- 59 minutes
I am not the least bit surprised.
When they first announced it so soon after the Steam Machine was announced, it couldn’t have been more obvious that it’s unlicensed. There’s just no way they could have secured a license from Valve that fast.
After that though, you might think they had plenty of time to reach out and make a deal. And yes, I did half expect them to do this instead of being complete idiots, but judging by the sheer confidence they showed in the original announcement, being complete idiots is also likely.
I am slightly annoyed at Valve for waiting up until the last possible minute to send that C&D, considering they HAD to know about this product right from the start. But I get it. Giving Valve the maximum benefit of the doubt, they could have decided to wait for dbrand to contact them, and they probably already worked up the terms by which they’d license their IP. But as a sort of power play combined with a test of character, they needed dbrand to be the one to make contact first. And they just waited for that to happen, because dbrand HAD to get a license from them, right? Alas, dbrand failed the test of character. Damn.
- 4 hours
Someone pointed this out in another thread, and I think it’s worth repeating: dbrand has a history of doing this and has had the same thing happen before when they produced unlicensed faceplates for the PS5.
- ShutUpWesley@piefed.zipEnglish7 hours
I do wonder if Valve will do a 180 and agree to license it. Seems like they could stand to make good money by just charging dbrand a per-unit fee
- 5 hours
I’m not gonna lie, not being able to buy it makes me want the steam machine less. Sadly I don’t even need one to begin with.
- 8 hours
On brand, honestly. The cake is a lie. Companion cube incinerated. Waiting for Valve to put out a GLaDOS front plate now.
- 5 hours
Not that rare, considering they did the exact same thing already.
Kinda looks like they’re doing it on purpose so that the following apology gets them some free publicity and reputation for being honest… which is manipulative and shady.
- monkeyman512@lemmy.worldEnglish8 hours
That sucks, but is understandable. I hope Valve can do something positive like buy the design from Dbrand then sell it themselves. Then Dbrand doesn’t loose a bunch of money, Valve can protect their IP, and fans can buy the fun thing they want. Seems unlikely, but it would be cool.
- 10 hours
You absolutely have the right to make it. Selling it for a profit however…
- ShutUpWesley@piefed.zipEnglish7 hours
You don’t actually have to make a profit for it to be a trademark violation
- 12 hours
Just recreate the skin with AI and now it’s Anthropic’s problem.
*taps head
- kopasz7@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
The companion cube gets made and valve sues anthropic into oblivion. That’s a win-win in my book.
- 6 hours
Only if Valve invests the winnings into Linux, which tbf they probably would
- 8 hours
If valve does a real weighted companion cube steam machine I’m in real danger of throwing down a lot of money for something I don’t really need.
- 13 hours
Talk about boneheaded. This idea would have been an easy shoe-in for all parties involved. How is a company whose whole business model is to work with licensing designs manage to forget like the first step in licensing?
- 14 hours
Tell me your company leadership has ADHD without saying it.
Have they actually worked with Valve before? How could they be dumb enough to not reach out first?
Or was this maybe an attempt to strong-arm Valve into granting them a license? Like, did they expect them to go, “well shit, you’ve got so many preorders now I guess we’ll have to sign off on it”?
Or did they simply expect Valve not to care?
- 6 hours
Considering almost the exact same thing happened with Sony before, one can only assume it was on purpose.
2 hoursLOL I thought I was the only one that remembered the dark plates debacle
- 14 hours
I’m not familiar with steam products, Valve can’t make it either, right?
- 14 hours
Valve made the portal games. So they own the rights to the companion cube and can absolutely make this. That is why they sent the cease and desist order to dbrand.
- 14 hours
I guess what I’m asking is, I’m assuming dbrand made it look a certain way that is popular with the fans, can Valve make it look like that? Sorry that my question wasn’t probably clear.
- 12 hours
The cube thing is from portal, a game made by valve. Valve owns the rights to portal and can therefore use the ip however they please.
- 14 hours
I’m not sure I understand. Dbrand made a steam machine skin that looks like a companion cube from portal. Valve made the portal games, and thus owns the rights to the companion cube. So valve can make a companion cube skin because they already own the rights to it. Dbrand cannot because they didn’t license it with valve.
