the power to read any government law or business contract. They will have the power when carrying out the duty of thier office to attent any trial, any government meeting, or any business meeting no matter what the meeting is about. Nothing can bar them from attending.
At this meeting they may exercise this power once and only once. They may by rasing the symbol of office above thier head and banging it on something hard. The floor, a table, a hollow head, command the attention of everyone at the meeting or every one with in ear shot. Everything must be silenced and the people being addressed must listen to the holder of the symbol of office. Thus the holder of office may in a commading voice say, "You know, this is really fucking stupid and you senator are a idiot."
And with the pronoucement of these words the meeting, trial, or whatever returns to normal. Being labeled stupid and moronic in no way effects the outcome of the meeting or trial. It's just been labeled. The meeting members are free to carry on like the event never took place. The whole process won't take longer than a minute and can only be done once per meeting.
Yes I know, it's a stupid ideal, but I wonder how much stupid stuff could have been avoided if someone could stand up and with out fear call it stupid and label the people doing it idiots.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
actually I was thinking more of a random visit to a random website - you click on a new link (say in some spam, or as a result of a search from some search engine) to check out a website sight-unseen and suddenly discover yourself bound by some legal agreement you haven't had a chance to read because you've never been there before
Ok, now I can understand what you're talking aobut and agree with you fully. That you should be bound to some agreement that you haven't even seen is silly. On the other hand, bypassing the agreement seems unfair on the maintainer of the website, but the webmaster should be responsible for keeping track of who has 'signed' and agreement and who hasn't. Perhaps webmaster who are seriously concerned about having people stick to their agreements should use a cookie to keep track of who has and who has has not signed an agreement, and whenever they try to access a page, give them the agreement for instead.
(similar to the way you UICTA allows you to be bound to the legal mumbo-jumbo that you can't read in some shrink-wrapped package because it's shrink-wrapped)
In a word, UICTA sounds completely bogus. This kind of quasi-legal reasoning is just silly.
Stupid like a fox!
Just because they say something in their contract doesn't mean that it will hold any legal ground, even with the UCITA in place. Check out www.ucitaonline.com before you start talking out of your asses. If the rules outlined by the contract contradict with another law then, depending on the law, it could be preempted. This is almost given with issues concerning your rights (like free speech).
Does anybody have access to Lexis/Nexis searches? perhaps we could get some listings of articles with negative references to Apogee or its games. If we were to notify the copyright holders that they would be in violation of UCITA by republishing their own articles, that might wake up the press.
DB
A pretty good summary of Taco-head's posts. Create a huge blowup over standard trademark legal disclaimers. You've got a company here that, unlike other media companies, wants to let people use their trademarks and then you have idiots like Slashdot come along and rake them over the coals for standard legal boilerplate that *any* company's going to require to use their trademarks (or perhaps Andover.Net won't mind it if somebody swipes the Slashdot log for a Nazi or pron site -- are those the terms of use for Slashdot?)
Apogee games suck farts! ApogeeApogee games suck farts! games suck farts! Apogee games suck farts! Apogee games suckApogee games suck farts! farts! Apogee games sApogee games suck farts! uck farts! Apogee games Apogee games suck farts! suck farts! Apogee games sApogee games suck farts! uck farts! Apogee games suApogee games suck farts! ck farts! Apogee games sucApogee games suck farts! k farts! Apogee gamApogee games suck farts! es suck farts! Apogee games suck farts!
Cool, I get to educate people about free speech -- a very worthy use of my time. ;-) Scott
If the license agreement says that by using the software I have agreed to sell them my first born for use as spare body parts, I am pretty sure that this portion of the license agreement would be deemed unenforceable in any court of law. In fact, I've seen some joke licenses require that and equally silly clauses.
Perhaps any software purchased directly from a vendor should be paid by check with a contract on the back. "By cashing this check you are agreeing to waive all UCITA rights". I've seen AT&T use exactly this strategy to get people to change their long distance.
DB
...people who want to make negative comments about an Apogee game will just have to skirt around the actual name of the game and, instead, say things like: 'That new Apogee game really sucked,' or ' Boy the Apogee game that came out on 4/1/2020 was really slow.'
Kind of annoying, but we can still trash their products. (UCITA still violates the 1st amendment and should be repealed or not adopted in the appropriate states, but this may be an option for those who can't afford a lawsuit.)
Yes...I am a rocket scientist.
