AA/SDS recasting issue...

[motorfish]

Think again....what do you need to establish rights? It really surprises me how little you guys know about contracts/torts.

Oh ya...forgot my cheer....hip-hip horray.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1157377[/snapback]​

Um...yes...you need a little thing on your work called a copyright. Very easy to obtain. Even I have a few. Last I looked, all of my LFL material had a little "c" enclosed inside of a slightly larger circle. AA had......what?

I thought a tort was a pastry of some kind.

[snapback]1157384[/snapback]​

:lol I love _tortes_ mmmm.....

Well I'm working on a $15k patent myself so I know a little bit about this...

The point is, LFL has zip to show that AA signed off rights. Zippo.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1157400[/snapback]​

[/quote]


Really? The fact that in the movies it states that all of the characters in the movies are copyright LFL and not AA or SDS doesn't imply this? And a patent is a little bit different than a copyright. Common.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish+Jan 12 2006, 06:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(motorfish @ Jan 12 2006, 06:37 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

[snapback]1157389[/snapback]​

Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.

EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake.

[snapback]1157396[/snapback]​

It is as easy as that. That's the exact reason why we have constant lawsuits over copyright. It doesn't stop people from challenging it all of the time, through people trying to change subtle things here and there about said product, wording things a little bit differently, selling it under the guise as something else. There's absolutely no limit to what people will do in order to get around a copyright if they think they have a chance of doing so and getting away with it.

[snapback]1157404[/snapback]​

[/b]

Wait a minute...so you're saying that the existance of a copyright makes it right? That there is no possible chance in any way that a copyright was done incorrectly? That documents were not properly signed nor covered? That the creation of a thing was not actually done by the person who got the copyright?

Funny then that so many books, songs, films, and other copyrighted items have been sued against and won by those who claimed the copyright was invalid in some form.

So no, it's not that easy.

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 12 2006, 11:26 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 12 2006, 11:26 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-motorfish

@Jan 12 2006, 07:13 PM
I'd love to see what Microsoft would do to people who've helped design MS products sell their own versions based on the fact that they "helped" design it.

Anybody care to tell me where that case would go?

Why is this case different? AA was hired to do a job, which he did. Last I saw, I never saw an Andrew Ainsworth in the credits of any of the DVD's or VHS tapes I own.

Quite an omission on LFL's part, if he did indeed do what he claims to have done.

[snapback]1157372[/snapback]​

Well how many others' names were omitted from the original SW credits? Quite a few, namely because back then they didn't include secondary/tertiary contracters.

And for Microsoft, many of the programmers are able to patent sections of code they "invent"...

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1157386[/snapback]​

[/b]

As for the Microsoft thing, this would only apply if the programmer was a contractor working under their own name, not an actuall employee. Also, the contract would have to specificly state that in the contract. I just asked a programmer friend of mine this question a few minutes ago and she says that this hasn't happened at Microsoft, to her knowledge, at least not recently.
She says that that means you could develop something for MS, take it home, publish it elsewhere and give MS competition with the same product, or an even better one, which is something Microsoft is very much against.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 12 2006, 06:34 PM
The point is, LFL has zip to show that AA signed off rights.

Fact of Fiction?

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 12:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 12:01 AM)</div>

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

[snapback]1157389[/snapback]​

Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.

EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake.

[snapback]1157396[/snapback]​

It is as easy as that. That's the exact reason why we have constant lawsuits over copyright. It doesn't stop people from challenging it all of the time, through people trying to change subtle things here and there about said product, wording things a little bit differently, selling it under the guise as something else. There's absolutely no limit to what people will do in order to get around a copyright if they think they have a chance of doing so and getting away with it.

[snapback]1157404[/snapback]​

Wait a minute...so you're saying that the existance of a copyright makes it right? That there is no possible chance in any way that a copyright was done incorrectly? That documents were not properly signed nor covered? That the creation of a thing was not actually done by the person who got the copyright?

Funny then that so many books, songs, films, and other copyrighted items have been sued against and won by those who claimed the copyright was invalid in some form.

So no, it's not that easy.

