The Energon Pub

Kyle says:"Jesus tap dancing christ!"

Holy crap on a cracker.....look at all of this mess thats barfed itself up on this thread just since I went to bed late last night.
Oh god I am gonna regret this I know it but here goes:
ATTENTION: GetRightRobot,Rated-X,TransformersEmporium....If you keep responding to him, he won't go away...he's feeding on your attention. This reminds me of a Halloween episode of the Simpsons back in the 90's where all the advertising character statues came to life and were terroizing Springfield and it fell upon Lisa and Paul Anka to write a song called "Just don't look! Just don't look!". It was actually a catchy tune, and I think that solution applies here. ROFL

ATTENTION: Bowspearer... I'm truley having a WTF moment with you after scrolling through your posts. I mean, did a dingo eat your baby or what!?

Your comments and method of delivary actually say more about YOU than they do about the subject at hand in this thread. Has anyone ever explained to you that you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I'd be willing to bet that you were beat up ALOT in highschool, if you weren't homeschooled (and NO I don't care either way) because your method of reply seems to be to overreact and over-compensate your defense in an attempt to justify the foundation of your opinion. The fact your easily baited into responding to each and every little criticism someone throws at you (after having just met you if I might add) tells me that you like being right ALL the time. Who cares! And IF you weren't the victim back then, then chances are you were on the other end of the spectrum as a bully (O'Doyle rules!). And I'm guessing your approx 32 years old and this is how you contribute to an online forum??? I don't know about your spearfishing pals (no racism intended) but I'd be willing to bet you don't have many friends in the TF community if this is how you try to win people over to your point of view.

With the exception of "TransformersEmporium" I've gotten to know all of the guys you've been trading potshots with for the past several hours and I know some better than others but I can assure you they are men of integrity and good character and I have to admit that seeing you waltz in here and make a spectacle of yourself really makes me wonder what your overall objective here is.
I don't care how many toys you have, I don't care if your engaged, single, or a creature capable of self reproduction. Say your piece about 3rd party stuff and (in the spirit of Monty Python) GET ON WITH IT!

Enough, I'm surprised a moderator (even Seibertron himself) hasn't piped in here yet and put out a stern warning.

I mean I've had my own run-ins with Autobot032 and Discharge for example but I don't hate them or let it seemingly ruin my day and I respect their difference of opinion and what they contribute as members of this forum. I have better things to do than get into a semantic pointless debate with someone that appears to be doing it just to get his rocks off on it halfway around the world.
Thats just my humble two cents...guys lets move on, this party's getting lame...I'll meet you all over in another thread!

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

G1 Legacy wrote:Enough, I'm surprised a moderator (even Seibertron himself) hasn't piped in here yet and put out a stern warning.

I did and some people are already finding out about it.

megatronus wrote:Exactly, Hercules was inspired by Devastator. The concept comes off as so generic that in trying to disprove this point, you sound as if you could be defending it.

Yes, Hasbro & FunPub have the right to ban 3rd Party Toys from their convention. No one is arguing with that. People may disagree with the decision or the way they went about it, but the convention organizers clearly have the right to run their convention according to their vision.

The issue dividing people is the existence of the 3rd Party companies themselves, and the nature of their existence - what they do and how they make money. And the point where people are insulted most is the seeming conflation of the 3rd Party companies with their fans/customers/defenders.

You can say that the 3rd Party companies are doing is wrong.

I can say there's nothing wrong with what they're doing (excepting straight KOs or mold theft, of course).

And this last part is where your argument is flawed and fails to take into account the entire design process.

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious; what people seem to be forgetting here is that there are a series of steps to making an actual mold of a toy. First off you have your design stage, where people coke up with the look of a particular toy, in the case of Transformers- for every single mode. Then you have the engineers come along and work out how to make both modes possible in the one toy. Throughout that process, you wind up with multiple concepts until you hit the final one.