You would be able to say you don't like Apogee products...but you wouldn't be able to use thier logo and follow that up with 'sucks ass' or anything.
Of course, I'm tired and ready to go home, so maybe I'm just reading it stupid-like.
First, such use is not covered by trademark law --- that basically states that you can't stamp your own product with that logo. It is covered under copyright law, and, under copyright law, something called *fair use* exists. One can quote sections of it, use it in identificaiton, etc. As for trademarks, they can be used with a (r) next to them, c.f. the /. apple icon.
Have somebody put up a web message board called "Anonymous Apogee Negative Comment Board". They have no jurisdiction over it and I can't hardly imagine them trying to track down posters. I'd sure as heck post with my real contact info anyway. I bought CK4 for CGA, they sent me an EGA version. Boy was I frustrated! I can't hardly complain about the game though..
Stupid laws.
You mean like Grey Day, organized by Digital Divas, who recently made the front page of Slashdot?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's rather a dismal comment on certain political bodies that they would allow such laws as permit this sort of injustice to be enacted. It seems to me that by giving such power to copyright and trademark owners that one is inviting eventual "civil disobedience". Not only that, it makes every single individual a law breaker by simply expressing an opinion (after all, how many times does one express a negative opinion about something someone else created?).
How long do you suppose it will be before enough people realize what is going on and take a stand? Personally, I don't hold much hope for the general populations of any country.
Well, that's my three cents worth.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Damn, 8 hours ago I submit a story about Perl Methods being added to Zope and about the release of mod_python 2.1 and it gets rejected??
What's wrong with Slashdot, ain't these the news for programmers? Another story by me which was also rejected was that Motif interview... and then 2 weeks pass and I finally read it on Slashdot.
I wonder how much do the Slashdot editors understand of programming. Why not showing the names of those who reject the stories? Anyway that was the last story I've sent.
Alex--
I second that.
Go away.
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
Did you know that whoever is in office next term is expected to be able to appoint 3-4 supreme court justices? This is the year to vote for your freedom, people. As much as I hate Al Gore, after i found that out, i decided to vote for him. Why? Because 3-4 supreme court justices picked by a liberal versus 3-4 supreme court justices picked by a conservative will be effecting us for the *rest of our lives* (remember, they serve a life term). Gore could throw the economy into chaos and mess up our foreign relations, but if he appoints liberal justices instead of conservatives it will be worth it. Do you want 3-4 justices saying censorware is fine as mandatory, and copyright and trademark owners can do as they please, etc, or do you want them saying censorware is bad, trademark and copyright owners have their limits, etc? Thats the reason why this election matters, and why I feel its important, this time around, to vote for a liberal (I normally side with the republicans more for economic and foreign policy, but with the democrats for rights/liberties) (if you want to get into why I feel that way, feel free to email me - my uncle is in congress, so I get to see how things really are)
- Rei
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
Funny thing there, Nixon helped nix the mandatory shoulder belt laws (shoulder belts must be put in cars) because the car dealers lobbied that it would be a waste of money.
For similar reasons most safety devices remained out of cars for decades after they had been developed. After Nader started waving his reports around, and Volvo started advertising that they were making safe cars while other people made deathtraps, and it became clear that it was now profitable to make cars that used these devices because people would buy them on that basis, we started seeing more safety devices in cars.
ANARCHY RULEZ!
As far as I know, the UCITA has no force in my country (yet).
Can Apogee suck across international boundaries too?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Hi I actually read the document, and it sounds reasonable. Here's the actual item that's probably being referred to (I'm forced to guess): "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." The "Marks" are their trademarked images and etc. Most companies have similar restrictions on the misuse of their trademarked stuff - logos, etc. I didn't see anything specific to limiting anyones expression of opinion of their products, only the misuse of their trademarks. Did I miss something?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
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...
---------
Typical. People, please CHECK these stories before posting them!
Nicholas
disclaimer: opinions contained therein are not neccessarily those of my employer.