[snapback]1157427[/snapback]​

[/b]

Some people are thieves and liars, that's why. Some companies are evil and dishonest as well. Pure and simple.

the people who sued over copyright and won did so because they either had enough evidence claiming ownership/rights on said item, OR they already had an existing copyright on said item, which superceeded the later one.
I really doubt that LFL is out to screw SDS studios over. Why would they? Call it a hunch, but it just feels like it's the other way around, doesn't it?

(edited to put in a little more content)

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish+Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(motorfish @ Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 13 2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

[snapback]1157389[/snapback]​

Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.

EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake.

[snapback]1157396[/snapback]​

It is as easy as that. That's the exact reason why we have constant lawsuits over copyright. It doesn't stop people from challenging it all of the time, through people trying to change subtle things here and there about said product, wording things a little bit differently, selling it under the guise as something else. There's absolutely no limit to what people will do in order to get around a copyright if they think they have a chance of doing so and getting away with it.

[snapback]1157404[/snapback]​

Wait a minute...so you're saying that the existance of a copyright makes it right? That there is no possible chance in any way that a copyright was done incorrectly? That documents were not properly signed nor covered? That the creation of a thing was not actually done by the person who got the copyright?

Funny then that so many books, songs, films, and other copyrighted items have been sued against and won by those who claimed the copyright was invalid in some form.

So no, it's not that easy.

[snapback]1157427[/snapback]​

Some people are thieves and liars, that's why. Pure and simple.

the people who sued over copyright and won did so because they either had enough evidence claiming ownership/rights on said item, OR they already had an existing copyright on said item, which superceeded the later one.
I really doubt that LFL is out to screw SDS studios over. Why would they? Call it a hunch, but it just feels like it's the other way around, doesn't it?

[snapback]1157438[/snapback]​

[/b]

So again, everyone that challenges a copyright is a thief and liar? There's no chance the copyright owner is the thief or liar?

As for the big guy screwing over the little guy, who would do it? Microsoft or any big company wanting to be really damn sure they entirely control their most prized money-making product would do it. As has happened in the past some companies will just crush any lawsuit or attempts against them under the weight of the financial power.

How many conflicts occurred between Paramount and the Roddenberry family? 20th Century Fox vs LFL even? Which one of those are thieves or liars?

And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with? Remember, AA didn't hire Dewey, Cheatem, and How for his legal team.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 12 2006, 07:12 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 12 2006, 06:34 PM
The point is, LFL has zip to show that AA signed off rights.

Fact of Fiction?

[snapback]1157437[/snapback]​

[/b]

That's what we're all going to find out at some point (hopefully), isn't it?

 

[motorfish]

So again, everyone that challenges a copyright is a thief and liar? There's no chance the copyright owner is the thief or liar?

Rrrrggg....stop trying to spin what I'm saying and quote me directly if need be. This is the third time now. Did I say everyone? No. Your words, not mine. "some people are thieves and liars" That can go either way, for or against. I didn't know that I needed to make that distinction, I thought it was clear. You're now giving counterpoints to counterpoints.

Seriously, what answer would you like me to give Mike?

The copyright itself is simple. The premeise is simple. People trying to go around it, over it, beneath it, behind it, people trying to screw each other over it, word their way around it, rob people OF it, isn't THAT the complicated thing?

 

[motorfish]

And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with? Remember, AA didn't hire Dewey, Cheatem, and How for his legal team.

Well, that's the whole reason LFL served SDS, isn't it, and not the other way around?

 

[motorfish]

As for the big guy screwing over the little guy, who would do it? Microsoft or any big company wanting to be really damn sure they entirely control their most prized money-making product would do it. As has happened in the past some companies will just crush any lawsuit or attempts against them under the weight of the financial power

.

Out of context to my previous comment. I was talking specificly about LFL to SDS. Not the "big guy", not any other company, LFL to SDS.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 07:57 PM

So again, everyone that challenges a copyright is a thief and liar? There's no chance the copyright owner is the thief or liar?

Rrrrggg....stop trying to spin what I'm saying and quote me directly if need be. This is the third time now. Did I say everyone? No. Your words, not mine. "some people are thieves and liars" That can go either way, for or against. I didn't know that I needed to make that distinction, I thought it was clear. You're now giving counterpoints to counterpoints.

