PDA

View Full Version : Public Domain



ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 09:36 AM
60 year old taxpayer funded aircraft are public domian just as 60 year old music is. UbiSoft can tell the lawyers to go pound sand. Any litigation would be a smoke screen hoping for a fast settlement and would never stand up in court. Most U.S. litigation is intended to intimidate hoping for a quick settlement and never has any intention of going to court. Having said that, unfortunately I am ashamed to say that my country does not have a "loser pays" tort system so many of these frivolous suits do get settled in order to avoid the cost of litigation.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 09:53 AM
Are you serious? So I could make a new car, call it the Model T, and Ford couldn't say anything about it because it's over sixty years old?

You are over-simplifiying the matter, don't you think?

codeseven7
12-17-2004, 09:59 AM
Ya, I would love to see some type of heavy penalty that could be laid apon those people/companies ect. and their greasy lawyers that are responsible for the thousands of court clogging frivolous lawsuits bogging down our legal system everyday. Oh, and make it an automatic penalty if you lose, no countersuit possible. Maybe then will some of this **** will stop. Vulchers!

codeseven

....OK, sorry, I feel better now.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 10:06 AM
This isn't about denying flight simmers their good time

This is about precedent

If there is a precedent that says such and such is legally OK, then those corporations we are mad at about PF can lose money because of other products, not PF.

Obviously, companies like Grumman doesn't want to be kept from having a piece of the pie that it baked, and I don't mean becuase of content in PF they lose money.

PF can merely be the precedent setter that causes them to lose money

pcpilot_MGG
12-17-2004, 10:15 AM
Its nothing more than greed Chuck. That precedent you talk about is looked upon as an opportunity. It reflects the sorry state of morality in this country. Personally I agree with DDSflyer. There has to be a line drawn somewhere in the common sense department.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 10:21 AM
I think that you cannot see more to the issue than the effect it has on a flight sim. All you're seeing is what happens in your own backyard, you're not giving a moment of thought to what happens across the street or next door.

Try to look at the problem from a viewpoint independant of one that sees a reduction in your fun. Legal precedents are a big deal.

Capt._Tenneal
12-17-2004, 10:22 AM
It occurred to me, we got through IL-2, FB, and even AEP with US planes (P-39 as early as the original IL-2) and this issue was nowhere in sight. Then we reach PF and the navy planes then this all blows up. Why now ?

WOLFMondo
12-17-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

PF can merely be the precedent setter that causes them to lose money <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does it cause anyone to loose any money? Its not like a Wildcat being represented in this sim is going to harm wildcat sales is it! Its not like the inaccuracies (not that I think there are any) in the P47 is going to harm future sales of P47's! Christ, whatever next!FFS, this is daft beyond belief.

You cannot buy history, history has happenend, if something or someone was part of history, no one can lay claim to having the rights on it. No one has a copyright or hallmark on historical events!

If it comes down to making money, PF is a historical representation of actual events, no one has the right to stop history being told. The utter hypocrisy of the US astonishes me sometimes.

pcpilot_MGG
12-17-2004, 10:28 AM
I'm talking about more here than a reduction in my fun Chuck, read the post. All your talking about is precedent. Does precedent make it right what they are trying to do? So they demand royalties for their logo or name in this sim and other games. Then what; royalties for every school book that carries a company name in it? How about those WW2 pictures vets took of an aircraft that has Lockheed on the side? Maybe they should pony up some cash too? The issue here is greed pure and simple. History shouldnt have a price tag on it, it'll just become what the companies say it is. This game didnt come about by these companies hard work, it came about by someone elses. They should be honored their aircraft are featured in it. I bet if computer games were being played back in 1946, those companies would have been thrilled their aircraft were in a sim.

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 10:29 AM
I don't think you can trademark or copyright an image of a product. You can patent a product. Otherwise every time a TV show displays a certain brand of car in a 50 year old street scene, does that mean they pay the Hudson car company a royalty? I don't think so. When Roaring Glory made DVDs of famous worbirds I know for a fact that they didn't pay royalties to any of the manufacturers. Did the producers of Midway or Pearl Harbor pay any royalties? No way. This whole thing is just smoke. You already have precedents.