I acknowledge that I'm somewhat pessimistic here, but it is a completely absurd if UCITA really offers this provision. At least, looking on the bright side, we can legally force MSFT to stop their FUD campaigns against the Linux businesses. :-)
The ironic part, if this UCITA clause is to be upheld, is that, here in the USA, I'm free to run around denigrate the US government. But I cannot say bad things about Apogee's products. This is now another excuse to substitute in micor$oft and micros~1 for the real company name, for this allows a safety buffer to make fun of a non-existent company vs. a real company.
make world, not war
Have to agree with Scott M here, folksa, this a knee jerk reaction followed by a herd instinct. Most companies are not verbal about their trademark laws (how many do you see spelled out so well on their web site?) and will flat out sue a somebody for posting an image of a logo, etc., without permission. Let's not forget that other companies have threatened legal action against web site operators for putting *any* of their trademarks *anywhere*. Only by reading it to it's most extreme can you draw the conclusion brought on by a majority of these posts, and we should all know that if Apogee really did try and push such restrictions it would be laughed out of court. They are merely trying to make a defensible position for holding their trademarks, which by trademark law you need to do or risk losing them.
Be glad that you don't have to ask permission to use their logos, trademarks, etc., if you so wish.
(although, and scott feel free to respond if you're reading - i do think it's rather silly/wrong that they tradmarked "hail to the king" and "come get some", when it's all but Bruce Campbell's voice saying it. But hey, that's just what we call pillow talk, baby)
Hrmm, sounds like the bottom line talking, eh?
As a consequence, your freedom to be an idiot comes into direct conflict with my freedom not to pay for the consequences of your stupidity...
I think it's particularly interesting to note that insurance costs didn't go down after seatbelt laws came into affect. They've gone steadily up since the beginning of insurance. Amazing how much money I'm saving you, eh? Medical costs haven't gone down since the price of cigarettes have gone up...shocking how much it's saving, eh? The government shouldn't have the ability to limit the ways I can kill myself, so long as I'm only affecting myself.
On a side note... a simple "no seat belt, no paying the claim" clause in insurance would take care of the insurance costs...and a simple "you bring the condition on yourself by smoking, we don't pay as much" clause in medical insurance would take care of those costs as well. Let's try not to be so naive as to believe that the reason is anything better than dastardly.
-Jer
The oddest part of the agreement to me is that it bans plurals and posessives. So even if you write a positive review, you have to use circumlocutions like "The programmers of Apogee" and "More than one Duke Nukem."
It seems to me that there is a philosphy of license-writing that tries to make sure that everyone violates the license in one way or another, so they can send the subpoenas out to anyone that sufficiently pisses them off.
If you don't want my koalas, baby, don't shake my eucalyptus tree.
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.)
I'm Canadian.
Do I have to worry about this?
What if I post negative comments about a company which are forbidden by UCITA? On a Canadian website, on an American site? On a Kuwaiti site?
As an aside, what kind of business rejects negative feedback? I know this is about a REVIEW, and not a comment forum, but seriously, comment boxes are more for negative feedback than positive.
If I fill out a comment card at McDonalds, they want to know that I was pissed off because the pimply faced 15 yr. old behind the counter screwed up my order 3 times a whole lot more than that I thought they had precisely the right ammount of salt on my fries.
Businesses are based on both kinds of feedback. If a lot of people don't like a product, they're just going to stop buying it. And if they're not allowed to express their reason for disliking the product, the company will never know WHY their product isn't selling.
On top of this, if negative product reviews are being forbidden, why have product reviews at all? Sure it's great to hear about all the new features, and what's GREAT about a product, but pretty much everything has SOMETHING wrong with it. I think it's better to let the reviewers show what that something is, rather than let the user speculate on these problems, and possibly amplify what the problems actually are.
Then again, this might make a great shield for companies who create a substandard product.
/. should start a fund to contribute to Sam Rami (or whoever owns the rights to the Army of Darkness script) so they can sue Apogee for ripping them off. I can't believe Apogee has the audacity to actually claim they have some sort of copyright on "Come get some" and "Hail to the King".
That could be "negaitve"... Right?
--- Tulsa T. Nawi, On Display @ Shattered.com
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>
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
...that in today's day and age, laws are getting passed to protect individuals and now corporations from being offended. How can we be certain of anything unless we know both sides of the story.
An example: A manufacturer could turn out a trashy piece of software at a minimal cost. All we would see is "inexpensive solution for your business. Features x, y, and z.
Is it a good piece of software? One of it's undocumented features, due to poor design, could result in trashing you system completely. It could have an obtuse user interface that would make UNIX ed look like a $1200 office application suite. But you would never know this.
You people are a bunch of morons. Seriously. You love to think that's its another case of companies being bad, but you're meerly misunderstanding. Have fun wacking off to goat porn, fatasses.
