[Dark Sonic]

Oh awesome, he get Futurama on those eyes? I need to catch up on a few episodes.

[Commando Beta]

Will he be demanding our clothes, our boots and our motorcycles?

[Tylinos]

Today's "What the Hell Am I Reading" moment from Ken Penders:

Ken Penders said:

jameygamer said:

There is something about that I find a bit not up to date. For starters, you said you didn't rely solely on the Web for feedback. Again, it seems you do not feel it is significant enough to make a difference. If it WAS that insignificant, then SOPA would most likely have passed. Also, if it's not big enough for you to consider it, why is FACEBOOK so successful? If you have this forum up, you should know how powerful opinions on the Internet would be if you get them in spades. Not to mention, the rabid fanbase on other websites is demanding your head on a pike. I would tread with caution when dealing with diehard fans of something.

If the Internet is a minority to you, it's a very vocal minority, and vocal minorities have shown to be a factor in things throughout history. Trust me, it takes one voice to drown out an entire room full of talkers.

SOPA didn't pass because there was an array of very powerful interests working to defeat it, including many of the Silicon Valley Companies like Facebook, Google and others supporting the effort. If one has that kind of support, one can do a lot of things.

There were also very big names on the other side of the argument, such as Viacom and Disney. SOPA failed because a ton of people came together and agreed that it's a terrible bill. The large companies helped in that effort, but large companies on the SOPA support side helped just as much for their side of the argument. In the end, SOPA didn't pass because the people being so much against it actually outweighed lobbying by major companies. And anyone who knows the slightest about lobbying knows why that's such a big deal.

In short: Ken is ignoring the facts again as a way to try and make a point by using only half of the facts. This seems to be becoming a running theme here.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 22 February 2012 - 03:30 PM

[Tylinos]

Sorry for the double-post, but this is a bit of a long one. The other day in #comics on the IRC, there was a bit of talk about how there isn't a list of all the stories Ken wrote for the book, and I offered to go through every issue up to #160 and make one. Every story is listed by issue and story number because I was too lazy to type out every story title.

"Co" means he only co-wrote the story.

"KNUX" means Knuckles appears, or is a Chaotix solo story.


#11: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 3 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#12: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#13: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
#14: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 3 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#15: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#16: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#17: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#18: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich), Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#19: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#20: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#21: Story 1
#22: Story 1
#24: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#27: Story 1
#28: Story 1
#31: Story 1, Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
#32: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
#33: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 3
#34: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
#35: Story 2 (KNUX)
#36: Story 1, Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
#38: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
#41: Story 1
#42: Story 2 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
#44: Story 1 (KNUX)
#45: Story 3 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
#46: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor), Story 2 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
#47: Story 1
#48: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor)
#49: Story 1 (Co with Mike Gallagher, KNUX)
#50 (And SS#6): Story 1 (Co with various, KNUX)
#53: Story 1 (KNUX)
#58: Story 1 (KNUX), Story 2 (Co with Clayton Emery)
#59: Story 2
#60: Story 2
#61: Story 3
#62: Story 2
#63: Story 2
#64: Story 2
#65: Story 2
#67: Story 2
#68: Story 2
#69: Story 2
#71: Story "1" (The backup story, due to the reverse order of the issue.)
#72: Story 2
#73: Story 2
#74: Story 2
#76: Story 2
#77: Story 2
#78: Story 2
#79: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3
#80: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3
#81: Story 2 (KNUX)
#84: Story 1 (KNUX)
#89: Story 2 (KNUX)
#90: Story 2 (KNUX)
#91: Story 2 (KNUX)
#92: Story 2
#93: Story 2 (KNUX)
#94: Story 2 (KNUX)
#95: Story 2 (KNUX)
#96: Story 2 (KNUX)
#97: Story 2 (KNUX)
#98: Story 2
#99: Story 2 (KNUX)
#100: Story 2 (KNUX)
#101: Story 2 (KNUX)
#102: Story 2 (KNUX)
#106: Story 2 (KNUX)
#107: Story 2 (KNUX)
#108: Story 3 (KNUX)
#109: Story 3 (KNUX)
#114: Story 2 (KNUX)
#115: Story 2 (KNUX)
#116: Story 3 (KNUX)
#117: Story 3 (KNUX)
#118: Story 3 (KNUX)
#120: Story 2 (KNUX)
#122: Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
#123: Story 2 (KNUX)
#124: Story 2 (KNUX)
#131: Story 2 (KNUX)
#132: Story 2 (KNUX)
#133: Story 2 (KNUX)
#134: Story 2 (KNUX)
#135: Story 3 (KNUX)
#136: Story 2 (KNUX)
#137: Story 2 (KNUX)
#138: Story 2 (KNUX)
#139: Story 2 (KNUX)
#140: Story 2 (KNUX)
#141: Story 2 (KNUX)
#142: Story 3 (KNUX)
#143: Story 2 (KNUX)
#144: Story 1 (KNUX)
#145: Story 1 (LOCKE), Story 3
#146: Story 1
#147: Story 1
#148: Story 1, Story 3
#149: Story 1
#150: Story 1 (LOCKE)
#151: Story 1 (LOCKE)
#152: Story 1, Story 2
#154: Story 2
#155: Story 1
#156: Story 1
#157: Story 1, Story 2
#158: Story 1
#159: Story 1 (KNUX), Story 2