Here's the thing though- each step of that process is Hasbro's IP, unless a designer or engineer is working freelance and Hasbro didn't buy that concept or design.

Take Hercules for example. Granted he's not toy accurate, but are you going to tell me the look doesn't almost completely mimick the concept art for Devastator? That's the other thing- there's a fine line between inspiration and outright knocking off.

It's on these grounds that the FP trailers fall down too for example, with how much the robot mode copies the Ultra Magnus concept art.

There's far more to this than just stealing a mold and that's what seems to be lost here.

CounterPunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

Bwa hahahaha

We need a new jingle for the website:
(Womens Chorus)"Annnd thats why they call him CounterPunch!" *Ding

This is a hard thread to keep abreast of.

Some of the stuff I've read make no sense. I want to ask, first off, how the 3rd party companies are theives. There are those MP rip offs, and the G1 knockoffs which are basically based on the exact same hasbro molds. Fine, petty theft (considering the financial impact).

But everything else isn't theft. Its a result of someone elses design, based on their experiance with the idea. If you designed an FPS that was similar to COD in game dynamics and visual appeal, but didn't outright make any connection to the actual COD franchise, its not stealing. A lot of you act like you don't know how the world works... everyone is looking to take what others have already thought up, and using it to be modified and cater to a different target audience, perhaps even in the same target market. Its business. The task is to keep it unique while still appealing to the same target market, and without outright stealing someone elses physical or intellectual IP.

Hasbro has Transformers. They don't have Transforming robots. If 3rd party companies make transforming robots with no obvious trademarked symbols or stollen names or exact mold copies, its not theft. Atleast it isn't until Hasbro decides they want to kill a 3rd party company to either raise their own profits minutely, or try and dominate market share...also minutely. Either way its pretty much a dick move. Hercules might be really similar to the real Hasbro made Devastator, but as long as they didn't outright rip that mold out of someone else, it really isn't stealing. If someone drew the exact same IDW Devastator and started selling the comics, thats stealing. You guys are obviously go off the already flimsy rule of stealing IP, and those might not actually be in alignment with my own view on right and wrong.

Stop trying to coddle either official or 3rd party, and realize that its just business. We as fans just have to hope that we don't piss of the guys with the most power to abuse, and allow us to still get the best of both worlds.

For those of you who are Hasbro Fanatics for the simple reason of being a Hasbro fanatic, I will never understand you or your motives.

Banjo-Tron wrote:I mean, is anyone interested in the United Rodimus retool? I would think not, because Protector pisses all over it.

Already owning Classics, Henkei and Battle in Space Hot Rod as well as FansProject's Protector I went and bought United Rodimus. I can't imagine there's many who see United Rodimus as an adequate Rodimus Prime seeing as he still transforms into a car.

Banjo-Tron wrote:]This is a chicken and egg situation, because would Hasbro have made a decent Ultra magnus trailer, or Rodimus upgrade (or even a decent brand new mould) in the absence of the desirable FansProject upgrade? Who nose.

Pretty sure the answer is 'no'. And there's nothing stopping them now if they wanted to. HasTak gave us MP-01. iGear made it smaller. Takara gave us MP-10. If HasTak want to give us their versions of 3rd party stuff there's nothing stopping them and I know collectors would buy them.

Also, the 'chicken and the egg' is a poor analogy for this scenario, especially seeing as it is not a theoretical question.

MINDVVIPE wrote:For those of you who are Hasbro Fanatics for the simple reason of being a Hasbro fanatic, I will never understand you or your motives.

You don't need to understand, you just need to accept that people have an opinion different to yours, you also don't need to label them something because of that.

Now everyone needs to take a step back and calm the **** down. I can't believe how much this thread has blown up in the last few hours.

Bowspearer wrote:

megatronus wrote:Exactly, Hercules was inspired by Devastator. The concept comes off as so generic that in trying to disprove this point, you sound as if you could be defending it.

