Copyright issue

[MaxGunz]

I suppose if you've got the money to throw around then you can get the rules bent to suit your own views. How much of what you see is from laws and legal battles and how much from the threat of lawyers and courts? The people with the money play whipsaw on the people with less in court wherever there's the least bit of room to get away with it, being right is worth all of about 10% most of the time.

Home VCR was invented in the US but thanks to the threat of copyright suits it was impossible to make them in the US. So the technology was sold in Japan, far from US courts and then... sold in the US where no huge legal battle made copying the TV show you were watching illegal as predicted. If you want to argue law and rights on that one, go ahead. There's still gray area between 'competing' rights. But if you aren't just blowing air then it would cost a large fortune just going one round in court either way.

[tk471138]

These corporations are complete fictions which only exist on paper...its time we stop being slaves to these entities that do not exist...its time we stop following these maritime admiralty laws and each of us become the sovereign individual that we are...

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

I suppose if you've got the money to throw around then you can get the rules bent to suit your own views. How much of what you see is from laws and legal battles and how much from the threat of lawyers and courts? The people with the money play whipsaw on the people with less in court wherever there's the least bit of room to get away with it, being right is worth all of about 10% most of the time.

Home VCR was invented in the US but thanks to the threat of copyright suits it was impossible to make them in the US. So the technology was sold in Japan, far from US courts and then... sold in the US where no huge legal battle made copying the TV show you were watching illegal as predicted. If you want to argue law and rights on that one, go ahead. There's still gray area between 'competing' rights. But if you aren't just blowing air then it would cost a large fortune just going one round in court either way.

the courts are a fiction that the people shouldn't have to submit to...instead each individual ALLOWS themselves to take part in such bogus proceedings, when they know, at least deep down, that these systems (really a nonsystem) what are corporations but artificial persons...when you agree to submit to these courts, you are LOWERING your self to this level, thats the only way another corporation can deal with you...get a clue people...do not submit to these types of courts...we have our guns and other implements of self defense, for a reason...

[MaxGunz]

You should probably get out a lot more.

For one thing, Corporations are very real. The fiction is what people might believe about them which is pretty much the same as with everything. It is a fault with being subject to only being subjective. It gets really bad when someone actually believes they are or can be objective!

Originally Posted by tk471138

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... ...

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.

Originally Posted by tk471138

the courts are a fiction that the people shouldn't have to submit to...

"... im a criminal justice major ..."

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The only solution would be new negotiations between 1C and NG (and 1C and us) with a new contract in result. And as I understood, 1C is:
1. not directly interested in IL-2 development anymore
2. fed up enough with NG

So it will not happen anyway.

[MaxGunz]

It will not happen in official version. But the mod community never signed any contract with NG.

[GF_Mastiff]

http://www.game-business-law.com/

[=PF=Coastie]

It was never about the use of the plane or likeness or even the name of the plane(s). It was about stupid UBI putting the "Company" name along with it right on the box. If they would have simply put the plane name instead of the NG and plane name, it would never have been an issue.