In Your Face!: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
Sonic & Knuckles: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
Triple Trouble: Story 3 (KNUX)
Chaotix: Story 1 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX), Story 2 (KNUX), Story 3 (KNUX)
Super Sonic vs. Hyper Knuckles: Story 2 (Co with Mike Kanterovich, KNUX)
Sonic Live!: Story 1

Battle Royal: Story 1 (Co with Kent Taylor, KNUX)
Brave New World: Story 1
Image Crossover: Story 1 (KNUX)
Girls Rule: All 5 Stories (Semi-KNUX for the Julie-Su one)
Turnabout Heroes: Story 1 (Co with Karl Bollers, KNUX)
Sonic Adventure: Story 1 (Co with Karl Bollers, KNUX)
Sonic Stew: Story 2 (KNUX)
Naugus Games: Story 1

Sally Mini-Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Mike Kanterovich)

KNUX Mini-Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Mike Kanterovich)
KNUX Main Series #1 to #3: All (Co with Kent Taylor)
KNUX Main Series #4 to #32: All




NO CREDITS LISTED, MAY HAVE BEEN KEN:
#11: Story 2
#82: Story 2 (KNUX)
#88: Story 2 (KNUX)
(If anyone can find the credits for these, feel free to post them.)



STORIES FEATURING KNUCKLES WHICH WERE NOT WRITTEN BY KEN:
#39: Story 1
#42: Story 1
#56: Story 1
#83: Story 1
#130: Story 1
#131: Story 1
#132: Story 1
#133: Story 1
#134: Story 1
#136: Story 3
#138: Story 1
#139: Story 1
#140: Story 1
#141: Story 1
#153: Story 1
(Anything from #160 onwards)

Triple Trouble: Story 1
Super Sonic vs. Hyper Knuckles: Story 1
Mecha Madness: Story 1, Story 2 (Story 2 is Chaotix only, but I'm counting it.)
Sonic Live!: Story 3

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 23 February 2012 - 12:18 AM

[Lambda]

That's a LOT of KNUX from #75 - #144. I'm glad I picked up the comic right when Ken was hitting the road...

[Tylinos]

Remember Penders' lawsuit against Sega and EA over Chronicles? A judge just dismissed the case. Basically, the judge said that the claim to this in the first place depends on the outcome of the main case over his copyrights, as Ken's ownership of the copyrights is in question, and he can re-file when that one's over. So much for that annoying "The US Government agrees I own these copyrights," claim he constantly throws around in posts. He might ignore when other posters point out why it's silly to claim the government agrees with that, but perhaps he won't ignore a judge pointing it out.

