MGM kills HL2 Stargate mod

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:10 pm

We are very displeased to announce that apparently MGM the huge company feels very threatened by a group of individuals spread throughout the world. We have received a letter to desist from the creation of the Stargate: Source mod. At this time we are still discussing the issue but it does appear that we are going to be shutting down. Sorry to all of our followers and those who were looking forward to this mod. Personally I will not buy a copy of their game out of protest. It is an unfortunate circumstance when the large, powerful and wealthy must attack the small and free but it happens and it is business.

I dont understand how they can do this if the mod was going to be free. If I were to draw some Stargate art and give it to my friends to enjoy would that be against some law? This is very lame. More reason to hate corporate america.

Buldrhm · Post by **Buldrhm** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:17 pm

What they can do is claim this "free" game will cause them to lose profits from their game to be released. I knew this was coming, they shut down a Stargate SG-1 Farcry mod a couple of months ago, it was only a matter of time.

warning · Post by **warning** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:45 pm

So instead of "Foxed" they were "MGM'd".

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:49 pm

It's the same principle that Marvel has used to prevent modders from putting their characters in games like Freedom Force, etc. I wish that they would spend 5 minutes to sit and think about it, as not every company sics their attack dogs on their fans at the drop of a hat. George Lucas has actually helped some modders with their creations. Of course, he insisted that the main character in their games be Jar-Jar, but there's always a price

.

Gorath · Post by **Gorath** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:12 pm

Everything else would have been a surprise. The point in creating an IP like Stargate is: The owner (here: MGM) decides in which direction the franchise developes. Fan projects are a threat because they are not under control.

Fan films are (probably) legal if they deal with the IP in a satyrical way. "Serious" fan movies are sometimes tolerated and sometimes not. They always have Damokles´ sword hanging above their heads.

jg93 · Post by **jg93** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:35 pm

Gorath wrote:Everything else would have been a surprise. The point in creating an IP like Stargate is: The owner (here: MGM) decides in which direction the franchise developes. Fan projects are a threat because they are not under control.

Fan films are (probably) legal if they deal with the IP in a satyrical way. "Serious" fan movies are sometimes tolerated and sometimes not. They always have Damokles´ sword hanging above their heads.

Nah. Fan projects are a threat because there are no (immediate) profits in them. That why Marvel sued the City of Heroes folks - because they feared that their soon to be released MMO wouldn't make as much money if I can just make a Wolverine look-alike in CoH.

It always about money.

qp · Post by qp » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:19 am

Isn't there something to do with Trademarks? Like a basic copyrighted story has less "protection" - but if you trademark the brand, then no one can touch it if it would "cause confusion" or something like that in the market place - and it's quite possible that MGM would make their own Stargate game...

Beer Goggles · Post by **Beer Goggles** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:01 am

There is a Stargate game in development. Coincidence? I think not.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:22 pm

qp wrote:Isn't there something to do with Trademarks? Like a basic copyrighted story has less "protection" - but if you trademark the brand, then no one can touch it if it would "cause confusion" or something like that in the market place - and it's quite possible that MGM would make their own Stargate game...

That something like what I understand - they have to be agressive about maintaining their trademarks or they will lose them (as opposed to copyrights, which are harder to lose).

Caine · Post by **Caine** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:32 pm

drat about both this and the farcry mod, which is news to me. both games had some potential for cool SG mods. its a shame, but the mgm game will probably blow chunks when compared to what the modders could have done.

jpinard · Post by **jpinard** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:51 am

If they were confident in there own game, they wouldn't do this. What do you want to bet the MGM/Jowood game sucks? After all, the developer's (Perception) previous game was the mighty "Thunderboats"

I feel another licensed milking coming...

Turtle · Post by **Turtle** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:05 pm

I don't understand the big outcry over this, frankly I think that mod team got what it deserved. From the whiney nature of their last posting, they sound like they need to grow up and enter the real world.

It was using someone else's intellectual property without their permission. It doesn't matter if a big corp like MGM or Fox holds it. It's still someone's property and they have a right to protect it.