BSR_Dude
12-17-2004, 10:36 AM
I said the word Avenger 5 times today. Let Grumman sue me.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

PF can merely be the precedent setter that causes them to lose money <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does it cause anyone to loose any money? Its not like a Wildcat being represented in this sim is going to harm wildcat sales is it! Its not like the inaccuracies (not that I think there are any) in the P47 is going to harm future sales of P47's! Christ, whatever next!FFS, this is daft beyond belief.

You cannot buy history, history has happenend, if something or someone was part of history, no one can lay claim to having the rights on it. No one has a copyright or hallmark on historical events!

If it comes down to making money, PF is a historical representation of actual events, no one has the right to stop history being told. The utter hypocrisy of the US astonishes me sometimes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, so a precedent couldn't be set that says, much like DDS's original post: OK, that's public domain now, and somebody makes a perfect replica of a Wildcat and markets it? that couldn't happen?

Of course it could, and of course it's unlikely. GO back to my Model T Ford example and use your argument. Would Ford allow GM to do that? No way.

As far as your US hypocrisy prattle goes, peddle yer papers somewhere else. This is not the USA's fault http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
I don't think you can trademark or copyright an image of a product. You can patent a product. Otherwise every time a TV show displays a certain brand of car in a 50 year old street scene, does that mean they pay the Hudson car company a royalty? I don't think so. When Roaring Glory made DVDs of famous worbirds I know for a fact that they didn't pay royalties to any of the manufacturers. Did the producers of Midway or Pearl Harbor pay any royalties? No way. This whole thing is just smoke. You already have precedents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure can. take a videotape of an NFL game and try to sell it without the NFL's written consent.

Try it.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcpilot_MGG:
I'm talking about more here than a reduction in my fun Chuck, read the post. All your talking about is precedent. Does precedent make it right what they are trying to do? So they demand royalties for their logo or name in this sim and other games. Then what; royalties for every school book that carries a company name in it? How about those WW2 pictures vets took of an aircraft that has Lockheed on the side? Maybe they should pony up some cash too? The issue here is greed pure and simple. History shouldnt have a price tag on it, it'll just become what the companies say it is. This game didnt come about by these companies hard work, it came about by someone elses. They should be honored their aircraft are featured in it. I bet if computer games were being played back in 1946, those companies would have been thrilled their aircraft were in a sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Legal does not equal what you personally think is "right".

That's not my rule, by the way

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 10:42 AM
Of course it is the USA's fault. As long as we have a screwed up tort system we will always be at a competetive disadvantage. As a doctor, don't even get me started on lawyers and the evil and waste they cause.

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 10:45 AM
William Shakespeare had it right when he wrote, "First, kill all the lawyers"

Saburo_0
12-17-2004, 10:48 AM
If precedent is the concern of Lockheed etc, they can write up an agreement where UBI is given the right to use the trademark in question free of charge for this particular product etc.

That would be the smart thing to do in my opinion, because I think they derive good publicity when their products are used in these sims.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Of course it is the USA's fault. As long as we have a screwed up tort system we will always be at a competetive disadvantage. As a doctor, don't even get me started on lawyers and the evil and waste they cause. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please try to see more than one side of the issue. You're educated enough to know that without me having to ask

TheEngine88
12-17-2004, 11:24 AM
Chuck_Older; Keep pounding away with the logic, Bud. Thanks for your voice of calm reason amidst all the hysteria...

horseback
12-17-2004, 11:29 AM
The problem here is that once a lawyer is involved, a simple 'gentlemen's agreement' becomes well-nigh impossible.

As for Shakespeare's advice, that's a little harsh. Let's just kill the ones with even (or odd, we could flip a coin or something to be 'fair') Social Security Numbers, and neuter the rest.