The first amendment ought to protect such speech, but as it's been interpreted, it doesn't. The binding precedent is still Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), where it was ruled constitutional to ban so-called "fighting words", specifically applied in that case to cover calling policemen "fascists" and "agents of fascism". It's a horrible ruling, but it's there, and it's dragged out from time to time to justify speech codes and all sorts of other abominations.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Seems to me that most fan sites are ... fan sites. And most fans are ... little people with a computer, modem, and an itch to put up a site about a favoriate game. Not the sort of person who would keep an attorney on retainer; maybe the sort of person to have 15 ad banners on the page, pulling in $15/yr.
First off Apogee == 3DRealms. FYI, if you didn't know.
With that out of the way, I'd like to put some history behind this little legal crap that they put a page up to deal with.
A few years ago, (about 4 to 6, I don't quite remember) some dipshit took any and every 3DR/Apogee logo and their entire website design, all their graphics, etc. and basically created a pretty vulgar site out of it. To say the least the guys at 3DR were not too happy, especially since they spent a lot of time to create that site. After finding this site, 3DR went after the dude, and the guy got flamed by a whole lotta 3DR fanboys.
The guys at 3DR are a good bunch of guys, who are more likely to be found at a strip joint than in court. They are just trying to protect themselves from idiocy, but I think it's worded a bit wrong. No harm, no foul. I would also like to point out this post on Shugashack: http://www.shugashack.com/reply.y?id=20 4292.
I hope this clears things up. And remember, just cause someone doesn't like you, doesn't make them the enemy or a bad person.
Luv,
Brady
Sig missing. Reward.
I have balls of steel! Oh crap, Apogee can now sue me for trademark infringement!
-TSM
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
The entire 1995 Trademark Dilution Act can also be found here.
Jeez. Did anyone actually read the damned thing to the end.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Driver: "Officer, would it be legal for me to call you an asshole?"
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?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
through-out history, gods have been the ones with astounding skills, technology, or ability unatainable by humans. for this they have been worshiped, for as long as we (humans) have recoded history, possibly longer. and so, to follow the path set forth by my ansesters, i call upon the gods to smite this web page from the net. (this is the best damn canidate for any sort of malicious hack/d.o.s. strike i have ever seen) thus, if any 'gods' happen to be reading my little prayer, nail 'em! pretty please.
idiot. since it is the only way i can refer to someone like you...
I am referring to the nasty ability the Ucita gives software publishers..... this IS a law maker's issue, as ucita is legislative act....
And the only way to get rid of ucita is via challenges to it, which... guess what... involve other legislative acts... and of course... lawmakers...
You know what I find odd about the whole smoking issue? The states are successfully launcing lawsuits againts the tobacco companies...most states make twice as much off cigarette sales than the tobacco companies do...if everyone stopped smoking tommorrow these states would be flat broke inside the year...Can YOU see the irony here!?!?!
Terms of Service
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.
They expect fan sites to have lawyers? Oh joy... I'm only halfway through college - perhaps I have enough time left to tack on a pre-law degree?
Governing Law; Consent to Jurisdiction
You agree that these Terms of Use are governed by the laws of the State of Texas and that proper and convenient venue lies exclusively with the courts of Dallas County, Texas. You agree to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the State and federal courts sitting in Dallas County, Texas, U.S.A. or in the United States District Court by the Northern District of Texas in the event that any litigation results concerning any aspect arising out of these Terms of Use and Service. You agree that the statute of limitations for any claim against Apogee shall be brought within one year from when the claim arose, and any claims not brought within such period of time shall be deemed waived.
"You mean the whole time Darth Vader was such a badass, it was because he missed his mother?"
I've got moderation points, and I was wondering whether I should moderate this comment up or down. Moderate up, because it's funny, or moderate down, and see you in court. ;-)
To free myself from this conundrum, I posted to the thread...
Ford Prefect
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
"Anything you transmit or post may be sued by Apogee or its affiliates for any purpose, including, but not limited to, reproduction, disclosure, transmission, publication, broadcast and posting."
;)
I see, they are suing anything I transmit or post to Apogee. Can I send Microsoft to them? I would like Apogee to sue MS.
BTW, while I'm at it, Duke Nukem(r) sucked big fat floppy donkey dicks.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
PS: anyone who trademarks "Balls of Steel" probably doesn't have any
Does the concept of knowing how to operate your own property mean anything to you?
Before everyone with a keyboard starts shooting from the hip (not that this will stop you) let me point out a few things...
