PDA

View Full Version : not OT!! :) 109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006) H.R. 4806: Military Toy Repl



GAU-8
09-10-2006, 05:47 PM
I HOPE THIS HANST BEEN POSTED YET....!!!

BIG NEWS FOR FLIGHT SIMMERS AND TOY MAKERS

i credit this to VMF115 from the "small scale H.Q." forums. he is the original poster.

all i did was copy and paste here.


quote:

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress.

2/28/2006--Introduced.
Military Toy Replica Act - Directs the Secretary of Defense to require that any contract entered into or renewed by the Department of Defense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or merchants to obtain licenses from, or pay fees to, the contractor for the use of military likenesses or designations on items provided under the contract.


109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 4806
2D SESSION


<span class="ev_code_RED">To prohibit defense contractors from requiring licenses or fees for use of MILITARY LIKENESSES, AND DESIGNATIONS !!!!</span>


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services



A BILL
To prohibit defense contractors from requiring licenses or
fees for use of military likenesses and designations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ``Military Toy Replica
5 Act''.
6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DEFENSE CONTRACTORS REQUIR-

7 ING LICENSES OR FEES FOR USE OF MILI-

8 TARY LIKENESSES AND DESIGNATIONS.

9 The Secretary of Defense shall require that any con-
10 tract entered into or renewed by the Department of De-
2
1 fense include a provision prohibiting the contractor from
2 requiring toy and hobby manufacturers, distributors, or
3 merchants to obtain licenses from or pay fees to the con-
4 tractor for the use of military likenesses or designations
5 on items provided under the contract.


end quote:



somebody is looking out for us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


start sendin (not email) those letters to your congressman !

p1ngu666
09-10-2006, 05:49 PM
has it been passed? arms makers have more lobbyists than weve have -4 and f8f whine threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GAU-8
09-10-2006, 05:54 PM
from my understanding, not yet..but at least it got started. im not saying it will be a short time for an answer..but somebody higher up still plays with toys, and sees whats going on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

flakwagen
09-10-2006, 07:31 PM
To be fair, the wording of the bill seems a bit broad. The need for this legislation was brought about mainly by shyster lawyers who tried to collect royalties for the use of 50+ year old aircraft designs and nomenclature. This bill would force arms makers to give up their rights to collect right off the bat. I think a grace period of six to eight years would be fair.

Some of the small arms optics makers are rather small businesses with less than 100 employees. They spend some precious coin from time to time in order to defend against cheap Chinese knockoffs. It would hurt them if the knockoff makers figured out a way to pass off their goods as 'toys' or 'models' of the real thing. Most of them market to people who own real guns, so this might not be likely, but it is food for thought.

Oh well, I'm glad something is being done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Flak

PBNA-Boosher
09-10-2006, 08:38 PM
Oh what the Devastator would be in PF...

Daiichidoku
09-10-2006, 09:28 PM
this is very important:

"any contract entered into or renewed by the Department of Defense"

this still would not cover ant "nostalgic" hardware, such as WWII, and most 50/60 military aircraft, among other things

good news for enthusiasts of all compemporary hardware and nomenclature though

Bearcat99
09-10-2006, 09:49 PM
Ill be watching this ..... thanks.

HayateAce
09-10-2006, 11:48 PM
Ahhhh, teh bleus are NOT going to like this news. C'mon Warclowns, let the USN come in a embarass the Vulcherbird RunNineties off the server.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

DASH-4

http://www.airventuremuseum.org/images/collection/aircraft/Chance%20Vought%20F4U%20Corsair-1.jpg

MrMojok
09-11-2006, 12:28 AM
why turn this into another red vs blue thing?

Abbuzze
09-11-2006, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Ahhhh, teh bleus are NOT going to like this news.

Yes, because if we will shot you down in a USN fighter with our 109´s we will hear your whining and screaming over the big blue ocean - A lot of scientist will be needed in Europe, till the cause for this sounds will be found. (Odysseus sirens or a big collective tinnitus?) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

stanford-ukded
09-11-2006, 05:48 AM
Mojok it was a joke.

I think your comment is more likely to turn it in to a red blue thing than the orginal response! omg.

I just helped it along.

arse.

GAU-8
09-12-2006, 01:33 AM
at least it looks good for when oleg does jet flight sims http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

if its passed.

stathem
09-12-2006, 02:27 AM
Not withstanding the comments about the need to protect smaller defence contractors, this makes a huge amount of sense.

Making models and playing with toys (and computer games!) as children plays some substantial part in encouraging some boys (and possibly some girls) to grow up wanting to be soldiers, sailors and airmen; and unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, societies are still going to require that. As western societies face problems of recruitment, it€s imperative that that encouragement is not removed, even if some of us may have personal moral concerns about bringing our children up in a militaristic culture.

AH_Gonzo
09-12-2006, 04:54 AM
but somebody higher up still plays with toys, and sees whats going on

Is it just me or does anyone else picture Goerge running around the Oval Office with a Dauntless model in one hand making "Brrrrr Brrrr' noises?

Thanks for the info!

Blottogg
09-12-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by AH_Gonzo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but somebody higher up still plays with toys, and sees whats going on

Is it just me or does anyone else picture Goerge running around the Oval Office with a Dauntless model in one hand making "Brrrrr Brrrr' noises?

Thanks for the info! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dauntless!?! He's got a model of his dad's Avenger, be sure! And maybe a model of his old F-102, in case he wants to make jet noises.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-12-2006, 01:04 PM
I've got a mental picture of Oleg telling a judge he's taking the umpty-somethingth ammendment.

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 01:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/978...781078643#9781078643 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/9781078643?r=9781078643#9781078643)

I actually think this is a gone and past issue...........However, do not let this stop you from hammering on your representatives as that is how things get done.

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 07:41 AM
It would hurt them if the knockoff makers figured out a way to pass off their goods as 'toys' or 'models' of the real thing.

It would be easy enough to define a toy or model to be something that bears a physical resemblance to the original item but does not have the same physical function or scale. Plus the manufacturers should be covered by existing intellectual property law, whereas the moves against model makers seems to be an attempt to extend the interpretation of trademark to include shapes which have not been explicity trademarked (such as the shape of the classic coke bottle, or actual company logos, or company names). I may be wrong, though, and the companies may be objecting to the use of their trademarked company names by model makers, which would be their right, although in some parts of the world if you fail to defend your trademark then you lose the right to ever defend it (unlike patents or copyright).