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?

Comments

Here is Scott Miller's response..

[JohnnyCannuk]

Here'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?

Ok, everybody calm down...AGAIN

[Hard_Code]

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.

Response from 3D Realms

[John_Booty]

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:

I just read your terms of use.

http://www.3drealms.com/policy/index.html

I've bought several of your games in the past (Duke Nukem 1,2, and Duke Nukem 3D)

I would like you to know that there is absolutely no way I would EVER consider spending money on your company while these terms are still in effect. These "Intellectual Rights" are a total joke. You are shitting on the Constitution, and making yourself look like idiots in the process. How dare you restrict what I say about you? You do not deserve my money.

The sad thing is, the talented programmers at your company are going to suffer because of this legal tripe some lawyer felt obligated to put in..

Sincerely, John Rose

His response:

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
Apogee Software, Ltd. and
3D Realms Entertainment
http://www.3drealms.com

Interesting

[Janthkin]

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.)

A Good Precedent(tm)

[jabber]

Well, well...

How long until I can be legally protected from negative moderation on Slashdot?

Pinball Wizard

[PapaZit]

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.


--

more and more strangeness . .

[Pfhreakaz0id]

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>

---

Old joke.

[Black Parrot]

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?

--

Re:Not a troll post

[Black Parrot]

> ...(sucks)...(sucks worse)...

I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce a praiseworthy game?

--

Misunderstanding? Email from Apogee (Pt 2.)

[John_Booty]

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...

First of all, thanks for the response. Okay, let me put down my flaming torch and pitchfork.

Now, here's what the document says...
"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."
"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. "

Now suppose Duke Nukem Forever finally gets released, and I put a reivew up on my website. The review has a "Duke Nukem Forever" logo next to a caption that reads "This Game Is Horrible". The rest of the page contains a negative review of the game. Now, that would seem to be using the Mark in a negative context. So wouldn't it be violating the "agreement"? Please explain.

As for "lay people" not understanding this document... well, just remember- that's your target audience. If everyone is misunderstanding the agreement, perhaps maybe...I dunno... the agreement might need a little clarification? As a computer programmer, I'm well aware of the fine line between making something easy to use/understand and dumbing it down to the point where it becomes useless... but I think it's part of your job. I know it's part of mine. :-)

Again, thanks for the response and clarification... and maybe the clarification should be on the website?

Sincerely,John Rose

His response (I have italicized the parts he quoted from my mail)

Now suppose Duke Nukem Forever finally gets released, and I put a reivew up on my website. The review has a "Duke Nukem Forever" logo

First off, this would be illegal, unless you had prior permission. You cannot use trademarks without the owners permission. That's why we want to give fan sites permission, otherwise they cannot legally use own logos/trademarks and such. Review sites won't be dealing with us, only fan sites.

next to a caption that reads "This Game Is Horrible". The rest of the page contains a negative review of the game. Now, that would seem to be using the Mark in a negative context. So wouldn't it be violating the "agreement"? Please explain.

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.

As for "lay people" not understanding this document... well, just remember- that's your target audience.

Actually no -- we only want to deal with fan sites. And we expect them to have attorneys, at least all the major sites that make revenues from banners.

Hmmm........... interesting response! I still don't think the agreement is very clear, but perhaps that's because I'm not a lawyer. -John Booty