As I stated in another thread, we can contact our elected representatives and the people who run the companies in question. Bad publicity results in fewer government contracts. Companies held in low esteem by the public tend to get closer examination of their operations, particularly when the bulk of their profits come from the taxpayers...

cheers

horseback

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 11:30 AM
Spare me the hand wringing. Unless you are a lawyer ( if you are you are probably embarrassed to admit it). I see on a daily basis the extortion perpetrated by our overabundance of greedy, self-serving attorneys-at-law. We are the only country in the civilized world so plagued to such a degree. We have more lawyers per capita bu a 2 to 1 margin than we have doctors. Where a need for them doesn'e exist, they invent one. Runaway litigation costs everyone and benefits no one but the lawyers. Why do you think Bush's people made tort reform a campaign plank? Why do you think the Trial Lawyers gave so much money to his opponent? We waste so much productive time and money on lawsuit avoidance it is ridiculous. Do you know that fully half the cost of a typical general aviation aircraft goes to pay the product liability insurance? Don't tell me it's not out of control.

VOL_Hans
12-17-2004, 11:32 AM
Well, looks like it's just a cheap attempt by some companies out there to get a little cash out of Maddox.

Tell thier lawyers to burn in ****.

TheEngine88
12-17-2004, 11:33 AM
Lawyers are a lot like police officers; People always rag on them until you need one to help you; then its a different story.

codeseven7
12-17-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt._Tenneal:
It occurred to me, we got through IL-2, FB, and even AEP with US planes (P-39 as early as the original IL-2) and this issue was nowhere in sight. Then we reach PF and the navy planes then this all blows up. Why now ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Lets see, greasy lawyer suddenly realizes money can be made, greasy lawyer convinces others he can get money for them, greasy lawyer files ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit hoping for a quick, lucrative settlement. Vulchers!

codeseven

....OK, sorry, I feel even better now.

TheEngine88
12-17-2004, 11:36 AM
Do we even have any official confirmation that this is a copyright issue? I haven't seen any, just vague statements, but I may have missed it.

raven_1968
12-17-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Chuck_Older; Keep pounding away with the logic, Bud. Thanks for your voice of calm reason amidst all the hysteria... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't doubt Chuck's logics, but I do think this is a clear case of greed. These companies have enough money already. Why not let little man have a piece of pie without contesting him. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 11:37 AM
ddsflyer wrote:
"60 year old taxpayer funded aircraft are public domian just as 60 year old music is."

The designs were funded by the individual companies. They may have been in response to specifications issued, but the designs were not funded directly by the taxpayer but done by the individual companies.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 11:39 AM
"60 year old taxpayer funded aircraft are public domian just as 60 year old music is."

Copyright currently extends 70 years from the death of the artist. Thus even if the artist died the day after the recording was made 60 years ago the music would not be public domain. 5 or so years ago a musician in the UK was sued by the Bing Crosby estate for use of part of a 1930s recording in a pop hit.

NAFP_supah
12-17-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Spare me the hand wringing. Unless you are a lawyer ( if you are you are probably embarrassed to admit it). I see on a daily basis the extortion perpetrated by our overabundance of greedy, self-serving attorneys-at-law. We are the only country in the civilized world so plagued to such a degree. We have more lawyers per capita bu a 2 to 1 margin than we have doctors. Where a need for them doesn'e exist, they invent one. Runaway litigation costs everyone and benefits no one but the lawyers. Why do you think Bush's people made tort reform a campaign plank? Why do you think the Trial Lawyers gave so much money to his opponent? We waste so much productive time and money on lawsuit avoidance it is ridiculous. Do you know that fully half the cost of a typical general aviation aircraft goes to pay the product liability insurance? Don't tell me it's not out of control. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally we here in europe laugh at this american culture of littigation but apparently the mongrel dogs (lawyers not all americans, americans can be perfectly nice people) have now also found a way to **** up life beyond their nations borders. Lets hope we get official word about this soon and it turns out not to be true or not as bad as we think it is.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 11:41 AM
ddsflyer wrote:
"I don't think you can trademark or copyright an image of a product."