Trademark IP, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) applies to commercial ventures. Does Business Week, the New York Times, or even the Podunk Daily Gazette need to apply for trademark usage every time a product or company comes up in a story? No. But if an intrepid entrepreneur (not that this has ever happened) decided to make a commercial use out of someone else's trademark IP, say, a Duke Nukem TC for Quake, even if it is noncommercial with the potential to turn commercial, you can bet your ass that Apogee's attorneys are going to sue (and win) in court over trademark infringement.
Is the Apogee page misleading and not entirely clear? Duh! It's a game company trying to publish legalese. Of course they're going to screw it up.
So, to CmdrTaco(tm) and the rest of the
Do Your Background Research(patent pending)!
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Duke Nukem is stale and was a crappy game to begin with.
What the hell is Bombshell anyhow? It's probably crappier than Duke Nukem.
Dr. Proton was... who's Dr. Proton again? Oh, I guess I don't know because Apogee sucks.
General Phil Graves - clueless again.
Come get some more crap.
Hail to the king um... This is a registered trademark? If I created a character that says "Hello baby" in a video game, can I trademark that and charge licensing fees to Hollywood everytime a screenwriter adds it to a movie?
King of action - King of crap
King of carnage - King of more crap
The yellow "Duke Nukem" title logo - I'll have to deface this later and plaster it all over my web site.
The yellow nuke symbol - Maybe this should be their legitimate trademark. Let's associate their games with things that will make you get cancer and die.
Planet of the Babes - Ok, I really need to get back to work. I'll simply violate the rest of their trademarks with one word.
Time to Kill - sucks
Zero Hour - sucks
Max Payne - sucks
Talon Brave - sucks
Prey - sucks
Shadow Warrior - sucks
Lo Wang - sucks
Pinball Wizards - sucks
Balls of Steel - sucks
http://www.gamefoo.org
If I am researching products, and find no negative comments, that in itself raises my suspicions. Case in point -- HardiBoard siding. Gee, really exciting stuff. I searched the web, and found very little negative stories. That set off alarms. I eventually found answers to my questions, and decided it is good stuff, but the lack of objectivity in most reviews was what made me dig deeper.
I suspect these Apologee idiots will run into the same problem eventually. If they truly enforce this nonsense, all reviews will be positive and glowing, and eventually people will earn to NEVER buy from Apologee. They will have the well earned rep of being unstrustworthy.
--
Infuriate left and right
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Before you mark this down as flamebait, I'm just reposting what Scott Miller posted on the Shugashack at http://www.shugashack.com/reply.y?id=204292. -------------- #91 By: Scott3dr [May 31st 2000, 06:56 pm] I have to say, I rarely visit Slashdot, and in the future I see even less reason to do so--total idiots abound there, it's a flocking ground for the herd mentality. No ability to think for themselves. Truly the sadness of our society. A few basic facts about that agreement: [1] It's not a public page (if it is, that's a mistake and needs to be changed). It's simply a page we refer webmasters to if they want to use or logos, trademarks, and illustrations on their web site to decorate their fan page. That's ALL this is about--nothing more. [2] It's a work-in-progress, and still has typos, etc. This thing is really low priority for us -- ain't a big deal really. Still needs redrafting a few times, I'm sure, to make things more clear. [3] The sole intent is to allow web sites like www.planetduke.com and www.3dportal.com (and the many DNF sites that will be ramping up soon) to use our art/logos/etc., but only if they don't use this stuff in a way that isn't blantantly inflammatory. This does not include preventing them from posting negative reviews or comments. That's just plain crazy. Also, we're not forcing anyone to sign this. It's, y'know, like optional and stuff. [4] This doesn't cover screen shots -- I need to make this more clear. Screen shots fall under the same category as free speech. Unfortunately, most people who are in an ignorance-based panic over this agreement don't know this simple fact. ;-) There are more points, but gotta run...my kid has his first little league game tonight. :-) Scott Miller, 3DR
This is Apogee President Scott Miller's responce to the license, first posted on Blue's News:
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...
So all sysadmins should shut down the servers? Whose servers? Their employer's servers? Does the concept of property ownership mean anything to you?
Inktomi, in the license agreement for their web-caching product, forbids the posting of performance testing results.
I've seen results from independent testing (at a potential customer) that would be considered a "Negative review".
parody is fair use, set by court decisions.
gotta stop procrastinating and get on this project!
-- My Sig is a P228.
Simply have one guy review the game and another type up the review and post in on the web. When they try to nail the reviwer for violating UCITA the writer can claim "Anonymous Sources" provided the review and freedom of the press.
