Main Menu

The Silver Lining - Cease and Desist

Started by Yonkey, February 27, 2010, 08:59:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Erpy

#860
QuoteOh I'm sure there were some pretty big differences between the contracts, Erpy.  After all, if our contract was based off of  the AGD contract, I'm pretty sure you would have gotten a C&D.

I think if TSL's contract had been in solidly place legally, you wouldn't have gotten C&D-ed either. (they could have terminated the license if they disapproved of the project, but that's different from a C&D) You can't say there were big differences between the fan licenses of both teams just because POS got C&D-ed, because the shutdown was more closely related to hassles around the legal procedures regarding the license than to the license itself.

QuoteI haven't seen your contract just as you have not seen our contract, so it's largely conjecture at this point... but it would be unwise to assume the contract we secured in 2005 was in any way, shape, or form based on the AGD contract.

No, I haven't seen your contract (and I said I was fairly sure, I didn't want to go as far as state it as a fact), but everything I did hear about it suggests the two are nearly identical as far as terms and obligations go. Ditto with the agreement SQ7 was offered (and rejected) and Josh Mandel (who looked at both our and SQ7's contract) did suggest they were nearly identical.

Seeing how extremely long it took for AGDI's license to be drafted and how extremely quickly POS' license was written up, I don't think it's a stretch of imagination to believe that the license they drafted for AGDI back in the days became their template for the fan license offered to POS and SQ7. It's a whole lot more credible to me than the idea they started from scratch each time.

QuoteWas the initial contact hostile, or was Vivendi just interested in setting up some ground rules?

It was polite, but firm. Their initial letter merely told us we were violating copyright law and to call them immediately to resolve the matter, but refused to give details, so we mistook it for a shutdown request at first. They were polite and professional all the way through, but the underlying statement was clear...we could accept a fan license and continue, or we could refuse and we'd have to close down. I don't think "setting ground rules" was really the right description. Vivendi wanted to take action to maintain tight control of their IP and they gave us an option that didn't involve shutting our projects down. But they weren't vague about the fact that they were the ones setting the terms.


oberonqa

Quote from: Erpy on May 31, 2010, 10:22:11 AM
QuoteOh I'm sure there were some pretty big differences between the contracts, Erpy.  After all, if our contract was based off of  the AGD contract, I'm pretty sure you would have gotten a C&D.

I think if TSL's contract had been in solidly place legally, you wouldn't have gotten C&D-ed either. (they could have terminated the license if they disapproved of the project, but that's different from a C&D) You can't say there were big differences between the fan licenses of both teams just because POS got C&D-ed, because the shutdown was more closely related to hassles around the legal procedures regarding the license than to the license itself.

QuoteI haven't seen your contract just as you have not seen our contract, so it's largely conjecture at this point... but it would be unwise to assume the contract we secured in 2005 was in any way, shape, or form based on the AGD contract.

No, I haven't seen your contract (and I said I was fairly sure, I didn't want to go as far as state it as a fact), but everything I did hear about it suggests the two are nearly identical as far as terms and obligations go. Ditto with the agreement SQ7 was offered (and rejected) and Josh Mandel (who looked at both our and SQ7's contract) did suggest they were nearly identical.

Seeing how extremely long it took for AGDI's license to be drafted and how extremely quickly POS' license was written up, I don't think it's a stretch of imagination to believe that the license they drafted for AGDI back in the days became their template for the fan license offered to POS and SQ7. It's a whole lot more credible to me than the idea they started from scratch each time.

QuoteWas the initial contact hostile, or was Vivendi just interested in setting up some ground rules?

It was polite, but firm. Their initial letter merely told us we were violating copyright law and to call them immediately to resolve the matter, but refused to give details, so we mistook it for a shutdown request at first. They were polite and professional all the way through, but the underlying statement was clear...we could accept a fan license and continue, or we could refuse and we'd have to close down. I don't think "setting ground rules" was really the right description. Vivendi wanted to take action to maintain tight control of their IP and they gave us an option that didn't involve shutting our projects down. But they weren't vague about the fact that they were the ones setting the terms.



I cannot go into specifics, for obvious reasons... but I'm going to say I'm pretty sure the contract you hammered out was probably a bit different than the contract we hammered out.  If anything, I would say that Vivendi learned from AGD and utilized that knowledge when dealing with us.

Like I said though, I cannot go into specifics so we're pretty much at a dead end where this paticular conversation goes.
 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

Erpy

#862
Are you certain? Obviously, AGDI's contract mentioned remakes and POS' contract mentioned an unofficial sequel, but that's more like a small change that's unlikely to demand a redraft or even anything more drastic than changing a line or two here and there.