You can trademark distinctive visual elements of a product. See the case of Fender musical instruments versus various companies using the distinctive headstock design.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 11:44 AM
P.S. It is arguable whether a whole aircraft design could be considered to be trademarkable or if only distinctive and unique visual design elements can.

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 11:47 AM
A computer image is nothing more than a picture that moves. If we follow the reasoning out to its logical conclusion we should stop selling cameras. If you take a picture of a 60 year-old car, airplane, anything and sell it commercially, does it mean you have to pay royalties? Of course not.

TheGozr
12-17-2004, 11:50 AM
IS those laws apply to exact copies?
If the model is slighly changed name and design even as small as it can be do those law apply?

P47-N become P47-NFB

..... I can't beleive it's happening here....
You are free, a free man you can do what ever you wish as long it doesn t pass that line and the other one and that one too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

That why many compagnies , inventors, technitians, artist are moving away back to their original places or to escape this crisis again...

Itto_Okami
12-17-2004, 11:51 AM
just 2 cents...

if this is true... IF... this will not affect only Oleg, us and sim market but could affect even other fields like modelmaking, just to name one... royalty on a P-38 could translate in higher price on the model you were going to buy... and you can't escape because this will be the same for every company crafting plastic, resin, metal and vacu-form models. And what if the shape of the model is not right? the company will have to pay a penalty because deteriored the image of the original product? and... what if I scratchbuild an existing airplane and I put pictures in the net or I show it in some model show. Can any of that corporations sue me because of that? And... could BAC/EE (today should be the BAe) discover that have to pay royalies because named one of his planes like a model of another company (the Lightning)? Same case of the model T... if you think about.
If all this things are true... IF... well this thing is going to create a lot more troubles tahn we can think...

S!

Itto

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
A computer image is nothing more than a picture that moves. If we follow the reasoning out to its logical conclusion we should stop selling cameras. If you take a picture of a 60 year-old car, airplane, anything and sell it commercially, does it mean you have to pay royalties? Of course not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no no. You are applying Laws that apply in one area and trying to make them fit in another.

If you take a picture of an old car, and sell it through your Company, you are going to get in trouble without permission from *some*one. If you sell Sports memorabilia through your Company without permission, you're in trouble.

Taking a picture for your own use is ok. You're not selling it. When you take a picture of a thing and try to sell it, that's different. can't you see that?

As for your examples, I have here a classic car calendar.

Every photo has a copyright symbol. That's not for the car, but it's for the photographer. How could the photog's business get endangered if he didn't get the copyright? Could somebody else gain monetary benefit through his work? It's very close to the same thing here.

Aaron has his head screwed on straight. if you don't listen to me, at least read what he posts

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Itto_Okami:
just 2 cents...

if this is true... IF... this will not affect only Oleg, us and sim market but could affect even other fields like modelmaking, just to name one... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That already did happen! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Airmail109
12-17-2004, 12:24 PM
Could it effect me.........i was thinking of getting some plans for a p-51 and actually building one.

TacticalYak3
12-17-2004, 12:33 PM
Gee I'm away for a couple of days and everyone gets sued! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

First, I agree that the legal system, especially in the United States, has certainly departed from what many feel is justice, and money is at the root of it all (just like in everything else). Clearly from some of the reported settlements it's nolonger seeking reasonable compensation for proveable damages.

Despite my personal feelings about the legal system and certain lawyers, the fact is that this indeed is not new. Sporting games must receive licenses from both the league and players' associations (and I suspect at a cost).

While I do believe that one can convey historical information to the public, we must be honest with ourselves that a lot of detail has gone into representing specific trade-marked products (airplanes).

Despite what some (including myself) might wish that these companies would appreciate their "products" being so faithfully recreated, the fact remains it is part of a video game attempting to make money for another party.

Why have they done this? Why hasn't this issue been raised before? Why is the world the way it is?

TactS!