As an illustrator and writer, I'm am very aware of IP and copyright issues, frankly if some group was using one of my IPs to make a game without so much as notifying me, I would shut them down there and then. I don't care what their plans were and whether it was for profit or not, it's simply foolish of them to think they could make something like this without getting permission first.

If they'd asked, well, then I'd provide a free license with my right to pull the project if it's not up to my standards.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:05 pm

Fair play to MGM, I say. Whatever happened to asking before you make use of someone else's ideas? Yes, it'd be lovely if MGM felt secure enough about themeselves to let fans create whatever they liked, even it potentially competed with their own product, but not every company wants to be that relaxed (or can afford to be). And they shouldn't be forced to.

Besides, far too many mods just work with an established IP. It gets dull. I want to see mods create their own worlds and ideas, damnit.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:04 pm

I knew this would happen. The only way to get a mod out would be to keep it secret. I feel if you’re not charging for it there should be no problem.

If you draw a picture of a Stargate(TM) are you breaking the law if you give that picture to someone or place it on your GM(TM) car? If you dress up as a character from Stargate(TM) on Halloween are you wrong? Since it's not a MGM(TM) purchased costume are you about to be hit with a law suite. I for one will not pay for any Stargate(TM) game MGM(TM) produces. Same goes for 3Drealms(TM) for stopping a remake of DukeNukem3D(TM) Source(TM). What happened to impersonation is the best form of flattery?

It's not like everyone who plays Hafe-Life 2(TM) watches Stargate(TM). Now if they started playing a mod for Stargate(TM) that may perk their interest for watching the shows. That is how they would make money off the mod makers.

TM © 2000-2005 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved
TM © 1987-2004 Apogee Software, Ltd.
TM © 2005 General Motors Corporation
TM © 2004 Valve Corporation. All rights reserved

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:40 pm

qp wrote:Isn't there something to do with Trademarks? Like a basic copyrighted story has less "protection" - but if you trademark the brand, then no one can touch it if it would "cause confusion" or something like that in the market place - and it's quite possible that MGM would make their own Stargate game...

Trademark is more the mark of business, so it's the Bacardi bat, or the BMW rondel. In this case, it's more copyright infringement, under the derivative works portion of the copyright law. As a copyright holder (usually the writer, but if the writer creates the IP during his employment, then by contract it's usually the employer's IP), anything you create with your creativity, you have the right to control. As was pointed out, copyright exists so that you control your creative effort, and someone cannot just take that creative effort and devalue it by say making a porn involving it, or other things. It really IS about the money to the big corporations (but to individuals, and how it was originally conceived, copyright law is more about control over your creative process).

Stargate is the IP of MGM; they put the time and effort into creating the world and the mythos surrounding it. Anything that stems from it is the property of the creator. Except for a few exceptions like satire, which is really a wierd exception; look at Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman, and 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman, which was NOT held to infringe copyright.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:43 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: If you draw a picture of a Stargate(TM) are you breaking the law if you give that picture to someone or place it on your GM(TM) car?

One picture isn't likely to significantly impact any pofits they may make from seeling their own Stargate pictures. Clearly they can't sue every individual who did this anyway (simply because there's too many people), but if it's just one picture per person, no big deal.

If you dress up as a character from Stargate(TM) on Halloween are you wrong? Since it's not a MGM(TM) purchased costume are you about to be hit with a law suite.

Does MGM produce Stargate costumes? If not it scarcely cnstiutues competition. ANd, once again, if it's just the on costume, no big loss.

This is where you metaphor breaks down, see. The mod could potentially have been distributed to millions of people. If it was sufficiently good there is every reason to believe it would negatively impact sales of a similar official game. here is such a game in development, so this a serious competition issue. ANd it's simple for the lawyers to close this one operation down (wheras it wouldn't be as easy to send cease and desist to the multitudes of picture drawers and costume makers, who make items that are not widely distributed.

In short, your two analogies do not accurately represent the threat posed to the success of MGMs products, which they have every right to protect.