Based on what I've read in articles and forum posts here about TSL, the terms and conditions that were mentioned in public at one point or another over the years (no making money off the game, legal ownership goes to the IP holder, submit the game for approval before release, every contributor send a signed contract, etc) all sound exactly like the terms of AGDI's agreement and I'm curious why you believe POS' agreement is really different, because if it were, it'd beg the question; if VU did indeed change important terms for POS' sake or as you say learn from their experience, why did they switch right back to the old terms when SQ7 was offered a deal and what exactly needed change to begin with? (I think VU offered POS a fan license for the exact same reason they offered AGDI one...to keep a tight control of their IP without having to resort to shut the project down)

However, I'm afraid I don't have any factual evidence to support my template-theory, so the point is rather moot. :)


Enchantermon

Quote from: Erpy on May 31, 2010, 10:22:11 AMIt was polite, but firm. Their initial letter merely told us we were violating copyright law and to call them immediately to resolve the matter, but refused to give details, so we mistook it for a shutdown request at first. They were polite and professional all the way through, but the underlying statement was clear...we could accept a fan license and continue, or we could refuse and we'd have to close down.
Very interesting. It's kind of amazing that they actually offered you a way to keep the project alive...you wouldn't think a large corporation would be reasonable and a little selfless like that (unless they were also taking fair use into account).
Quote from: Erpy on May 31, 2010, 10:22:11 AMI don't think "setting ground rules" was really the right description. Vivendi wanted to take action to maintain tight control of their IP and they gave us an option that didn't involve shutting our projects down. But they weren't vague about the fact that they were the ones setting the terms.
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but that is basically what I was getting at. Cool, thanks. :)

Interesting that the SQ7 team rejected Vivendi's generous (relatively, based on the alternative) offer.
So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

Erpy

#864
QuoteVery interesting. It's kind of amazing that they actually offered you a way to keep the project alive...you wouldn't think a large corporation would be reasonable and a little selfless like that (unless they were also taking fair use into account).

Actually, the "fair use"-thing was the first argument VU's lawyer swept right off the table when we first spoke to him. It didn't apply to us. I don't see it as selfless, just as an alternative option to shutdown. And a fairly reasonable one.

QuoteInteresting that the SQ7 team rejected Vivendi's generous (relatively, based on the alternative) offer.

Generous isn't what I would call it. As Josh Mandel mentioned in public, the big breaking point for the SQ7-team was the clause that said all assets (art, story, code, music) of the project would become legal property of VU upon creation. Not just the assets that were based on previous games, but all new content and plot elements as well. This meant that VU was free to order distribution of the game afterwards, sell it for profit without having to give the team a dime or start a new project based on original parts of the game without the need to pay the SQ7 team any royalties. This wasn't very likely to happen, but the possibility and the fact he was giving VU his work for free was enough for Josh Mandel to reject the fan license and he mentioned several others shared his opinion that the project's assets should never be given to a large corporation for free.

I assume this condition was also part of the deal that POS was offered in 2005 (no, I'm not fishing for a confirmation) and when I first heard about the shutdown, I initially falsely assumed that it was a definite curtains for the team since this clause makes it legally impossible to redesign the project without KQ elements. (that didn't turn out to be the case of course, since the contract wasn't in effect yet)

I recognize this clause, but for AGDI it was less of an issue since a relatively large part of our remakes' content was already property of VU to begin with and you can't try to strip familiar elements out of a remake anyway without it stopping to be a remake.


It's a price to pay for the ability to release your project without legal issues and it's up to each team to determine if it's worth it. You get what you pay for with a fan license.


liggy002

How are the talks going?  Do they lean in favor of TSL being released or of experiencing permanent rejection?

Are there any indications of the above mentioned scenarios based on the talks or is there nothing to report due to Activision not saying anything that is indicative of a bias in either direction?


I have to agree that not engaging in piracy is obviously the wise choice here.  "Piracy", however, is more than one might think.  For instance, just because charging $13.00 for a movie ticket is legally permissable, does not mean that is not piracy.  Sure, people don't have to pay the $13.00 for the ticket, but that still doesn't make it morally acceptable to charge an outrageous price by taking advantage of a much desired past time.    Also, Activision cancelling a contract previously honored by VU and "stealing" away the dreams and hopes of thousands of fans could also fall under the definition of piracy.  VU tried to take them away once but gave them back to the fans.  Now Activision has taken them for the time being.  I hope that Activision has the sense to give the fans back their dreams.  Otherwise, they are no different from all the other "piece of garbage" corporations out there that put the value of a dollar above that of a human being.  And i'm sorry, but if Activison does not agree to give the fans what they want, then I won't support them by buying thier products or anyone else who has a parternship with them which would financially benefit them.

