PDA

View Full Version : Don't just say it here...tell them!



womenfly
12-20-2004, 07:22 AM
Hi Fellow Flyers,

Just a comment to think about.

I have read all the issues with copyright actions and such going on here. There have been tons of comments and deep feelings about all this in the forums.

However, has anyone written to the companies involved and told them how we €œthe people€ feel about all this?

Those aircraft in question helped us win our freedom form such control and are part of our history. Can history be controlled too by large powerful companies? How many other companies are setting quietly on the side to see what the outcome of this will be. Will others follow suit if they win? What else will be taken away?

Looks like our battle is on the ground too!

Less we forget the past.

Womenfly2

GR142-Pipper
12-20-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by womenfly:
Hi Fellow Flyers,

Just a comment to think about.

I have read all the issues with copyright actions and such going on here. There have been tons of comments and deep feelings about all this in the forums.

However, has anyone written to the companies involved and told them how we €œthe people€ feel about all this?

Those aircraft in question helped us win our freedom form such control and are part of our history. Can history be controlled too by large powerful companies? How many other companies are setting quietly on the side to see what the outcome of this will be. Will others follow suit if they win? What else will be taken away?

Looks like our battle is on the ground too!

Less we forget the past.

Womenfly2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Our view doesn't matter. These issues are of property rights (copyright, logo, names, trademarks, patents, etc.). The problem is that if one company uses another's property without permission (particularly for commercial purposes), that infringement becomes actionable. All companies world-wide will absolutely protect their rights...and they should. It's THEIR property developed with THEIR money. In many cases, these matters can be addressed by simply writing a letter BEFOREHAND and asking permission to mention a company's name, product, etc. Often, it's that simple; in others, it isn't.

It would be the same as if another company simply took Oleg's code without permission and produced a similar game. The bottom line is that if it isn't your or my property, we neither get nor deserve a vote in the matter.

GR142-Pipper

LEXX_Luthor
12-20-2004, 05:12 PM
The "other" issue is ubi not selling addon CD for western market, and we may stand a slightly better chance talking with UBI then with the aerospace industrial complex -- the two issues popped up on this webboard at the same time, but don't seem to be related in any way.

WWMaxGunz
12-20-2004, 06:57 PM
Gee Pipper....

My Government bought those planes, afaik completely and totally with tax money from
the citizens here at that time. Now it is their property again? The names of the
companies are for them but when used in historic sense and not to make any other
thing of them but to represent them as they were... there is such a thing as fair
use just as there is such a thing as long time ago is not the same as today.

CPS_Shadow
12-20-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Our view doesn't matter. These issues are of property rights (copyright, logo, names, trademarks, patents, etc.). The problem is that if one company uses another's property without permission (particularly for commercial purposes), that infringement becomes actionable. All companies world-wide will absolutely protect their rights...and they should. It's THEIR property developed with THEIR money. In many cases, these matters can be addressed by simply writing a letter BEFOREHAND and asking permission to mention a company's name, product, etc. Often, it's that simple; in others, it isn't.

It would be the same as if another company simply took Oleg's code without permission and produced a similar game. The bottom line is that if it isn't your or my property, we neither get nor deserve a vote in the matter.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, Oleg is not in competition with the Aircraft manufacturers. They would be hard pressed to prove that they have lost a single sale because a customer bought pacific fighters instead of buying one of their planes. The usage of the planes in this game comes under the fair use protections in the trademark and copyright laws. But fair use is a gray area of the law so it is easy to bully another company with an infringement claim.

It is being claimed that the representation of the planes in this games is an infringement.

If you follow that logic then License fees would be owed to:

The all the plane manufacturers, all the tank companies, all the vehicle manufacturers, all the boat builders.

But that's just a start, what about the tire manufacturers and the gauge manufacturers, parachutes, uniforms, etc. etc.

By the time you added up all the royalties you could never make any form of simulation.

And since they are claiming this also applies to movies... you'd never be able to make a movie either.

ZG77_Nagual
12-20-2004, 07:48 PM
"our view doesn't matter"
So dies democracy

entreaken1
12-20-2004, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by womenfly:
Hi Fellow Flyers,

Just a comment to think about.

I have read all the issues with copyright actions and such going on here. There have been tons of comments and deep feelings about all this in the forums.

However, has anyone written to the companies involved and told them how we €œthe people€ feel about all this?

Those aircraft in question helped us win our freedom form such control and are part of our history. Can history be controlled too by large powerful companies? How many other companies are setting quietly on the side to see what the outcome of this will be. Will others follow suit if they win? What else will be taken away?

Looks like our battle is on the ground too!

Less we forget the past.

Womenfly2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Our view doesn't matter. These issues are of property rights (copyright, logo, names, trademarks, patents, etc.). The problem is that if one company uses another's property without permission (particularly for commercial purposes), that infringement becomes actionable. All companies world-wide will absolutely protect their rights...and they should. It's THEIR property developed with THEIR money. In many cases, these matters can be addressed by simply writing a letter BEFOREHAND and asking permission to mention a company's name, product, etc. Often, it's that simple; in others, it isn't.