I for one will not pay for any Stargate(TM) game MGM(TM) produces. Same goes for 3Drealms(TM) for stopping a remake of DukeNukem3D(TM) Source(TM). What happened to impersonation is the best form of flattery?

How flattered would you feel if someone stole your invention, which you wer hoping to make a livng off of, and mass prodocued it and gave it out for free, thus serious affecting your cash flow? Though so.

It's not like everyone who plays Hafe-Life 2(TM) watches Stargate(TM). Now if they started playing a mod for Stargate(TM) that may perk their interest for watching the shows. That is how they would make money off the mod makers.

Well, I can't quote you numbers, but would you want to take the risk?

Turtle · Post by **Turtle** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:56 am

If someone draws a picture of one of my characters and sends it to me, I'll call it fan art and post it on my site.

If someone takes my character and settings, makes product out of it, even if it's not for profit, they're still using my material for their own purposes without my permission.

This whole "If it's not for profit, everything's okay," is a pretty childish view of reality. Take a look at some of the nastier not for profit things out there like putting well known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then you understand why creators will protect their IP from random people doing whatever they want with it.

Considering the maturity level of that stargate mod team, especially how they posted that whiney last post, and I doubt the quality of the mod would be that good.

Hell's Taco · Post by **Hell's Taco** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:13 am

Eightball wrote:As was pointed out, copyright exists so that you control your creative effort, and someone cannot just take that creative effort and devalue it by say making a porn involving it, or other things.

huh. (maybe nsfw)

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:59 am

If someone takes my character and settings, makes product out of it, even if it's not for profit, they're still using my material for their own purposes without my permission.

The problem is no ones character and setting are unique. The are just repackaged history with new paint and names. There are so many similarities to other books, TV shows, legends and movies. Its all just selective plagiarism.

Did you get permision to display your picture of Orta from "Panzer Dragoon Orta".How about from gap?
" Just a loose sketch of a black woman found in a newspaper GAP ad" . Are you not stealing someones
material and even stating that you own it just because you copyed it?

All images copyright ©2003 Anthony Pham

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:16 am

The problem is no ones character and setting are unique. The are just repackaged history with new paint and names. There are so many similarities to other books, TV shows, legends and movies. Its all just selective plagiarism.

Our laws regarding copyrights and patents don't see it that way.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:23 pm

Our laws regarding copyrights and patents don't see it that way.

Since you seem to know some thing of the law. Why was Marvel able to sue City of Heroes from using characters skins but can not stop other games? If you do a search on any comic book hero for a skin on yahoo you will see multiple sites to down load them. How can this be. Maybe since their free?

Comic Skin Network

Notice the disclamer.

All images and elements of intellectual property used on this website are TM and copyright © 2003 by their respective owners.
No copyright infringement is intended by the operators of this website.
This web site, its operators and any content on this site relating to Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Image Comics, Dark Horse Comics, Dreamwave Productions, Digital Webbing and others are not authorized by those companies.

Sure looks like Superman(TM)

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:24 pm

DC Comics hasn't chosen to shut the modders down.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:09 pm

DC Comics hasn't chosen to shut the modders down.

Sorry was dc site.

But here we have marvel skins at fileplanet.

Comic Book Hero pack 1 for Unreal Tournament 2003 by Chris Ollis
Featuring Batman, The Hulk, Spiderman, The Thing, Green Lantern and Wolverine.
Brand new skins and models for your superhero pleasure.

Look out for more packs at www.InterTwined.co.uk

The read me of the file had no copyright info.

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:48 pm

Perhaps Marvel hasn't seen this pack. I guarantee if you forwarded that link to them, the modders would have a cease & desist email faster than a speeding injunction.

Kyosho · Post by **Kyosho** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:34 am

Personally, I never, ever, thought any of the newest Stargate related mods would ever survive. I mean, after they closed that first mod for the original Half-Life, they started going after everything. Anyone remember the game the Playspoon guys were making?

Speaking of which, whatever happened to that cool Stargate mod for Morrowind? It was in German or French or something. I can't recall. Did it ever get translated?

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:36 am

Turtle wrote:If someone draws a picture of one of my characters and sends it to me, I'll call it fan art and post it on my site.