Krt_Bong
12-17-2004, 12:35 PM
Just to add my 2 cents here, not that it will add anything important but because I just can't believe that a company like Grumman would have the Balls to piss off so many people who could turn public support against them in such a huge way. But if this is a real attempt by them to collect on what they think is trademark infringement or monies owed to them for such and all the ramifications of that, I think of the countless plastic models I built as a kid, the Radio Control kits that I , my father and all the old men (some vetrans amongst them) at the flying field are involved with, No mention of trademark infringement when One of them comes out with his beautiful scratch-built F-4-F that is Museum Quality, when they start sueing these people and the masses rise up to make them wish they hadn't considered such a vain and unjustified course of action they will see how Much US citizens pride themselves on their National Heritage so much that there are countless programs, movies, documentries, that prove this and how dim a view we take on corporate greed I think that a news program or internet posting on the subject will send a cold chill down their collective wormy spines!

ddsflyer
12-17-2004, 12:35 PM
Chuck, the photo is copyrighted by the photorgapher, analagous to Maddox, not the car owner, analagous to Grumman. If your car is out in public, i.e. public domain, and I take a picture of it and decide to sell copies, I don't have to pay you in order to do it. That is the whole concept of public domain and copyright laws. Trademark infringement is a different matter entirely and much different legally. Faxscimilies that even come close in trademark disputes are fair game. The question is whether these aircraft were ever trademarked. Probably not although the companies that built them probably were.

pcpilot_MGG
12-17-2004, 12:42 PM
Chuck, we all make determinations every day about what we think is right and wrong. We have to look at the motivation behind what we are viewing. Is it motivated by what is truely proper? For instance something good like love or the community? Or is it motivated by mere greed? Tell me, what do you think the s'and coprorate motivation is? I am NOT against a business making money, that is the capitalists way. It is fair to recieve a just compensation for your efforts. But to nitpick against every little thing is going too far. Going after our niche market is setting a precedent allright, and its sending a message allright; but is it the right message; one that we want to teach our youth?

TacticalYak3
12-17-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Chuck, the photo is copyrighted by the photorgapher, analagous to Maddox, not the car owner, analagous to Grumman. If your car is out in public, i.e. public domain, and I take a picture of it and decide to sell copies, I don't have to pay you in order to do it. That is the whole concept of public domain and copyright laws. Trademark infringement is a different matter entirely and much different legally. Faxscimilies that even come close in trademark disputes are fair game. The question is whether these aircraft were ever trademarked. Probably not although the companies that built them probably were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed this is the question. Clearly the US government commissioned their manufacture. Did the company trademark the design/plane, or was it completely in the hands of the government?

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 12:57 PM
ddsflyer:
"Chuck, the photo is copyrighted by the photorgapher, analagous to Maddox, not the car owner, analagous to Grumman. If your car is out in public, i.e. public domain, and I take a picture of it and decide to sell copies,"

It depends on context. If you took and sold a photo of a musician using a Fender Strat when you were intending to picture the musician you'd be fine. If you took pictures of 5 different musicans with Fender Strats and published these as a series linked with the name you'd be in trouble. The grey area on fair use comes when you are using recognisable images and shapes without using the name. In the case of some images they are specifically trademarked (Fender headstock shape, coke bottle shape) and in theory you could get into trouble.

Now I suspect in this instance Grumman may be objecting to the use of company names, not recognisable images of the planes as it is probably not cut-and-dried that the shape of WW2 aircraft can be considered sufficiently distinctive as to be trademarkable, or if they can assert those rights without having specifically trademarked them. I simply don't know and don't know if there is a legal precedent for that.

The set of things that are trademarkable include musical notes (Intel jingle), colours (e.g. Orange Mobile phones) and even smells.

Aaron_GT
12-17-2004, 01:02 PM
"Indeed this is the question. Clearly the US government commissioned their manufacture. Did the company trademark the design/plane, or was it completely in the hands of the government?"

AFAIK the US Government was very respectful of the intellectual property rights of the companies, not least as these companies had designed these planes prior to WW2 and hoped to also to be able to secure permission to export versions of them to friendly nations, not just fulfill contracts for the US Government.