Enchantermon

Quote from: Erpy on June 01, 2010, 01:07:45 AMI don't see it as selfless, just as an alternative option to shutdown. And a fairly reasonable one.
Quote from: Erpy on June 01, 2010, 01:07:45 AMGenerous isn't what I would call it.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, and you do make valid points, but as I said, the "selflessness" and "generosity" are all in the context of the alternative, which was for the projects to shut down. Sure, they're by no means ideal situations, but since Vivendi was holding all the cards, any concession they make seems generous by comparison (at least to me; maybe I'm giving them too much credit; I tend to hand it out rather easily).
Quote from: Erpy on June 01, 2010, 01:07:45 AMThis wasn't very likely to happen, but the possibility and the fact he was giving VU his work for free was enough for Josh Mandel to reject the fan license and he mentioned several others shared his opinion that the project's assets should never be given to a large corporation for free.
Hmm. I believe I understand how he might feel that way, but I don't think I agree with him (under the circumstances).
So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

koko_99_2001

Quote from: liggy002 on June 01, 2010, 06:36:41 PM
How are the talks going?  Do they lean in favor of TSL being released or of experiencing permanent rejection?



I'm not in the middle of the talks between Activision and the core team, but I can say that they are ongoing. Other than that, it's really just a waiting game.
<3 Happily married to FataliOmega since July 11, 2009 <3

The Unofficial The Silver Lining Official Sarcasm Cleaner Upper :cat:

Catherine DaCosta

Erpy

#868
QuoteI have to agree that not engaging in piracy is obviously the wise choice here.  "Piracy", however, is more than one might think.  For instance, just because charging $13.00 for a movie ticket is legally permissable, does not mean that is not piracy.  Sure, people don't have to pay the $13.00 for the ticket, but that still doesn't make it morally acceptable to charge an outrageous price by taking advantage of a much desired past time. Also, Activision cancelling a contract previously honored by VU and "stealing" away the dreams and hopes of thousands of fans could also fall under the definition of piracy.

Um...what exactly makes those things "piracy"? If you call "stealing hopes and dreams" piracy...the TSL trilogy as it was originally announced was a franchise consisting of 3 parts that in turn consisted of 3 chapters. (essentially 9 games the size of KQ6) 1.5 years ago, the TSL team announced that producing chapter 3...9 without a budget was not feasable and those chapters most likely would not be made. The game that Activision wouldn't grant a fan license to consisted of chapters 1 and 2. So if we use your logic and call any act that results in people feeling disappointment piracy, you're suggesting that both Activision and POS engaged in piracy and the TSL team is the bigger pirate of the two.  ::)

QuoteHmm. I believe I understand how he might feel that way, but I don't think I agree with him (under the circumstances).

I don't really agree with him either, but Josh has had a lot of (negative) experience with corporate antics (he comes off as a bit jaded on the subject of software corporations) so from his point of view his decision was probably the one that made most sense.

QuoteI suppose it's a matter of perspective, and you do make valid points, but as I said, the "selflessness" and "generosity" are all in the context of the alternative, which was for the projects to shut down. Sure, they're by no means ideal situations, but since Vivendi was holding all the cards, any concession they make seems generous by comparison (at least to me; maybe I'm giving them too much credit; I tend to hand it out rather easily).

My own definition of generous is around the principle of "a lot more than you have to give". Let's make an analogy. I believe in the US, it's customary to leave a tip around the value of 15 to 20% of what you spent on a meal when eating out. It's not illegal to not give the tip, but that doesn't mean paying that 15% is generous. I'd call it reasonable. (well, I WOULD if I didn't live in a country that's known as stingy  :P) A generous tip would be 20-25% or so. So to keep the analogy:

- Shut down fan project: eat out and don't pay a tip. (prickish)
- Current fan license terms: eat out and pay 15% (reasonable)
- Fan license terms that give fan team royalties if their work were to be sold or lets fan team maintain ownership of original elements in their work: eat out and pay 25%. (generous)

Of course, VU is a corporation and lawyers can't afford to be generous with money that isn't really theirs to spend as they see fit. So I'd call the fan license a reasonable and fairly elegant option compared to a shut down, but generous is a bit too strong a word for me.


Enchantermon

Quote from: Erpy on June 02, 2010, 04:57:37 AMI don't really agree with him either, but Josh has had a lot of (negative) experience with corporate antics (he comes off as a bit jaded on the subject of software corporations) so from his point of view his decision was probably the one that made most sense.
Ah. I don't know anything about his previous exploits, so it may have looked that way to him. Still unfortunate, though.
Quote from: Erpy on June 02, 2010, 04:57:37 AM
- Shut down fan project: eat out and don't pay a tip. (prickish)
- Current fan license terms: eat out and pay 15% (reasonable)
- Fan license terms that give fan team royalties if their work were to be sold or lets fan team maintain ownership of original elements in their work: eat out and pay 25%. (generous)
Okay, yeah, I see where you're coming from. You're making a distinction between generous and reasonable; I was seeing reasonable as a limited form of generosity (since Vivendi wasn't legally obligated to do anything for POS). At this point it's just semantics though; I do agree with your points. Good analogy, too.
So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

oberonqa

That is a very good analogy there Erpy.  And pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I can see.
 