If someone takes my character and settings, makes product out of it, even if it's not for profit, they're still using my material for their own purposes without my permission.

This whole "If it's not for profit, everything's okay," is a pretty childish view of reality. Take a look at some of the nastier not for profit things out there like putting well known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then you understand why creators will protect their IP from random people doing whatever they want with it.

The Stargate writers don't own anything. It's the corporations that control the IP. If they could make more money selling well-known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then it would be done and to hell with artistic integrity. That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:27 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:
Turtle wrote:If someone draws a picture of one of my characters and sends it to me, I'll call it fan art and post it on my site.

If someone takes my character and settings, makes product out of it, even if it's not for profit, they're still using my material for their own purposes without my permission.

This whole "If it's not for profit, everything's okay," is a pretty childish view of reality. Take a look at some of the nastier not for profit things out there like putting well known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then you understand why creators will protect their IP from random people doing whatever they want with it.

The Stargate writers don't own anything. It's the corporations that control the IP. If they could make more money selling well-known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then it would be done and to hell with artistic integrity. That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.

Why is that "breaking down"? The creators of Stargate were paid for what they created by that corporation. And if that same corporation can't protect the IP, then they would pay less for whatever the "little guy" came up with. Besides, it's irrelevant whether is it owned by a "little guy" or a corporation - shouldn't corporations have their property protected also? Or maybe I should just break into a GM factory lot and steal a Tahoe since it's just owned by a corporation?

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:40 pm

Grifman wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote: The Stargate writers don't own anything. It's the corporations that control the IP. If they could make more money selling well-known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then it would be done and to hell with artistic integrity. That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.
Why is that "breaking down"? The creators of Stargate were paid for what they created by that corporation. And if that same corporation can't protect the IP, then they would pay less for whatever the "little guy" came up with. Besides, it's irrelevant whether is it owned by a "little guy" or a corporation - shouldn't corporations have their property protected also? Or maybe I should just break into a GM factory lot and steal a Tahoe since it's just owned by a corporation?

Quoted for truth.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:04 pm

Grifman wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:
The Stargate writers don't own anything. It's the corporations that control the IP. If they could make more money selling well-known characters in nasty sex positions and whatnot, then it would be done and to hell with artistic integrity. That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.
Why is that "breaking down"? The creators of Stargate were paid for what they created by that corporation. And if that same corporation can't protect the IP, then they would pay less for whatever the "little guy" came up with. Besides, it's irrelevant whether is it owned by a "little guy" or a corporation - shouldn't corporations have their property protected also? Or maybe I should just break into a GM factory lot and steal a Tahoe since it's just owned by a corporation?

Intellectual property is not the same thing as an object like a car. Both deserve protection, but not the same kind of protection. Public domain laws don't exist for cars, but they do for intellectual property. They are there because art, stories and ideas in general become a part of our civilization. I'm all in favour of IP being a source of profit, but it should not be treated as just another commodity.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:45 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: Intellectual property is not the same thing as an object like a car. Both deserve protection, but not the same kind of protection.

The analogy stands despite the truth of that statement.

Public domain laws don't exist for cars, but they do for intellectual property. They are there because art, stories and ideas in general become a part of our civilization.

Fine, but I think Stargate would have a hard time being claimed as part of our cultural heirtage. Think what that would imply, anyway.

I'm all in favour of IP being a source of profit, but it should not be treated as just another commodity.

If people are to derive any profit from it at all, it must be possible to treat it at least somewhat like a commodity, which includes being able to protect your investment in the manner MGM are.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:06 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: Intellectual property is not the same thing as an object like a car. Both deserve protection, but not the same kind of protection. Public domain laws don't exist for cars, but they do for intellectual property. They are there because art, stories and ideas in general become a part of our civilization. I'm all in favour of IP being a source of profit, but it should not be treated as just another commodity.

So what's your point? You seem to be dancing all over the place. This is what you originally said:

That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.

Here you are saying what's relevant is who owns the IP. Are you now saying something different - that it's irrelevant whether it's the "little guy" or the "mindless corporation" but IP itself and how it's treated that is what's at issue?