As an aside the B17 design nearly bankrupted Boeing when the US Government indicated that the price they would pay per unit was actually less than what it was costing to produce them!

The question is, are the designs trademarkable, and did they trademark them then or subsequently?

J30Vader
12-17-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
I don't think you can trademark or copyright an image of a product.
. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you can. Just ask Lenord Nimoy. He sued over the use of his Mr Spock image.

Seen those commercials that use dead actors? Can't do that without permission of their estate/relatives/whatever.

Remember Counter Strike? Had to change the names of the weapons at one time because of infringement.

Disney goes after anyone who uses their trademark characters.

As far as Hudson goes, that is what is called product placement. Hudson/Ford/Whoever either sponsors the movie or pays to have their product in said movie as advertisement.

Ever wonder why on so many shows you see generic brand cereal, or cans marked soda? It is because A: They would have to pay a fee to use said product. B: The sponsors do not sell said product.

Companies have to go after anyone who uses their product/image/trademark with a vengence. Otherwise they risk losing control of it.

J30Vader
12-17-2004, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
The problem here is that once a lawyer is involved, a simple 'gentlemen's agreement' becomes well-nigh impossible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can still be enforced though. Back in the 80's, Pennzoil had an agreement with Gordon Getty to buy Getty Oil. They had nothing more than a handshake. Not anything on paper.

In steps Texaco. They came in with a better deal. And got Getty Oil. All nice and legal.

Well, Pennzoil sued Texaco. And won an 11 billion dollar judgement. All because of a handshake.

For quite awhile afterward people in the business world would not even shake hands on a deal. Or even think of breaking one, even for a better deal.

Example. Pratt n Whitney had a handshake agreement to supply UPS with $400 million worth of engines. In steps Rolls Royce with a bid $25 million less. PW's lawyers mentioned the Texaco, and UPS told RR to go home.

BTW, Texaco got to keep Getty Oil, but had to pay PZO $3 billion.

VBF-83_Hawk
12-17-2004, 02:21 PM
Yeap, its all about unethical greeeeeeeeeeed.

Hey pcpilot-MGG
Check this out, I have mine: http://www.georgiaheritagecoalition.org/site2/x-files/message-southern-heritage-car-tags.php

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pcpilot_MGG:
Chuck, we all make determinations every day about what we think is right and wrong. We have to look at the motivation behind what we are viewing. Is it motivated by what is truely proper? For instance something good like love or the community? Or is it motivated by mere greed? Tell me, what do you think the s'and coprorate motivation is? I am NOT against a business making money, that is the capitalists way. It is fair to recieve a just compensation for your efforts. But to nitpick against every little thing is going too far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the whole issue you and i don't see eye to eye on:

"Going after our niche market is setting a precedent allright, and its sending a message allright; but is it the right message; one that we want to teach our youth?"

Who is going after our niche market? Tell me who. You're going to tell me this is how, for the sake or argument, Grumman, intends to bankrupt the flight sim market? Or take it's piece of the flight sim market? You're not really trying to say that are you?

You think the issue is about flight sims.

I think the issue is about use of something without proper permission, and the Legal Right of the person that owns the Thing to say "No you can't use that".

You know very well what I mean when I say Precedent.

This has nothing to do with greed or our children. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, morality, or right and wrong from your point of view. It has to do with somebody protecting what they paid money for, and what the Law says they can protect, and that's it.

If I pay millions of dollars for something, and it's my choice to deny someone use of it if they ask, then they don't ask but use it anyway, why is it wrong for me to say to the Law: you must protect me. Tell me why that's wrong.

And all of this is till just so much f@rt gas. Not one of us here really knows what's happening.

the fact of the matter is, people are getting mad at me because I don't agree with them. they can't influence or speak to the people they are mad at, but they can tell me I'm wrong, so you're doing it.

This isn't my deal- I didn't do it, and I don't like it.