Yes, Hasbro & FunPub have the right to ban 3rd Party Toys from their convention. No one is arguing with that. People may disagree with the decision or the way they went about it, but the convention organizers clearly have the right to run their convention according to their vision.

The issue dividing people is the existence of the 3rd Party companies themselves, and the nature of their existence - what they do and how they make money. And the point where people are insulted most is the seeming conflation of the 3rd Party companies with their fans/customers/defenders.

You can say that the 3rd Party companies are doing is wrong.

I can say there's nothing wrong with what they're doing (excepting straight KOs or mold theft, of course).

And this last part is where your argument is flawed and fails to take into account the entire design process.

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious; what people seem to be forgetting here is that there are a series of steps to making an actual mold of a toy. First off you have your design stage, where people coke up with the look of a particular toy, in the case of Transformers- for every single mode. Then you have the engineers come along and work out how to make both modes possible in the one toy. Throughout that process, you wind up with multiple concepts until you hit the final one.

Here's the thing though- each step of that process is Hasbro's IP, unless a designer or engineer is working freelance and Hasbro didn't buy that concept or design.

Take Hercules for example. Granted he's not toy accurate, but are you going to tell me the look doesn't almost completely mimick the concept art for Devastator? That's the other thing- there's a fine line between inspiration and outright knocking off.

It's on these grounds that the FP trailers fall down too for example, with how much the robot mode copies the Ultra Magnus concept art.

There's far more to this than just stealing a mold and that's what seems to be lost here.

People understand what intellectual property theft is, however unless you can provide some legal case studies or court cases documenting the threshold at which this has been attained, I think you need to back down some. At the moment, you're just creating your own anecdotal examples to justify points that have been repeated.

You're not really adding content to the discussion at this point you're just adding the most posts. I'm not singling you out to harass you. I'm doing so because you're jumping at everything being said here.

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

Is that a riddle CP, or a rhetorical question?

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Burn wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:For those of you who are Hasbro Fanatics for the simple reason of being a Hasbro fanatic, I will never understand you or your motives.

You don't need to understand, you just need to accept that people have an opinion different to yours, you also don't need to label them something because of that.

Uh, ya, I was just saying that I don't understand. Who knows, maybe someone would have wanted to explain to me since they did understand. EVER THINK ABOUT THAT BURN?! HMM?? hehe.
What would you call them? I wasn't trying to be offensive... Hasbro fan, hasbro fanatic... same thing.

G1 Legacy wrote::KYLE: Kyle says:"Jesus tap dancing christ!"

Holy crap on a cracker.....look at all of this mess thats barfed itself up on this thread just since I went to bed late last night.
Oh god I am gonna regret this I know it but here goes:
ATTENTION: GetRightRobot,Rated-X,TransformersEmporium....If you keep responding to him, he won't go away...he's feeding on your attention. This reminds me of a Halloween episode of the Simpsons back in the 90's where all the advertising character statues came to life and were terroizing Springfield and it fell upon Lisa and Paul Anka to write a song called "Just don't look! Just don't look!". It was actually a catchy tune, and I think that solution applies here. ROFL

ATTENTION: Bowspearer... I'm truley having a WTF moment with you after scrolling through your posts. I mean, did a dingo eat your baby or what!?

Your comments and method of delivary actually say more about YOU than they do about the subject at hand in this thread. Has anyone ever explained to you that you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I'd be willing to bet that you were beat up ALOT in highschool, if you weren't homeschooled (and NO I don't care either way) because your method of reply seems to be to overreact and over-compensate your defense in an attempt to justify the foundation of your opinion. The fact your easily baited into responding to each and every little criticism someone throws at you (after having just met you if I might add) tells me that you like being right ALL the time. Who cares! And IF you weren't the victim back then, then chances are you were on the other end of the spectrum as a bully (O'Doyle rules!). And I'm guessing your approx 32 years old and this is how you contribute to an online forum??? I don't know about your spearfishing pals (no racism intended) but I'd be willing to bet you don't have many friends in the TF community if this is how you try to win people over to your point of view.