That's not what you asserted the first time through. Quit dancing around

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:40 pm

Grifman wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote: Intellectual property is not the same thing as an object like a car. Both deserve protection, but not the same kind of protection. Public domain laws don't exist for cars, but they do for intellectual property. They are there because art, stories and ideas in general become a part of our civilization. I'm all in favour of IP being a source of profit, but it should not be treated as just another commodity.
So what's your point? You seem to be dancing all over the place. This is what you originally said:

That's where the IP system breaks down; in most cases it's not protecting the little guy, it's inflating the profit margin of whatever corporation owns what the little guy did.
Here you are saying what's relevant is who owns the IP. Are you now saying something different - that it's irrelevant whether it's the "little guy" or the "mindless corporation" but IP itself and how it's treated that is what's at issue?

That's not what you asserted the first time through. Quit dancing around

Let me use an example as illustration:

Grifman writes a bestselling novel. Grifman and his publishing company alike should have their rights protected in so far as anyone else trying to profit from that novel. If it gets made into a movie, it should be done according to their terms. What neither Grif or the publishing company should be able to do is suppress any and all usage of the characters or world created by him. Nor should this novel become a profit machine indefinitely, long after Grif passes on. I separate out the corp from the person because corps generally have the resources to do the suing and the government lobbying to enforce their wishes. I also find it especially egregious if all Grif got out of his novel was a cheque for $100, while the corp gets to exploit the true value for many years to come. That's somewhat of a separate issue though.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:15 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: Let me use an example as illustration:

Grifman writes a bestselling novel. Grifman and his publishing company alike should have their rights protected in so far as anyone else trying to profit from that novel. If it gets made into a movie, it should be done according to their terms.

What neither Grif or the publishing company should be able to do is suppress any and all usage of the characters or world created by him.

Sorry, I disagree with you and so does the law. It has to be suppressed so that my characters/world/etc are protected. If anyone can use them and do anything with them, they can rapidly be devalued.

That said, no further debate is needed. You and I just disagree on this fundamental point and neither of us is going to convince the other.

Nor should this novel become a profit machine indefinitely, long after Grif passes on.

They generally don't - the life is limited by law.

I separate out the corp from the person because corps generally have the resources to do the suing and the government lobbying to enforce their wishes.

Ah, so it's ok to screw the individual because they generally don't have the resources to sue? So much for sticking up for the "little guy". Give him a right you believe he can't enforce.

I also find it especially egregious if all Grif got out of his novel was a cheque for $100, while the corp gets to exploit the true value for many years to come.

The corporation is wrong if I negotiate a bad deal? What about if I get a million bucks from a corporation for movie rights, they make a bad movie, and lose millions? Who exploited who now? What about companies the pay people to create stuff that ends up worthless. Should those corps ge their money back? You act like people aren't reponsible for their own financial/business decisions.

Exactly who are you thinking of who supposedly got screwed?

That's somewhat of a separate issue though.

Entirely separate.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:45 pm

Grifman wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote: Let me use an example as illustration:

Grifman writes a bestselling novel. Grifman and his publishing company alike should have their rights protected in so far as anyone else trying to profit from that novel. If it gets made into a movie, it should be done according to their terms.

What neither Grif or the publishing company should be able to do is suppress any and all usage of the characters or world created by him.
Sorry, I disagree with you and so does the law. It has to be suppressed so that my characters/world/etc are protected. If anyone can use them and do anything with them, they can rapidly be devalued.

That said, no further debate is needed. You and I just disagree on this fundamental point and neither of us is going to convince the other.

Agreed.

Nor should this novel become a profit machine indefinitely, long after Grif passes on.
They generally don't - the life is limited by law.

Theoretically, but companies like Disney have been applying for and receiving extensions of their copyrights to keep them out of the public domain.

The rest of our discussion is a separate topic, not really applicable here.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:30 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: What neither Grif or the publishing company should be able to do is suppress any and all usage of the characters or world created by him.