Seriously, what answer would you like me to give Mike?

The copyright itself is simple. The premeise is simple. People trying to go around it, over it, beneath it, behind it, people trying to screw each other over it, word their way around it, rob people OF it, isn't THAT the complicated thing?

[snapback]1157466[/snapback]​

Then stop trying to make it b&w that anyone with a copyright is automatically the "good guy" and right and anyone who challenges a copyright is the "bad guy" and a crook. That isn't always the case and has been proven many, many times.

Just admit there is a *chance* that AA just *might* have some due cause to do what he's doing in going up against LFL. Not admitting whether he's a crook or not, that he's in the right or not, but that just *might* be another side of the story and something right about it.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 07:59 PM

And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with? Remember, AA didn't hire Dewey, Cheatem, and How for his legal team.

Well, that's the whole reason LFL served SDS, isn't it, and not the other way around?

[snapback]1157469[/snapback]​

Somehow if AA sued LFL I suspect some people would be screaming even MORE that he's taking advantage of a multi-million dollar company and trying to get something out of them, instead of selling a few pieces or armor and helmets on the Internet. Wouldn't his suing be more akin to those crooks and thieves you're talking about that sued copyright owners?

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 07:28 PM
And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with?

[snapback]1157449[/snapback]​

Simple...

If AA had ANY even a small part of the clear legal owner ship of the trooper likeness (as a few claim to be fact) the answer to this question would be easy abandon the US lawsuit, let a default be entered take the money he would have spent and then the magic would start... SDS v LFL (in UK court since there seems to be some imagined rights for AA there) --- SDS wins in a landslide easy case because of his ownership to the trooper likeness under UK law, and LFL is liable for 30 years of royalties and infringment damages... This figure would make the LFL v SDS (US) lawsuit look like peanuts... AA could pay off the default US judgement (for piece of mind) with a few days interest on his winnings, and retire a VERY wealthy man... All the while continuing to license the trooper likeness to LFL and anyone else that wanted to use it forever...

I'm not holding my breath.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 01:03 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 01:03 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-motorfish

@Jan 12 2006, 07:57 PM

So again, everyone that challenges a copyright is a thief and liar? There's no chance the copyright owner is the thief or liar?

Rrrrggg....stop trying to spin what I'm saying and quote me directly if need be. This is the third time now. Did I say everyone? No. Your words, not mine. "some people are thieves and liars" That can go either way, for or against. I didn't know that I needed to make that distinction, I thought it was clear. You're now giving counterpoints to counterpoints.

Seriously, what answer would you like me to give Mike?

The copyright itself is simple. The premeise is simple. People trying to go around it, over it, beneath it, behind it, people trying to screw each other over it, word their way around it, rob people OF it, isn't THAT the complicated thing?

[snapback]1157466[/snapback]​

Then stop trying to make it b&w that anyone with a copyright is automatically the "good guy" and right and anyone who challenges a copyright is the "bad guy" and a crook. That isn't always the case and has been proven many, many times.

Just admit there is a *chance* that AA just *might* have some due cause to do what he's doing in going up against LFL. Not admitting whether he's a crook or not, that he's in the right or not, but that just *might* be another side of the story and something right about it.

[snapback]1157475[/snapback]​

[/b]

Fourth time you've done that now. Did I not just say, in my previous post no less, that copyright battles can go both ways? Of course there's a chance. Pretty slim since AA has backtracked and lied about some things regarding these helmets and suits and moulds (and I don't mean "didn't disclose" I mean LIED) that it's just not reasonable to me for me to believe otherwise.

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 13 2006, 01:07 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 13 2006, 01:07 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-motorfish

@Jan 12 2006, 07:59 PM

And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with? Remember, AA didn't hire Dewey, Cheatem, and How for his legal team.

Well, that's the whole reason LFL served SDS, isn't it, and not the other way around?