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.
--The basis of all love is respect
for pete's sake. they registered "come-get-some".. oh, wait.. that's trademark infringement. It's supposed to be "Come get some(tm)". Putting the hyphens in the sentence severs your contract to use it. AND, i didn't put the TM in. hehehahah..
So, in other words, if I'm calling my cat to "Come get some(tm) food!" I need to put the TM in?
-brain
I just read the legal document on Apogee's site, and most of it doesn't excite me much. I'm fairly sure that using Apogee's trademarks in the context of an article or review falls under fair use, and that there is nothing to get up in arms about. They are simply talking legalese for "you can't steal our graphics and put them in your site". If they're not, then they are just blowing hot air, because they won't get anywhere in court. The thing that *does* rub my rhubarb the wrong way is the assertion that one may not place their site in a frameset.
- Hail to the King - are you freaking kidding me? Doesn't prior art on this go back...oh, I don't know...1500 years and more?
- Bombshell - how can you trademark a common word? I thought that wasn't allowed, but I guess things are worse than I thought.
- Planet of the Babes - I'm sure this was a porno movie before Apogee ever existed.
And, speaking of that last one, their own restrictions say: Aren't they doing that to whomever owns the rights to "Planet of the Apes?"But I guess all's fair in UCITA and War.
How about this one:
Ahem...Bombshell would disagree! As would Nukem, Proton, the list goes on and on...I want to live in a world free of corporate mentality!!
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
- "Come get some"
- "Hail to the king"
Not only do I seem to remember lines like this from movies long before Duke (Say, like, Army of Darkness, Evil Dead, etc)How can they possibly claim that as a trademark? It's an international symbol... geez. Corporations seem to get a bit dumber every day. Makes you wonder who (if anyone) is doing the thinking nowadays.
apogeesucks.com is available.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
You are creating rhetoric. The text of the Apogee document simply says that if you have licenses from them for software or products including, presumably, source code or games to port or such, they can revoke your license if you say nasty stuff about them. Say for example that you want the source for one of their crappy games to port it to the Playstation 2 and after getting the code along with a license to use it, you find that the source code is nearly unreadable and undocumented (like most source). So you create a website telling the world how bad Apogee's coding style is. They want the right to revoke your license. Big deal. I'd want the same thing. This does not infringe on your free speech. You can still say whatever you want. But be prepared to suffer the consequences if you have licensed something from them. Otherwise... they can't do anything unless what you say falls under liable or slander laws. The golden rule applies here. Be nice to others and they won't sue you. The press is always protected to a very high degree from such laws but there is a limit to that as well. Be responsible and objective in any commentary about any company, and you will probably never be sued. Also, reviews about products are never protected. About 8 years ago, Consumer Reports was sued by Isuzu for not being objective and essentially "picking on Isuzu." The jury found that Consumer Reports was not entirely objective but that Isuzu was somewhat more dangerous than other SUV's at the time. No reward was given. This example may not always apply in UCITA, but liable and slander have been around for a long time: since rule-of-law, about 450 years, long before the formation of the US. This rule was inherited from England. UCITA does a lot of things, but this declaration is not special, nor new. Don't take up arms yet.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't "Hail to the king" and "Come get some," along with "groovy" and a bunch of other ripoffs, come from Evil Dead I-III (AKA "Army of Darkness")?!?! Duke Nukem is SUCH a wannabe Ash, everyone knows it. HOW can Apogee trademark something they stole from Sam Raimi?
+++ATH0
This program SUCKS!!!!
This concludes my legal game review.
-Militant Elf (a PFY for a BOFH)
remove the sos from my email for deliverable flames
It seems to me, both from the wording of the document and from the responses of Apogee bigwigs to /.'s self-righteous indignation, that what Apogee intends with this policy is actually both straightforward and legal:
To wit, Apogee reserves the right to sue you for trademark infringement if you claim to be an "official" Apogee fansite, in the event that you
a) use their trademarks on your site (e.g., to make a clear association in readers' minds between your site and Apogee's products),
and
b) post negative or derogatory comments about Apogee products.
I don't think anybody at Apogee expects this policy to trump "Fair Use" or the 1st Amendment. I don't even think they plan to use it this way--though, admittedly, they might.
But who cares? Don't you people have anything more germane to be so fscking rabid about?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I think what they are trying to say is that they have exclusive right to the following trademarks and artwork... and that they will not enforce their legal rights unless the trademarks are used for...