It would be the same as if another company simply took Oleg's code without permission and produced a similar game. The bottom line is that if it isn't your or my property, we neither get nor deserve a vote in the matter.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


These companies may hold "intellectual rights" for the aircraft that they design and manufacture but these aircraft have been paid for by the taxpayers. It was taxpayer money that paid for the design, engineering, manufacture, and testing of any of these aircraft. It was not paid for by €œtheir€ money. It was paid for with €œyour€ money. I realize the issue is more complicated than that and I don€t know anything about copyright or trademark laws but the bottom line is that these aircraft in question have been paid for by €œthe people€ not by the company.
I think what the defense industry is doing is looking for another revenue stream and they see that forcing the computer game industry to require licensing as a means of generating more money for the company. They may not realize the impact of games like IL2 has on the public. I used to think that I had some knowledge of the different types of aircraft that were used in WWII and it was mainly limited to the P-51, P-38, Spitfire, B-17 etc. I didn€t know anything about the Sturmovik until Oleg and crew developed this game. I think this simulation opened up the pages of history and allowed people to get an idea of the machines and the people who fought the battles of WWII. Requiring a license to use the image of historic aircraft is a disservice to the men and women who died defending what they believed in. I think the defense industry should see this game as a tribute to what was accomplished during WWII instead of a means to generate cash flow.

Fehler
12-21-2004, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
"our view doesn't matter"
So dies democracy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Companies are not government entities, even if they make a product for the government. Companies are not run under democratic rule; there is usually a CEO and/or a board of directors.

You may not like this, but think of it this way: If you owned a business and your products were trademarked, pantented, or copywritten, would you like a group of people telling you what you were and were not allowed to do with them? That would be more akin to Communism; your products and business would be controlled by the people, not the company. The people do exercise a certain control with their buying power, but nothing more.

Now, we are all in agreement that the protection for a 60 year old warbird is a bit far fetched. What possible damage to any of these companies could a flight simulator do to them? But think from the company's shoes for a moment. If a game can use this item without permission, then what about using something else? Where do you draw the line? THEY decided to draw it here.

I dont like this any more than anyone else, but I do understand why these laws are in place.

The simple fact is that UBI or 1C should have obtained permission for the use and display of these items before they set out to incorporate them into a game in which they were going to receive a profit. They obviously didnt do that, and now they have to do some sort of damage control. The more people that EMail bomb these companies, the far more likely that they will not be sympathetic to UBI or 1C's requests. Bad press will certainly cause these companies to take a stand, and one that is probably not favorable to any of us!

I highly suggest that everyone go have fun with what we have so far in the game, and allow UBI and 1C to clean up whatever mess they are in. None of us, unless you are an employee for UBI or 1C, are really in a position to help anyway.

Fehler
12-21-2004, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by entreaken1:
These companies may hold "intellectual rights" for the aircraft that they design and manufacture but these aircraft have been paid for by the taxpayers. It was taxpayer money that paid for the design, engineering, manufacture, and testing of any of these aircraft. It was not paid for by €œtheir€ money. It was paid for with €œyour€ money. I realize the issue is more complicated than that and I don€t know anything about copyright or trademark laws but the bottom line is that these aircraft in question have been paid for by €œthe people€ not by the company.
I think what the defense industry is doing is looking for another revenue stream and they see that forcing the computer game industry to require licensing as a means of generating more money for the company. They may not realize the impact of games like IL2 has on the public. I used to think that I had some knowledge of the different types of aircraft that were used in WWII and it was mainly limited to the P-51, P-38, Spitfire, B-17 etc. I didn€t know anything about the Sturmovik until Oleg and crew developed this game. I think this simulation opened up the pages of history and allowed people to get an idea of the machines and the people who fought the battles of WWII. Requiring a license to use the image of historic aircraft is a disservice to the men and women who died defending what they believed in. I think the defense industry should see this game as a tribute to what was accomplished during WWII instead of a means to generate cash flow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pure conjecture and speculation on your part.

Although I understand and somewhat agree where your heart is, your statements are more designed to entice a feeling of dislike towards these defense companies.

You speak of the dis-service towards the men and women that who died defending what they believed in. What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that playing a GAME that depicts all of this as ENJOYMENT is giving these persons a service? Well, what about the people that worked very hard to make these machines? What about the people that spent countless hours of innovating thinking and research, and testing, to develop them? What about the test pilots that died in the development stages of these aircraft? What service do they get by the laundering of their machines for profit by a game company? We make light of their sacrifices by playing a game, dont we? And what about the game companies that earn PROFIT from the blood and toil of these brave persons?

Yes, (I better put this in caps) I AM PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE. But think about it, there are two sides to every coin.

Let's not kid ourselves.. We are mad because we were having fun, and someone might be pulling the plug. Nothing more. If you really want to learn about WWII aviation, go read a book. Go do research. Dont think you can pick up a game, have fun playing it, and think you are a WWII avaition historian.