On what basis do you make this claim? What underlying principle justifies this conclusion?

We've already refuted the claim that it is harmless to the value of the IP for everyone to be able to use it.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:35 pm

Padre wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote: What neither Grif or the publishing company should be able to do is suppress any and all usage of the characters or world created by him.
On what basis do you make this claim? What underlying principle justifies this conclusion?

We've already refuted the claim that it is harmless to the value of the IP for everyone to be able to use it.

Key phrase is "any and all", in other words absolute control over how the IP is used. In my eyes, MGM suppressing a website selling SG1 action figures is acceptable, while forcing another one down because they didn't like the complaints about the show's flaws is not. I would limit control to areas where there's a direct link to profit loss, and otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. That includes being allowed to develop a mod for a popular game.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:43 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: I would limit control to areas where there's a direct link to profit loss, and otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. That includes being allowed to develop a mod for a popular game.

I thought we already covered this. A competing product, even offered for free as a "mod", is coompetition. Provided we can claim at least one person who would have bought the game decided to play the mod instead, we can create a direct link to profits. Assuming, of course, the mod would not have created sales in some manner. Personally I think the loss is likely to outweigh the gain.

Why shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to the holder of the IP, anyway?

I suspec you're going to come back with a point about literary critcism and/or parody. These fall down on several points, perhaps the most pertinent being that neither are actually competing products. But we'll burn that bridge once it's built.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:13 pm

Padre wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote: I would limit control to areas where there's a direct link to profit loss, and otherwise give the benefit of the doubt. That includes being allowed to develop a mod for a popular game.
I thought we already covered this. A competing product, even offered for free as a "mod", is coompetition. Provided we can claim at least one person who would have bought the game decided to play the mod instead, we can create a direct link to profits. Assuming, of course, the mod would not have created sales in some manner. Personally I think the loss is likely to outweigh the gain.

This is where I provide the benefit of the doubt. The mod might kill some sales, and it might generate some sales. As long as the mod is not being sold, I would err on the side of creativity every time because I believe these things are more than just products in a capitalist system.

Why shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt to the holder of the IP, anyway?

I suspec you're going to come back with a point about literary critcism and/or parody. These fall down on several points, perhaps the most pertinent being that neither are actually competing products. But we'll burn that bridge once it's built.

I think we're coming at this from completely different points of view. As long as IP is just another widget to be sold, you're in the right. I see it as creative venues within our civilization, and I believe that encouraging those venues transcends purely economic determinations. It doesn't eliminate them, thus the protection from direct profit loss, but where it's less clear I'd rather let freedom reign.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:43 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: This is where I provide the benefit of the doubt. The mod might kill some sales, and it might generate some sales. As long as the mod is not being sold, I would err on the side of creativity every time because I believe these things are more than just products in a capitalist system.

If creativity is the goal, why are we encouraging others to be derivative by allowing the use of already existing IPs? Can't they invent their own sci fi worlds?

I think we're coming at this from completely different points of view. As long as IP is just another widget to be sold, you're in the right. I see it as creative venues within our civilization, and I believe that encouraging those venues transcends purely economic determinations. It doesn't eliminate them, thus the protection from direct profit loss, but where it's less clear I'd rather let freedom reign.

The prolem with freedom is when it reigns for one it tends to be denied to the other. What about the freedom of the IPs owner to do as he wishes with the fruit of his own brain?

Other than that, we're down to squabbling over where the line is drawn. You say here, I say there. After a point all lines are just as arbitrary as any others.

But I won't lose any sleep over this mod. Let's have some real creativity from those who are free to make whatever they like. Someone else, with the rights, is already making a Stargate game. There's no need for another.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:34 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:In my eyes, MGM suppressing a website selling SG1 action figures is acceptable, while forcing another one down because they didn't like the complaints about the show's flaws is not.

That's a bogus strawman that no one is arguing for. Freedom of speech, as long as it is not slanderous or libelous, is not going allow that site to be closed because of criticism. It's ridiculous for you to bring this up, as this is clearly not the topic of discussion.

You seem to change your argument at the slightest whim . . .