But I'm not going to chime in with how wrong it is because it just isn't. If the scenario we are discussing is true, then the thing that we are talking about may be a drag from our point of view, but the Law is protecting the owners- just like we ask the Law to protect us. It's a little late to pick and choose who the Law protects and who it doesn't

x6BL_Brando
12-17-2004, 03:22 PM
Despite your well-reasoned arguments Chuck, and your unshakeable belief in the American way, there are many people who will see this as the nadir of the litigation-based business ethic. If anyone was selling copied war-planes and trying to pass them off as the real thing (can I say "the real thing" or is that the property of Coca-Cola?) then that would be a clear infringement of the manufacturers' rights for sure. But to suggest that an image has the same reality is surely nonsense. Sure, I know that the glib-tongued weasels have already slipped past this thresh-hold - but surely someone with your obvious legal acumen could be offering some positive advice rather than just touting the Protection of Rights line. Maybe some well-reasoned words of contempt for your country's mercenary company lawyers' are what's needed here, rather than the uneasy position of Devil's advocate (pardon the pun) which you have assumed.

Chuck_Older
12-17-2004, 03:30 PM
That's all very likely

But in a weird way, the owners of the name/product that is being infringed are more than obligated to fight tooth and nail- they're forced to do it, forced to protect themselves.

I'm not a paralegal or anything, I just happen to know some legal mumbo-jumbo and took some Law classes about a million years ago, about the time the Earth cooled.

One thing they taught us was that the Law needs to apply everywhere, and that if we expect the Law to protect the Little Guy, we also should expect the Law to protect the Big Guy

The most positive thing I can possibly say is: Ubi likes money. They want to continue to make it. rely on that aspect of their company- it's why they are in business. They have lawyers who know what the actual legal points being described (if any, anymore!) are, and we don't have a clue. Let the Ubi lawyers do their jobs, they know more about what can be done than we can.

Latico
12-17-2004, 04:55 PM
Chuck may be one of the few posting on this that does so with a level head. I'm not a lawyer either, but I do know something about Copyright laws and how they apply. I'm a phogographer nad have to know this stuff in order to keep my keester out of trouble and to protect my rights (a little guys rights, I might add).

I'd still like to know more about this .

Snoop_Baron
12-17-2004, 05:51 PM
They should just grant permision to the flight sim company like Oleg to use their name and get some free publicity and get their "protection". If they are asking for money then it is about greed.

VOL_Hans
12-17-2004, 10:08 PM
I wonder if the lawyers even realise how...ABSURD this is? Not like it's going to affect future sales. It's obviously just a cheap attempt to get some money out of Oleg.

Lawyers...It's like the Borg from Star Trek, the metal-man from Terminator II, and the bubonic plauge all rolled into one, wrapped in an Armani suit, and given a breifcase to hold. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

pcpilot_MGG
12-18-2004, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:



Who is going after our niche market? Tell me who. You're going to tell me this is how, for the sake or argument, Grumman, intends to bankrupt the flight sim market? Or take it's piece of the flight sim market? You're not really trying to say that are you?

Once the lawyers/companies spotted someplace they could get more money they jumped on it. Do you really think this isnt about money?

You think the issue is about flight sims.
I think the issue is about use of something without proper permission, and the Legal Right of the person that owns the Thing to say "No you can't use that".

No sir, this issue goes far beyond flight sims. It goes to the bottom of what is right and wrong about this screwed up system we have created.

You know very well what I mean when I say Precedent.

Yes sir, I understand the context of your word usage. I hope you can understand mine.

This has nothing to do with greed or our children. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, morality, or right and wrong from your point of view. It has to do with somebody protecting what they paid money for, and what the Law says they can protect, and that's it.

If I pay millions of dollars for something, and it's my choice to deny someone use of it if they ask, then they don't ask but use it anyway, why is it wrong for me to say to the Law: you must protect me. Tell me why that's wrong.