And perhaps, THAT is what these companies are trying to do.

entreaken1
12-21-2004, 08:45 PM
Good point Fehler. Yes it is all speculation on my part about what the defense industry is doing but for the most part these aircraft are paid for by tax payers. I just presented this in a simplistic, idealistic way. It just appears like they are looking for a ways to generate cash flow. It€s just a bit ridiculous that they are focusing on aircraft that are 60 years old.

I didn€t say that playing this game is a dis-service towards the men and women who fought and died in WWII. I think this game demonstrates (although in a watered down way) what it was like to be a pilot during WWII. Now I know that this is a game so it can€t possibly show exactly what it was like to be there. There really isn€t any way to know what it is feels like to endure the hours of flying, the freezing temperatures at altitude, the absolute stark terror of flak, and the heart pounding dogfights. I think this game is a catalyst in some ways for people to discover the machines that flew, drove, and floated in the war. Of course this game doesn€t make me an historian nor should it make anyone else an expert. But for me at least, it gave me an insight to these machines that a book can€t necessarily do. I have plenty of books and magazines on the subject of WWII and part of that is because of this game (yes I said game but a pretty good one at that.) It increased my interest in the subject.

What may be the issue here is that with the licensing of these historic aircraft, it may make it difficult or impossible for 1C to put more aircraft into this game. I think the overall feeling of the posts in this forum and many of the other forums is that the €œBig Corporate Entity€ is picking on the €œlittle guy.€ While that certainly is not fair if that was the case but sometimes real life is unfair. I certainly do not pretend to know what is actually happening between 1C, Ubi, and the companies in question so this is an opinion. I just think people are frustrated about the uncertainty of what could or could not happen to the game they play.

AFJ_Locust
12-22-2004, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shadow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Our view doesn't matter. These issues are of property rights (copyright, logo, names, trademarks, patents, etc.). The problem is that if one company uses another's property without permission (particularly for commercial purposes), that infringement becomes actionable. All companies world-wide will absolutely protect their rights...and they should. It's THEIR property developed with THEIR money. In many cases, these matters can be addressed by simply writing a letter BEFOREHAND and asking permission to mention a company's name, product, etc. Often, it's that simple; in others, it isn't.

It would be the same as if another company simply took Oleg's code without permission and produced a similar game. The bottom line is that if it isn't your or my property, we neither get nor deserve a vote in the matter.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, Oleg is not in competition with the Aircraft manufacturers. They would be hard pressed to prove that they have lost a single sale because a customer bought pacific fighters instead of buying one of their planes. The usage of the planes in this game comes under the fair use protections in the trademark and copyright laws. But fair use is a gray area of the law so it is easy to bully another company with an infringement claim.

It is being claimed that the representation of the planes in this games is an infringement.

If you follow that logic then License fees would be owed to:

The all the plane manufacturers, all the tank companies, all the vehicle manufacturers, all the boat builders.

But that's just a start, what about the tire manufacturers and the gauge manufacturers, parachutes, uniforms, etc. etc.

By the time you added up all the royalties you could never make any form of simulation.

And since they are claiming this also applies to movies... you'd never be able to make a movie either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



EXZACTALY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GR142-Pipper
12-23-2004, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by entreaken1:
I think what the defense industry is doing is looking for another revenue stream and they see that forcing the computer game industry to require licensing as a means of generating more money for the company. (...snip...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rest easy with the knowledge that the defense industry isn't looking for another revenue stream from the likes of the IL-2 or other flight sims. In their terms, even if the revenue went up by one or two orders of magnitude, it's peanuts to these companies.

What's at stake here is a clear establishment of property rights which far transcends the specifics of any flight sim. These companies (like others in this and other industries) are simply drawing a line in the sand to protect their what they perceive as their property. Like I said with my initial post above, a lot of this could have likely been avoided with a simple letter to these companies requesting permission to use the respective aircraft's names, company logo's, etc. PRIOR to simply doing it without permission and now playing catch-up with legal system.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-23-2004, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by entreaken1:
(...snip...) I think the overall feeling of the posts in this forum and many of the other forums is that the €œBig Corporate Entity€ is picking on the €œlittle guy.€ While that certainly is not fair if that was the case but sometimes real life is unfair. I certainly do not pretend to know what is actually happening between 1C, Ubi, and the companies in question so this is an opinion. I just think people are frustrated about the uncertainty of what could or could not happen to the game they play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The big guys aren't going to allow a little guy to establish any precedent-setting situation that may be used against them when two or more big guys clash in the courtroom. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
12-23-2004, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Gee Pipper....

My Government bought those planes, afaik completely and totally with tax money from
the citizens here at that time. Now it is their property again? The names of the
companies are for them but when used in historic sense and not to make any other
thing of them but to represent them as they were... there is such a thing as fair
use just as there is such a thing as long time ago is not the same as today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All true. And the courts will be the venue where these matters get decided.

GR142-Pipper

triggerhappyfin
12-23-2004, 03:18 AM
I already told them: I aint gonna buy any of your aircraft no more! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif