|
|
|
|
#1
08-05-2011, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Copyright issue
At Combatace, my regular forum, there was a statement from a user about the Lockheed issue with the F-104 in the Game Strike Fighters.
We have here the NG problem in this series, and the hint was this: The US courts ruled against those companies a few years ago. Because the products were paid for by the US Gov, they cannot charge royalties on toys, games, etc... So would be interesting to know the current status. When we have facts so we can build up the pacific scenario. 
|
|
#3
08-05-2011, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doesn`t know there was a contract between them, if you like you can delete this topic.
Law is always above a contract but in this case, there is nobody who would like beat a dead horse.
|
|
#4
08-05-2011, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No. If my union negotiated employment contract stipulated no lunch period during the eight hours worked each day I wouldn't be able to sue under state law (that requires it) to get it back. Criminal law doesn't work that way but business law does in most instances. (There are several minor differences between state law and my employment contract, that's how I know - by the way, I do get lunch)
|
|
#5
08-05-2011, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
who cares what the law says...if they are trying to dictate something that is unjust or wrong then resist or dont follow that law...if they try denying you lunch, do you just go along with it...go along to get along....or do you do what you know to be right...also you are trying to justify the convoluted use of the law to justify what is wrong...if i recall this is what Hitler did (and every other dictator and tyrant). i know you are just using this as an example, but the example is flawed...this whole concept is flawed...in a free society, only criminal actions are actions that directly infringe on the rights of others... seriously these are planes made 60+ years ago...as an american citizen my grand parents and their parents PAID for (and built and died in) this crap...it is all of ours...and i say that yes game companies can use their likeness in game...i find it hard that in a civilized world that such things are preventing people from doing what they wish...the whole thing is crazy and ludicrous...companies worrying about profits from 60+ year old weapons of war my god....they lied to us about the foreknowledge of the pearl harbor attacks the least they can do is put ww2 stuff in the public domain where it belongs...after all it wasnt the companies or govt who fought and died in these wars...it was us the common people...but its funny they start and finish the wars and we just die in them...break your chains people, stop being slaves.... seriously? some american contract is stopping some russian company from making ART, and doing what it wants, when what it wants does not infringe on the rights of others....seriously??? why dont you be men and do what you know to be in the right (or at least in this case its certainly not wrong) i mean seriously what is like Lockheed or something going to come to russia and sue you...are they going to compel you somehow to come to them so thy can sue you... dont get my wrong im a criminal justice major, but some laws have no place in this world...but in this world i guess protecting the corporations at the expense of the people is the standard... also the game aces high as the b26 and other planes that other companies cant seem to make...why can aces high model these planes but others can not final point...come on guys we are all adults, with free will...we know what is right and what is wrong...stop going along to get along...stop following laws you know to be unjust...do what you know to be right..dont allow progress to be stifled because of the whims of some military industrial corporation... Last edited by tk471138; 08-05-2011 at 06:20 PM.
|
|
#6
08-05-2011, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I spent some time flogging this particular dead horse a few months ago. The upshot was that TD have agreed with 1C not to model any objects formerly produced by Northrop Grumman (NG) or its predecessor companies. This includes both aircraft and warships. Whether or not NG has any right in law to claim royalties on such things as models of USS Enterprise is now irrelevant to the TD/1C agreement.
Last edited by Asheshouse; 08-05-2011 at 07:37 PM.
|
|
#7
08-10-2011, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Uh, so what you're saying is you don't understand the fundamentals of collective bargaining or contract law? If my union agrees (always by a majority vote) to accept a work contract with certain stipulations that I personally don't agree with I should ignore those stipulations? But the majority of my co-workers agreed with them. Ahh, they are UNJUST stipulations so I'm free to do what I want ... I was raised to keep my word, and a contract is my word. If I agree to an employment contract that requires me to work 10 hours instead of 8, then the law allows me and my co-workers the right to keep that agreement. If I don't like that proposal then all I have to do is vote no. Very little is agreed to by the union that the vast majority doesn't agree with, democracy in action. (We had ten hour shifts for five years before the company cancelled that (their right under the agreement) to save money. Apparently, 1C made an agreement with other party(ies) that was, at the time, agreeable to both. I'm not sure what would be involved to revisit this agreement but I would guess that Ubi feels that the money they would make directly from doing so wouldn't cover the cost of the phone call to their lawyer to launch such action. If they unilaterally ignored the agreement they would be taken to court, not necessarily for the content of the agreement, but for ignoring a legally binding agreement they were signatory to. Basic law principles, but then, you knew that, didn't you. 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