With the exception of "TransformersEmporium" I've gotten to know all of the guys you've been trading potshots with for the past several hours and I know some better than others but I can assure you they are men of integrity and good character and I have to admit that seeing you waltz in here and make a spectacle of yourself really makes me wonder what your overall objective here is.
I don't care how many toys you have, I don't care if your engaged, single, or a creature capable of self reproduction. Say your piece about 3rd party stuff and (in the spirit of Monty Python) GET ON WITH IT!

Enough, I'm surprised a moderator (even Seibertron himself) hasn't piped in here yet and put out a stern warning.

I mean I've had my own run-ins with Autobot032 and Discharge for example but I don't hate them or let it seemingly ruin my day and I respect their difference of opinion and what they contribute as members of this forum. I have better things to do than get into a semantic pointless debate with someone that appears to be doing it just to get his rocks off on it halfway around the world.
Thats just my humble two cents...guys lets move on, this party's getting lame...I'll meet you all over in another thread!

Yea, your absolutely right.. This whole debate has been as intertaining as a atheist telling jokes at a babtism.
If I offended anyone I apologies, Im just a fan, who enjoys TF's and I hope you all have a great weekend, or whats left of it. I know I will, Im headed up to Universal for the M.G. parade!

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

Is that a riddle CP, or a rhetorical question?

LMBO... Love it..

MINDVVIPE wrote:Uh, ya, I was just saying that I don't understand. Who knows, maybe someone would have wanted to explain to me since they did understand. EVER THINK ABOUT THAT BURN?! HMM?? hehe.
What would you call them? I wasn't trying to be offensive... Hasbro fan, hasbro fanatic... same thing.

Considering the tone this thread is taking, you'll forgive me if I expect anyone to be rational and accept explanations at this point.

And offensive or not, we don't need to start labelling the different sides of the fence because that just furthers the animosity (even though I know you meant no offense).

Take a look at the last few pages, all it needs is one person to be ultra sensitive and BOOM.

I should have stayed in bed.

Bowspearer wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Not quite. Both are brands with the same type of product. The catch is this:

The concept of the product can't be protected by copyright law, the execution of that concept however, can be.

Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Fact remains that while Hasbro legally has no case against third parties yet (and I doubt they ever will), they can ban them from any event they organise, which includes BotCon.

Burn wrote:

MINDVVIPE wrote:Uh, ya, I was just saying that I don't understand. Who knows, maybe someone would have wanted to explain to me since they did understand. EVER THINK ABOUT THAT BURN?! HMM?? hehe.
What would you call them? I wasn't trying to be offensive... Hasbro fan, hasbro fanatic... same thing.

Considering the tone this thread is taking, you'll forgive me if I expect anyone to be rational and accept explanations at this point.

And offensive or not, we don't need to start labelling the different sides of the fence because that just furthers the animosity (even though I know you meant no offense).

Take a look at the last few pages, all it needs is one person to be ultra sensitive and BOOM.

I should have stayed in bed.

Eya ya iz cool bro, you are forgeevin. T'is a scary thread... perhaps the booze from st. patty's day fueled some of it. T'was in the nature of the holiday to punch your freind in the face.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:[
Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Nailed it.

MINDVVIPE wrote:This is a hard thread to keep abreast of.

Some of the stuff I've read make no sense. I want to ask, first off, how the 3rd party companies are theives. There are those MP rip offs, and the G1 knockoffs which are basically based on the exact same hasbro molds. Fine, petty theft (considering the financial impact).

Because by using designs without licensing them, they've stolen them. The specific term is plagiarism if you want to get technical.

MINDVVIPE wrote:But everything else isn't theft. Its a result of someone elses design, based on their experiance with the idea. If you designed an FPS that was similar to COD in game dynamics and visual appeal, but didn't outright make any connection to the actual COD franchise, its not stealing.