I disagree, it has everything to do with greed. That is more than likely the motivation behind this whole thing if past events are any indication. Look at Enron, look at politics and business in general. They dont exactly leave us all warm and fuzzy with their high ethical standards do they? And if being a good example to our kids isnt enough motivation to run a clean business or clean goverment or a clean ANYTHING, then I dont what we are doing here afterall.
You sir are taking something and over-simplifying it yourself by saying it has only to do with the law. This issue as I said goes far deeper than just the law; its how the law is applied, fairly or not. When our law no longer considers what is right and wrong, when morality no longer has a place in the law, when the letter supercedes the intent, then it is no longer the perview of justice, but the tool of the powerful and the tyrant. Take a close look at what our founding fathers wrote. We have allowed our law to become the tool of every tinpot crybaby whose kid gets a scratch on the playground or whose car is totaled in a wreck on someones private property while they were doing donuts on it. The smooth talking lawyers jump on these opportunities and have twisted words and intent and JUSTICE itself just so they can make another stinking buck off these losers who are unwilling to accept responsibility for thier own actions. Our law is becoming a burden to keep when you cant even walk down a street and not break another rule. Freedom is being legislated away for the sake of trying to please everyone who whines loud enough for some obstensibly good reason. Whatever happened to me being allowed to decide? You know, freedom of conscience? But sorry, I digress...Nowadays companies even want to get into the game, obstensibly protecting thier designs or whatever, but in reality, only looking for money.And apologists like you over-simplify so others who dont want to look deeper can be mollified with simplicity. Its easier than standing up for whats right and wrong...

And all of this is till just so much f@rt gas. Not one of us here really knows what's happening.

Look again...http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=8561094352

the fact of the matter is, people are getting mad at me because I don't agree with them. they can't influence or speak to the people they are mad at, but they can tell me I'm wrong, so you're doing it.

Chuck, I dont think you are some evil scumbag. I just dont agree with you on this issue. Talk about something else and I might very well be dancin a jig with you...

This isn't my deal- I didn't do it, and I don't like it.

But I'm not going to chime in with how wrong it is because it just isn't. If the scenario we are discussing is true, then the thing that we are talking about may be a drag from our point of view, but the Law is protecting the owners- just like we ask the Law to protect us. It's a little late to pick and choose who the Law protects and who it doesn't

A number of points you make are quite valid. I think its important that the law is applied with fairness and common sense. I just think splitting hairs like lawyers and companies often do is going too far. Chasing after a niche market isnt just about money I might also add, its also about power. Having more than complete control over something you created to protect the public with under a goverment contract, advertised like it was going out of style, touted in every possible way. And now the company says we cant even use thier name or perhaps their aircraft in a flight sim because of copyright infringment??? HOGWASH! History is going out the window! All of a sudden a relatively tiny amount of free advertising isnt good enough? If there was computer gaming in 1945, this would not have been an issue... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pcpilot_MGG
12-18-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Yeap, its all about unethical greeeeeeeeeeed.

Hey pcpilot-MGG
Check this out, I have mine: http://www.georgiaheritagecoalition.org/site2/x-files/message-southern-heritage-car-tags.php <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very cool Hawk. I wish my state, Florida, had a tag like that. I had to settle for a sticker in my window... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

DuxCorvan
12-18-2004, 01:33 PM
Do you know the Spanish National Anthem -an anonimous grenadier's march from the 18th Century- payed rights-of-author royalties until very recently?

It seems that a cunning guy that was protected by Franco's regime made some -really awful- arrangements to original music -in fact a tacky chunda-chunda accompaniment- in the 50s. Then, by means of an 'official favor', it became the 'official version' of the anthem, and every time our National Anthem was played -imagine it, how many times is played any National Anthem in a single year- this guy, and then his descendants, were paid for it.

A few years ago, our democratic administration finally realized that it was an abuse, and ordered a new rights-free arrangement...

"A Fox may steal your Hens, Sir,
A Wh*re your Health and Pence, Sir,
Your Daughter rob your Chest, Sir,
Your Wife may steal your Rest, Sir.
A Thief your Goods and Plate.
But this is all but picking,
With Rest, Pence, Chest and Chicken;
It ever was decreed, Sir,
If Lawyer's Hand is fee'd, Sir,
He steals your whole Estate."

(John Gay. "The beggar's opera"; 1728)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif