infurnus wrote:
I'm sorry Replicant, but I can't see past all the
ignoratio elenchi in your posts.
If I'm reading you right, which I'm probably not, because this makes no sense: You believe I'm using a distractive logical fallacy, such as a Chewbacca Defense (doesn't it sound ridiculous when you put in these terms? I do hope this hasn't distracted you again). In fact, I've done nothing but site issues of concern involving the legal risks associated with the arbitrary decision to keep a game mode name the same, when the rights holder of said name is adamant about his ownership of the name, and has shown quite a vindictive streak.
Your use of ignoratio elenchi is incorrect here in that both the argument and the conclusion are valid, I'm not dodging anyone's argument by arguing a completely different point...
In fact, you've just (ironically?) invoked the very logical fallacy you accused me of. From the article you linked:
Wikipedia wrote:
An example might be a situation where A and B are discussing whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that shows that the law ought to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of ignoratio elenchi
We're arguing whether the law permits us to use Carn's Skulltag brand without prior written consent... (Note that Trademark has little to do with the Copyright he's granted us). You're saying that the law OUGHT to allow us to use the name because we run an implementation of the game mode Carney created. I hope that's not an example of your critical thinking skills, no offense intended. In fact, it's not not clear at all that using the Skulltag mark carries no risk. I put it to you that any amount of thought on the matter would reveal at least some risk involved -- If not, then you're not qualified to make the distinction. It doesn't matter what the law OUGHT to let us do with Carney's brand. What matters is we actually are taking a risk for little to no reason which may jeopardize the future of the project needlessly.
I would apologize for my colorful presentation leaving you unable to reason beyond it if I were a more dishonest man.
Allow me to explain my position in such simple terms that even someone who throws around incorrect accusations of logical fallacy can understand.
From past events we can infer that one or the other is very likely true:
- Brand Carney does value his Skulltag brand.
- Brad Carney doesn't value his Skulltag brand.
We can also infer that one of the following is very likely true:
- Brad Carney would accept a publishing deal for Wrack.
- Brad Carney would not accept a publishing deal for Wrack.
The fact that such a deal would mean money paid for the development of the game, as well as the fact that he's previously sought publisher funding would mean it's more likely that the former is true.
Which of the following would be more likely true?
- Trademarks increase a product's value to a publisher.
- Trademarked status has little value to a publisher.
I put it to you that one of the next statements is true as well:
- Brad Carney will eventually add support for multiplayer game modes to his games.
- Brad Carney will never include support for multiplayer game modes to his games.
(Now, if the prior answer isn't immediately obvious, you can do your own research, but here's a hint: It's the first one.)
Which of these following statements is likely to be true?
- Brad Carney is likely to reimplement Skulltag in his new works.
- Brad Carney is unlikely to reimplement the game of Skulltag again.
The fact that ID kept reusing the "Quake" mark, though the games were very different and attributed this to trademark difficulties, and that Carn's own project had to be changed from Last Bastion to Wrack would weigh more in the direction of one of these:
- Established trademarkable names like Skulltag are hard to come by.
- It's easy to find a trademarkable name.
Though you may argue it's impossible to determine these absolutely either way I would say the argument is strongly in the favor that whether or not Carn decides to trademark Skulltag immediately, it's highly probable he will.
At such time he may well also be signed by a publisher, and in that event our legally defined as confusing use of the mark could easily be very detrimental to the Community as they'll be legally obligated to file a cease and desist, and possibly pursue legal remedy including possibly leveraging the DMCA, even if improperly.
Even if such is not the case, one of these is true:
- Brad Carney is prone to selfish emotionally driven decisions.
- Brad Carney is not prone to selfish emotionally driven decisions.
His "If I can't have it no one can!" mentality makes it ever more
UNREASONABLE to keep the Skulltag name in Zandronum.
Now, I'm not really seeing any argument except what the law OUGHT to let us do with the name... You'll recognize such replies as irrelevant from your study of Wikipedia's vast database of logical fallacies.
The thing I want to know is, why is this issue relevant? Why would someone need to trademark a game mode?
It's relevant because now is a good opportunity to change it. We can thus show that although our repositories of past bear the Skulltag mark, we've done due diligence on our part in effort to remove ourselves from the infringing brand, and have not been merely leaching off the brand's popularity. (Which is what a lawyer would accuse, BTW)
Why do people patent or trademark anything? If you wish me to speculate, I'd say in order to appease the legal departments behind the securing of rights for the sale and distribution of a multi-player expansion pack to Wrack possibly called "Wrack Pack: Skulltag Mode". Such an event would no doubt require a trademark of the term in question if for no other reason than to ensure their own asses are sufficiently covered. I could think of a million other reasons. The fact that immediately following his pairing with Bobby Prince, Carn quickly took legal action to secure his other intellectual properties speaks to the fact that he's had some form of legal council or at least advice about how to make a publisher happy.
id Software didn't trademark DeathMatch, almost every game uses that word now. Free Radical didn't trademark Capture The Bag either.
I almost ignored the fact that you're once again invoking the same logical fallacy: It's irrelevant what they have or haven't done.
And yet, the term DeathMatch has been trademarked multiple times in at least the US... This you'd know if you had actually searched the trademark databases.
Can you elaborate why we should be concerned about the trademark status of the word SkullTag in the context of a team based game mode featuring Skulls as a gameplay device?
I believe I have. Could you elaborate on your vast experience with copyright and trademark law? I personally believe it to be lacking. Whereas, I'm only trying to help the community avoid harm with my own such experience.
Could you also elaborate further on why you wish "to prove Torr wrong by waiting until Carn trademarks Skulltag" (your words)?
That's easy:
Warfare wrote:
obviously should change all, absolutely all about skulltag. This name should disappear
Monsoon wrote:
i agree with warefare, what seriously the hell guys? is skulltag going to be called zandronum from now on?
Torr Samaho wrote:
I don't see any reason to rename the game mode and have no plans to do so.
My post was split after these, for being off topic. I wish to prove Torr wrong because he's wrong. There ARE REASONS to rename the game mode, and WE SHOULD have plans to do so.
Ask your self honestly: Are you being perhaps a bit sycophantic? Why does my statement about proving Torr wrong really matter to you? Is it wrong to endeavor to prove anything at all when two minds are of opposing opinions? In short, because I think it'll help the community if not now, then in the long run at the least.
I also take mild offense to Torr's out of hand dismissal of the issue. He's clearly not thought this through, yet says he's seen no reason for such a change. I wasn't the only one who expressed the desire for the name to be removed. Apologists may excuse the disregard, but I would argue the issue does at least deserve proper consideration; I find it incredibly hard to believe that's what occurred.
One of these is more likely true:
- Seeing multiple comments, Torr thought about this and detected no inkling of danger despite our rocky past with Carn.
- Torr just stated his current opinion of the matter off hand.
I fear the latter becoming more common, so I made a stink as I felt the issue worth it.
To clarify, here's a "cheat sheet" of my stance in case you failed it
- Brand Carney does value his Skulltag brand.
- Brad Carney would accept a publishing deal for Wrack.
- Trademarks increase a product's value to a publisher.
- Brad Carney will eventually add support for multiplayer game modes to his games.
- Brad Carney is likely to reimplement Skulltag in his new works.
- Established trademarkable names like Skulltag are hard to come by.
- Brad Carney is prone to selfish emotionally driven decisions.
- Torr just stated his current opinion of the matter off hand.
Also, why do you say "zark" so much?
Come now, this question is clearly disingenuous.