Granted there is some question, for me, about exactly what can be legally blocked.
For instance, are scientific documents barred from use of brand names... reviews... retail outlets... etc.
Apogee's license says that I can't make a negative review of thier software. Well, here goes:
Most Apogee software sucks. I didn't like any of the old games like Duke Nukem or Commander Keen, and I don't like any of the software they're producing now. It plain out sucks. I've played better games on my Atarti.
A note to Apogee Lawyers: Go ahead and try to stop me or other people from doing this. You'll get laughed out of court, or it will eventually get appealed to the Supreme Court, and all or part of UCITA will be ruled unconstitutional. If you want to make a test case of me, email me and I'll be glad to cooperate.
Vote with your wallet.
Companies that do not behave shouldn't get your money. Even if they make cool games.
Just because it is legal for them to act that way doesn't mean they should.
Let me see if I get this straight.
If I start doing very well in an Apogee game, I am in danger of gaining a reputation for being good at it. If this happens, I must transfer this reputation to Apogee.
How does one go about doing that?!? "No, I didn't rack up three million points, Apogee racked it up on itself".
What the...
--The basis of all love is respect
I mean...come on...do i not have the freedom to say anything anymore? Will someone enlighten these companies that this stuff makes me want to not buy their products. How does this make your products better if you don't know what people think of them. How bad are your products if you have to protect yourself from being spoken about negatively? Will someone get a clue.
Imagine if M$ did this. By calling them "Micro$loth" you'd violate:
"4.You are not allowed to vary the spelling, add or delete hyphens (even for normal hyphenation at the end of a line of text), make one word two, or use a possessive or plural form of the Marks.
5.You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context. Such us will terminate your license to use the Marks."
"7.You may not use the Marks in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with, dilute or damage the reputation or image of Apogee or any of its products."
With one lil Micro$loth comment. Hell...whats even funnier is if I didn't know how to spell Apogee(r) and spell it "Apo-gee" I violate number four.
This world is getting stupider.
The stuff in the quotes comes right off the Apogee link.
1. Apogee (no "(r)")
2. Appogee (misspelling. I can't wait until someone gets sued for spelling something wrong.
3. Apogee sucks. (mark cannot be used in a "derogatory manner")
4. If I have a long line and their mark comes at the end, make sure to hyphenate Apo-
  gee, so that their lawyers can come and get you.
5. Don't talk about software made by Apogee, because you are not violating the mark Remeber to use the alternate construction with the posessive, "Apogee's software", which is a clear violation of their trademark.
Also, remember to use the preview button, so that you can maximize the number of trademark violations in each and every post.
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Please please please tell me this is nothing more than a vehicle to get the offending UCITA provisions overturned.
But UCITA requires permission to do reviews. If I say APOGEE SUCKS, without actually looking at software, that's not a review, it's an opinion.
How many people here did anything more than read the comments made by Hemos before spouting off here, seriously? Granted, Scott Miller may not've done the best job at responding to a bunch of questions (and the trend I see, which is qualified only by what I've read in the threads here, is that most of us who sent mail to him did so in a very provacative, possibly inflammatory, manner) about his company's motives. However, it seems that very few people had any idea in their head that Apogee was doing anything but trying to cut their share of the Bill of Rights. I think this is a case similar to the panick over the Borland C++ Compiler issue a week or two back. Can we please start doing research before posting? Part of doing news research is getting comments from as many sides as possible. Granted, we can't always wait a day or two to get a news item up - but this is twice in less than two weeks that the gun has been fired without legitimate cause. Hope this doesn't mark me as a troll, but the foolishness of all of this has me rather baffled.
Moo
Not quite the same thing. There basicly saying "by reading this licence agreement your automaticly agreeing to it" because you have to go to the site to access it. Its the same consept as a shrink wrap agreement that says "by opening this box you agreed to this license" when theres no way to read the licence (or even know that one existed) without opening the box because the slip of paper its printed on is inside the sealed box.
You must be giving the choice to decline or there is no valid contract. Thats why these retarded agreements get chucked out of court every time there challenged.
--
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
-John Gilmore
Here's the fine print on my copy of McAfee VirusScan:
OK, lessee, they left out the (r) twice, they used a possessive, and they used their own trademarks in a negative context. Time for NAI(r) to sue themselves.
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Disclaimer: IANAL.
These bodies do not have the power to annul the 1st amendment of the constitution.
