1. #1
    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.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    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?
    Share this post

  3. #3
    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.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    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
    Share this post

  5. #5
    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.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Chuck_Older's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,027
    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.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    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 ?
    Share this post

  8. #8
    WOLFMondo's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,910
    <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.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    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.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    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.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last ►►