Chronicling the history of Sierra through the conversion of it's premiere magazine into an easy-to-use, searchable wiki format.

liggy002

#871
The TSL Team never stole anyone's dreams.  It was incorrect of me to say that dreams could be stolen anyway.  No one can steal you dreams, only you can choose to throw them out the window.  They brought dreams to life with the TSL project.  If we use your logic, you're making invalid assumptions based on what i'm saying.  The difference between what Activision and POS did is that POS had a valid and fair reason for not being able to produce the remaining chapters.  Activision, on the other hand, just didn't want to bother with the legal procedures and could have easily greenlighted the release.  What they did was dishonorable.  The situation with POS was different.   Besides, although the team had announced that the remaining chapters would not be released, I have to stress that they stated so because they would not do it for FREE.  If they were paid to produce the remaining chapters, that would be different matter entirely and I believe that it is definitely possible that we could see the remaining chapters.  Therefore, they didn't want to work 10 more years for free and that was a very understandable and valid reason.

The TSL team is a bigger group of pirates than Activision, I won't deny that... lol  ;D  They took an IP that wasn't theres and decided to make their own fan game based on it.  What they did may not have been right from a moral stand point, but I must say that I am glad they did it.  They sure as heck didn't steal our dreams though.  I'm not saying that I hate Activision.  I just don't agree with what they did.  

POS bridged the gap between dreams and reality with TSL.  They just lacked the funds to fully build the bridge into reality.  Even though the bridge extended to the other side.

Activison, AKA the bridge troll (I think that is from King's Quest 1) said that no one was to cross once the bridge was built though he easily could have stepped aside since he had already collected tons of tolls across the land and letting Graham (POS) pass by wouldn't have cost him much if anything.

The point here being that POS gave us our much desired bridge to cross that treachorous river of pessimism.  They didnt' take anything away from us by not finishing the bridge in all its majesty.  The troll might yet move aside if he can be greased with a sweet deal and may even help us finish the imcomplete bridge provided we help him collect more tolls.  Legend has it that if the troll were to let a visitor cross the bridge and step aside without a toll, he would become Prince Charming.  Though doing so would require some compassion and understanding of the true purpose behind the TSL project.

cygnus

Hi

I am not on TSL team but I just heard some news I can't share, but I think it doesn't look good. Sorry this is unsubstantiated but I have been here a few years if that's any support I am not just making this up.

Please correct me if I am wrong though, but if there was the 100% answer I am sure it would eventually be on the front page I am sure.

KatieHal

I'm not sure what this information is or where you might have gotten it, but we are still talking with Activision right now. While we can't share the details of those talks, the outlook is more optimistic than not.

Katie Hallahan
~Designer, PR Director~

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." Christina Baldwin

I have a blog!

cygnus

OK thank you and sorry for causing the confusion.

Enchantermon

So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

liggy002

Well, at any rate keep up the good work.  We all appreciate the effort you guys are putting forth to help see this through to the light of day.  No matter what happens, we will always be grateful for the vision you brought us.  I remember thinking to myself at the end of King's Quest 6: "Damn it all, they never got that b****** Shadarack."  We may yet have our chance.

cupcakedoll

To change the subject back to something legal, is there anything else fans can do after they've sent their letter, email & phone call?  Do you all think multiple calls and whatnot would help or not? 

Another question: I just noticed we have two addresses for activision: on their page it's in Santa Monica CA, but the address Waltz found for sending letters to is in new Mexico.  What's up with that?  Should we send to both? And the New Mexico address didn't look like a terribly official building on googlemaps, it looks more like a house.

Enchantermon

Quote from: cupcakedoll on June 04, 2010, 09:40:06 PMAnother question: I just noticed we have two addresses for activision: on their page it's in Santa Monica CA, but the address Waltz found for sending letters to is in new Mexico.  What's up with that?  Should we send to both? And the New Mexico address didn't look like a terribly official building on googlemaps, it looks more like a house.
The Cali address is (most likely, haven't checked) Activision's office. The New Mexico address is a house, presumably Waltz's. She was (and still is, as far as I know) collecting letters and bulk mailing them to Activision on everyone's behalf.
So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

waltzdancing

The address in New Mexico is my house, for the past three months people have been mailing me their letters and I have been binding them and mailing them all together. If you would like to mail your letter separately please send them to the address in California. Either way your voice will be heard.