[snapback]1157469[/snapback]​

Somehow if AA sued LFL I suspect some people would be screaming even MORE that he's taking advantage of a multi-million dollar company and trying to get something out of them, instead of selling a few pieces or armor and helmets on the Internet. Wouldn't his suing be more akin to those crooks and thieves you're talking about that sued copyright owners?

[snapback]1157481[/snapback]​

[/b]

You totally skewed what I was saying again and you know it. I thought you were being sincere with your apology, but now you're just mocking me, and it's starting to piss me off.

 

[motorfish]

You know what, I think need to spend my time doing something else. Mike, you win. Congrats. Foolish me.

 

[KevVader]

Somehow if AA sued LFL I suspect some people would be screaming even MORE that he's taking advantage of a multi-million dollar company and trying to get something out of them, instead of selling a few pieces or armor and helmets on the Internet.

[snapback]1157481[/snapback]​

....he also advertised in some magazines as well. I have an issue of Empire - The ROTS issue, and he has an ad in the back.....a webpage can be pulled off the 'net quickly if need be. But a print ad in an internationally available publication is there forever......pretty ballsy move, you have to admit....

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 12 2006, 08:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 12 2006, 08:12 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 07:28 PM
And truthfully, how and in what way could SDS ever "screw" a multi-million (billion?) dollar company over or even attempt to without something to go with?

[snapback]1157449[/snapback]​

Simple...

If AA had ANY even a small part of the clear legal owner ship of the trooper likeness (as a few claim to be fact) the answer to this question would be easy abandon the US lawsuit, let a default be entered take the money he would have spent and then the magic would start... SDS v LFL (in UK court since there seems to be some imagined rights for AA there) --- SDS wins in a landslide easy case because of his ownership to the trooper likeness under UK law, and LFL is liable for 30 years of royalties and infringment damages... This figure would make the LFL v SDS (US) lawsuit look like peanuts... AA could pay off the default US judgement (for piece of mind) with a few days interest on his winnings, and retire a VERY wealthy man... All the while continuing to license the trooper likeness to LFL and anyone else that wanted to use it forever...

I'm not holding my breath.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[snapback]1157482[/snapback]​

[/b]

And you're likely right. Now, theoretically, could it be that AA has something that isn't enough to challenge LFL fully on the copyright to the degree you're saying, but could possibly under UK law screw things up really good for them in the EU? As I said, I know jack about the law and am not even trying to be the lawyer here. But...is such a thing possible? I, like I think everyone, is trying to figure out why AA would:

1) Put up his entire life's savings and money on the line.
2) Do so at an age when most people are looking at retirement.
3) Get two high end legal firms to work with him.
4) Not walk into the lion's den and kick him in the balls, but dance in front of the cave mouth.

I mean, does it make sense for him to take such a serious, possibly life threatening (as in ending up in a cardboard box on the street) risk, also for the reputations of the legal firms (I would suspect such a case with against a high profile "goliath" will make the legal trades), when he has nothing?

:confused

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 08:28 PM
You know what, I think need to spend my time doing something else. Mike, you win. Congrats. Foolish me.

[snapback]1157500[/snapback]​

Dan I swear to God I am not mocking you nor trying to screw with your words. But you just said it yourself, you don't believe AA. That's really the bottom line, what we believe and what we don't. Some of us do believe him, some don't. Some thing he has something on LFL, some don't.

That fact is the two sides will never meet...until the court case is concluded and only if enough evidence comes out to show one side or the other they are wrong. And if nothing comes out (like if there is some quiet settlement)...then we're all screwed to argue forever.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... :lol

Seriously though, I really didn't mean to piss you off.

 

[vaderdarth]

Good points LA. He's either the most faithful believer in what he is claiming, or he's the nuttiest man in the whole world............or both. Unless he's got a secret weapon for UK courts..............he's gonna lose his ever-lovin a$$ and be rattlin a tin can on a London street corner for the remainder of his life.

Knowing how rock solid LFL's property rights are worldwide...........it's mind boggling that these Reputable firms are committed to taking LFL on unless they have some basic idea what they are getting into.

I promise you, if AA loses and I mean loses it all to LFL..............he won't have enough pennies to rub together to make noise.......much less pay for his legal services........LOL

Only time will tell.

Dave