Oh, and another part of the dismissal that I got a kick from:

Judge Otis Wright said:

Moreover, in filing the present action, Plaintiff neglected to file a Notice of Related Case. Such procedural maneuvering is not well taken, nor will it be tolerated.

Ken likes to claim he knows a lot about the law despite that also being untrue.

[TheKazeblade]

I get the feeling he knows good and well that he should have filed that notice, but neglected to purposefully in order to try and have a back-up should the primary case be in danger. Or, maybe that was his plan all along, in which case, he is screwed. I'll be curious how he responds if someone brings it up. After all, by his own admission, now that that particular case is over, he can speak freely about it, right?

[NeonZephyr]

Somehow, I'm really not surprised. Actually, I'm more surprised that this didn't happen sooner. Ah, well, baby steps, I guess. The legal system is a slow-moving beast, after all.

How many times have I said that the U.S. Copyright Office throws copyright out like candy at a parade. It doesn't mean anything until they've been tested in court. (I guess I haven't said this much, have I?) Which is exactly what's happening here, as this judge is proving. But, we all know that Penders won't accept this or believe that it was his legal incompetency that caused it. He'll likely just say "the judge doesn't understand" or just yell "statue of limitations" or something. (though, if he'd shown any evidence that he has ANY real understanding of US law, then I'd accept the latter. But...)

Quote

Such procedural maneuvering is not well taken, nor will it be tolerated.

I love this. I can just feel the Judge's irritation at all this.

[Glaber]

I wonder if ken will be stupid enough to be held in contempt of court?

[Tylinos]

NeonZephyr, on 27 February 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

But, we all know that Penders won't accept this or believe that it was his legal incompetency that caused it. He'll likely just say "the judge doesn't understand" or just yell "statue of limitations" or something. (though, if he'd shown any evidence that he has ANY real understanding of US law, then I'd accept the latter. But...)

Funny you should say that...

Ken Penders said:

Tylinos said:

Way to circumvent the law there, Ken. Any particular reason for trying to get around a court order and proper filing procedure?

Nothing was circumvented. No chicanery or tricks were played. I really can't discuss what happened here simply because while the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality, if you've been paying attention, it doesn't mean Sega and EA are out of the woods by a long shot. In fact, the article ends on the note that if I prevail in my case against Archie, it portends dire straits for Sega and EA precisely because of how the Judge handled the case. Thus, in no way am I going to say anything to upset the man or damage my chances going forward in the case. The key thing was always the preservation of my case within the statute of limitations regarding SONIC CHRONICLES, and I got that with the wording of this ruling.

It was that reason alone that required me to file at the time I did, otherwise I'd have been fine waiting until the mess with Archie is resolved before moving forward. On the flip side, I have yet to rule out moving forward again sooner rather than later, depending on how events play out. That's how complicated this is.

First off, he says "Nothing was circumvented. No chicanery or tricks were played." Except for the parts where he immediately re-filed when the Judge said what he should have done was challenged the ruling or waited for the end of the Archie case, and how he never filed a Notice of Related Case, which as was pointed out, he would have only done if he either don't understand the way the legal system works, or specifically ignored it because filing it would have hurt his case for obvious reasons.

And then he goes and outright admits to doing this as a play to get around statute of limitations law. Funny, that sounds an awful lot like circumventing and playing tricks to me.

Oh, and the end there implies that he may possibly re-file before the Archie case ends even though he was basically just told to not do that.


There's more to his post, but I don't feel like reposting it or copy/pasting more of my response to it. If anyone's interested, it's at the usual place in his forum. Some highlights include an example that could be turned on its head and applied to his own arguments, a strawman in disguise, and either being incredibly forgetful or libelous toward Ian.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 28 February 2012 - 03:00 AM

[Kampfer]

Just curious, is there a link to the legal decision? I looked online and could only find the defense motion to dismiss, but not the judge's decision.

[Tylinos]

Yes, but the link is somewhere that can't really be linked here.

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 28 February 2012 - 09:08 PM

[TheKazeblade]

Ken Penders said:

We don't operate under the 1909 Act anymore. Any works created since January 1, 1978 fall under the Copyright Act of 1976, which clearly defines the nine categories that define works-for-hire, under which I and many others observe - even the comic publishers at the time it was enacted - does not list comic books anywhere within those nine categories.