And the first admendment says, in full (emphasis mine, sorry for the caps):
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; 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.
If UCITA violates this US Constitutional restriction, and US states are not allowed to pass legislation that does this, then logically UCITA is unconstitutional and must be repealed.
---
Also, Apogee do not define their trademarks properly. A trademark is a formal ADJECTIVE, and as such should always be followed by the noun.
As such, you can use any Apogee trademarks in trademarks of your own, provided that the product is different. Duke Nukem is a game, but if you opened a Duke Nukem coffee shop and registered the trademark, Apogee cannot legally touch you as long as you are not exploiting their trademark to market your own.
Strange but true: microsoft is a brand of underwear in the UK. Here's a story from 1997. Even Microsoft (the computer company) knows they can't fight the trademark law here.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
I don't own any of their stuff; so, I can say that Apogee sucks bullets and they can't do a thing about it. UCITA or no UCITA. The reason they suck bullets is because they have lawyers who write rediculous shrinkwrap licenses. DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.
This comment was composed under the jurisdiction of the state of Massachusetts where they have SLAPP laws.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
You can download this page as a Microsoft Word Document by...
Gee...that's fitting.
interestingly, I got the EXACT same response - I would imagine he hacked up a form letter in a hurry. I asked for permission to quote him (something I consider a courtesy) but since you've already posted it...
I also had two points in my response : One is that the intended audience of the License agreement *IS* the Lay person and it should not be a requirement on that person to have a lawyer in their hip pocket. The second is that "Back to important work..." comment. I somehow don't think there is any more important work then dealing with your customers. Do you, 3D Realms/Apogee?
It'll be interested to see if he responses - though I imagine now his email box is full.
-- The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
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 BootyOtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
I also want to say that reading many of the posts here the majority seem to say obey the law or skirt the law until lawmakers (who are supposed to represent US) change it. Fuck that. As a college student I have nothing to lose (no kids etc.) so I am in a perfect position to participate in civil disobedience. I think tons of laws we have are fucking rediculous, my solution: ignore them. If a large percentage of people think these laws are rediculous they will cease to exist for the majority of people. Look at drug laws, for the majority of people they are meaningless (some people get assfucked and have to go to jail - for them I am sorry). If enough people thought that murder was acceptable it really would be (I in no way condone violence and think murder, etc. is horrible) to our society. Thankfully we, for the most part, do not think murder is acceptable. Im just ranting and saying everyone that doesnt have kids (or are in a position to be completely independant) should just ignore this crap. If you have kids I understand your reservations, but please at least teach them to think.
Forget the shrink-wrap license agreement - are we going to find ourselves bound to some bozo's web-site's legal agreement just be clicking into it?
Oh, god forbid anyone in America is ever bound to taking responsibility for his own actions! I can't help it if I want to look at the pretty pr0n. It's freedom of speech, it is! They forced me to click on the license!
The point, if you can't tell I'm being sarcastic, is that no one is forcing you to agree with the term that "some bozo" sets on his website. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't visit the website.
If your neighbor invites you to a party at his house, but wants you to take off your shoes before you enter the house (he just had his carpet cleaned) are you going to yell and scream about free speech and trample on his carpet? No, either you agree with his terms and follow the terms, or you leave the party. It's the same thing with sites. There is no constitutional right that gives you unrestricted access to another's property, material or intellectual. If you want to reap the benefits of another's property, follow the rules. Clicking an agree button is that same as signing a contract.
Stupid like a fox!
A standard reponse 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 clueless morons. Legally, that's 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. Oh so typical in our society. hee hee Sheesh! Back to important work... Scott Miller, 3D Realms
Okay, lawyers, Come get some(r).
If you read the actual legal document on Apogee's website, you will see that the "license" only applies to Apogee's "Materials" and "Marks".
/. your logo at the top of it? No you wouldn't, and you would well be within your rights to sue them for Trademark infringement. But if somebody wrote a critical article about /. without using any of your trademarked stuff, there would be nothing that you could do about it, which is just as it should be.
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.
'Groovy.' and 'Gimme some sugar baby...' are just stolen from other people too so... heh what goes around comes around.
but Ash was unique. `8r)
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
There is a way around it. Compare Apogee games to some really tripe games in a positive way. For example "The graphics in this game compare favorably to other popular hits like Zork or Pong". Or "The music tracks were heavily influenced by timeless favorites like Space Invaders."
So really the wording of the review is positive, but the readers will clue in.
Screw Micro$oft.