- 13 hours
Dbrand made a Companion Cube enclosure for Valve’s new console. Valve owns the copyright for the Companion Cube, since it is from one of the games they made. Valve sent a cease & desist to dbrand, for infringing on their copyright. Valve could absolutely make a Companion Cube enclosure of their own, if they wanted to. Hell, they could even make a Companion Cube edition of their console, so the enclosure is redundant.
Dbrand wasn’t doing anything notable with their enclosure, except that they were the first ones to announce it. But it is a clear violation of Valve’s copyright, and Dbrand didn’t even bother checking with Valve ahead of time to form a partnership contract. If Dbrand wanted to do things properly, that would have been step 0. But they just skipped it entirely, and started selling directly to customers. So naturally, Valve slapped them.
- 9 hours
Wow, that does seem really stupid them. I thought maybe they came up with a great new look or something, but no, lol.
Are you asking if they do not have the rights or the means? I think they have both of those. Granted, DBrand is set up for that purpose as a company, so it is probably much more efficient for them to do it.
Those rights are yours. They’re only denied to you because of copyright and capitalism.
- 14 hours
You have a great idea, you put 5 years into perfecting it and making it the best possible Thing™. You use all the money you have, sell everything you can to get enough funding to start production of your great Thing™.
After 2 month of you selling your Thing™ I see that it is a great product and using my vast fortune I immediately start mass producing it and promote My Thing® to everyone. Due to economy of scale I can produce My Thing© for a quarter of your cost and sell it for half of your price. Everybody buys my cheaper copy and you go bankrupt without having anything to your name, because you invested it all and didn’t pay back your loans yet.
Does that sound fair to you? No? Then you better believe copyright is a boon ( if its not corrupted to hell and back).
- 13 hours
if its not corrupted to hell and back)
That’s the key. It’s the whole current state of “mine for my entire lifespan, plus decades after to make sure my descendents reap the rewards of my work for generations to come” that is so wrong with copyright.
Original copyright law in the US was 14 years, with an option to renew it up to 28. That at least makes sense to me.
So, Valve releases Portal in 2007, great. They release Portal 2 in 2011, also great. And then they do almost nothing with it. It’s been 15 years since Portal 2.
If they were making a Portal 3? Fine, just say so. Renew it and the IP for Portal 1 remains yours until 2038. Don’t want to do Portal anymore? Well, Portal 1 and its characters should have gone public domain in 2021, then.
This is the typical defence for copyright. It’s also innacurate to the point of being intellectually dishonest. It ignores the reality of capitalism where legal protections only exist for people and corporations that have the money/power to get what they want.
Your Thing™ example would be cloned and sold on Amazon by a broad range of fly-by-night companies, and that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re unlucky, Amazon will clone it themselves, obfuscate your product in its search results, and sell your product under their brand, sometimes even for more than you’re selling it.
If your Thing™ isnt a physical product but rather something creative, then 99 times out of 100, there are only really two paths available to you:
In the lucky case you sell your copyright to a third party that exploits it (and you), offering you a pittance while simultaneously tying your hands, preventing you from creating derivative works or even just giving it away… for the res t of your life, and that of your kids’. In the unlucky case, you can’t afford to promote your product, so you toil for years with little to no reward for your work. Then AI techbros scrape your art and sell it back to you exclusively for their profit.
Copyright has some great marketing, but it offers you little while the rich claim ownership over your art, and our society.
- 11 hours
These rights are yours. They’re only denied to you because of the laws that specifically say these rights aren’t yours.
- greyscale@lemmy.grey.oooEnglish10 hours
Unnatural, illogical laws of man.
Its only this way because we humans say so. We can decide otherwise.
You are not wrong but as a business forced to operate in the shitty boundaries of copyright and capitalism, this was a fairly silly move
- 12 hours
You can just make stickers and put them on your steam machine. Just give the designs for free. The final product looks like a case for the machine, maybe create 3D designs for people to 3D print them?
- 14 hours
Absolutely copyright is a flawed artificial construct.
But as it is the rights are NOT theirs from a legal perspective.
You can make your own and use yourself. But you are not allowed to either give it away or sell it.
We only have the rights society grants us, and that goes disregarding what kind of society it is.