So... apparently, Penders' plan is to exploit the fact comics aren't overtly mentioned as one of the 9 forms of work-for-hire in the Copyright Act of 1976.

Does this mean his entire plan consists of slipping through a loophole? I have a hard time believing such a major industry such as comics wouldn't be included in such an act, even if not overtly stated. I know nothing about law, and very little about this bill. Can anyone shed light on whether this is even in the least bit possible?

[Kampfer]

TheKazeblade, on 01 March 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Ken Penders said:

We don't operate under the 1909 Act anymore. Any works created since January 1, 1978 fall under the Copyright Act of 1976, which clearly defines the nine categories that define works-for-hire, under which I and many others observe - even the comic publishers at the time it was enacted - does not list comic books anywhere within those nine categories.

So... apparently, Penders' plan is to exploit the fact comics aren't overtly mentioned as one of the 9 forms of work-for-hire in the Copyright Act of 1976.

Does this mean his entire plan consists of slipping through a loophole? I have a hard time believing such a major industry such as comics wouldn't be included in such an act, even if not overtly stated. I know nothing about law, and very little about this bill. Can anyone shed light on whether this is even in the least bit possible?

I doubt it. I looked at the copyright statute, and it appears straightforward (unfortunately in my property class at law school we didn't spend more than a day on IP law).

Quote

17 U.S.C.A. § 101

A “work made for hire” is--

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use
as a contribution to a collective work,
as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
as a translation,
as a supplementary work,
as a compilation,
as an instructional text,
as a test,
as answer material for a test, or
as an atlas,

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

Quote

17 U.S.C.A. § 201

(b) Works Made for Hire.--In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

The problem with Pender's argument is the statute is disjunctive. That means if he meets either subpart 1 or subpart 2 of the section 101, it is a work for hire. The easiest argument Archie could make is that he was (a) an employee for Archie and (b) he made his drawings under the scope of his employment of Archie. Archie does not need to go into those nine established categories in subpart (b). Thus, once it is a work for hire, then under Section 201, it would be Archie's, and not his. Just at my cursory reading of the statute, he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

Lawyered

This post has been edited by Kampfer: 02 March 2012 - 01:10 AM

[Tylinos]

So, parts of Penders opposition to Archie's motion for summary judgement are in public records, and there's something of potential interest in them in a part from Penders' attorney Michael Lovitz, regarding something said by Archie's former VP of Finance, Ed Spallone:

Michael Lovitz said:

During these interviews, Mr. Spallone explained that there had been a problem discovered in 1996 concerning ACP's contracts with its artists, writers and other creators. Specifically, Mr. Spallone stated that it was ACP's routine to store contracts in a box in the company's on-site warehouse. Further, during the time he was VP of Finance, he was aware that ACP routinely hired short-term employees to work in the warehouse; however, ACP learned that one or more of those employees had proven to be either untrustworthy or incompetent. In the fall of 1996, ACP discovered that all (or a majority) of the creator agreements housed in the ACP warehouse had been destroyed when the box containing the contracts was discarded by one of the short-term warehouse employees.

Some of you may recall something else about fall 1996 and contracts. Namely, the alleged contract copy produced by Archie they said was signed by Penders is from late 1996, and specifically the end of fall. There are two things this brings up, one good and one bad. The bad is it means that Archie may have some new legal trouble if it lost contracts from prior to late 1996. The good is that it actually lends quite a bit of credibility to the supposed 1996 contract: The timing of its signing fits perfectly for a new contract made shortly after the discovery that the old contracts were missing. Either this contract is real, or it's fake and Archie Comics is simultaneously the stupidest and most clever company out there (Because in that case it would mean they were stupid enough to lose original contracts, but clever enough to have the fake be dated at the most sensible time even though they wouldn't have known that would need to be brought up.)

This post has been edited by Tylinos: 09 March 2012 - 04:16 AM