That depends. If you used the exact same game engine though, even with a couple of minor tweaks, then that would be stealing

MINDVVIPE wrote:The task is to keep it unique while still appealing to the same target market, and without outright stealing someone elses physical or intellectual IP.

That's the key- without outright stealing it. Take FP's City Commander for example. Granted, the trailer mode looks nothing like Magnus' trailer. Robot mode is a different story though and looks like it was practically ripped right out the pages of G1 concept art. You could argue there are some changes there, but I'd hate to be defending it in a court of law.

MINDVVIPE wrote:Hasbro has Transformers. They don't have Transforming robots. If 3rd party companies make transforming robots with no obvious trademarked symbols or stollen names or exact mold copies, its not theft. Atleast it isn't until Hasbro decides they want to kill a 3rd party company to either raise their own profits minutely, or try and dominate market share...also minutely. Either way its pretty much a dick move. Hercules might be really similar to the real Hasbro made Devastator, but as long as they didn't outright rip that mold out of someone else, it really isn't stealing. If someone drew the exact same IDW Devastator and started selling the comics, thats stealing. You guys are obviously go off the already flimsy rule of stealing IP, and those might not actually be in alignment with my own view on right and wrong.

Except that you've contradicted yourself here. The engineering on Hercules is totally different to G1 devastator- completely agreed. However it goes copy the design though and that's where your IP theft comes into play. I completely agree that they don't own exclusive rights over converting robots. However they do own the rights over all of their designs- that's where 3rd party companies run into trouble.

MINDVVIPE wrote:For those of you who are Hasbro Fanatics for the simple reason of being a Hasbro fanatic, I will never understand you or your motives.

I'm not a Hasbro fanatic and I've even called out Brian Goldner on a discussion forum once over price differences in the Australian market compared to the US market. My problem is where this slippery slide leads, which is to the likes of KO toys.

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Not quite. Both are brands with the same type of product. The catch is this:

The concept of the product can't be protected by copyright law, the execution of that concept however, can be.

Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Fact remains that while Hasbro legally has no case against third parties yet (and I doubt they ever will), they can ban them from any event they organise, which includes BotCon.

The problem with that argument though is that it ignores character likeness rights. On those grounds, the figures at the very least and in 99% of all cases are in breach of copyright law in these cases.

I was right there with you Burn on the whole staying in bed thing...it got SO rediculous and now it's even passed that point that now its just pure comedy.
The more serious a certain person gets regarding his opinion the more entertaining.
I'm thinking of taking this transcript and doing a one-act play. Me on a stool in character

I understand why you, Bowspearer feel that Hercules is IP theft. One can argue that easily. I just feel it isn't, since Hercules is a product unlike any other on the market. Its not targeting the exact same target audience since its a toy and not a comic (where the design is found). And the game example was interpreted correctly, but the example I used would not be using ANYTHING from cod, so it wouldn't be stealing the engine.

Just to clarify.

My whole point of contributing to this thread was to shed some light on the fact that the actions Hasbro take should be supportive of its fans (even though I don't expect anything) and not anything to kill 3rd party companies that are trying to be legal, and also don't really impact Hasbros profits. If all the collectors stopped buying from Hasbro tomorrow, I don't think that would even matter much on Hasbros bottom line, right? Anyway. so much blabbing on about stuff we can't really control, hehe.

Whilst the fan companies are indeed blatantly basing stuff off of Hasbro's characters, all it really boils down to is that it looks like something of Hasbro's. It'd be like me saying someone stole my identity because they're wearing the same clothes as me... N- no that's a terrible example... probably.

Oh! How 'bout this?

Bowspearer wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Not quite. Both are brands with the same type of product. The catch is this:

The concept of the product can't be protected by copyright law, the execution of that concept however, can be.

Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Fact remains that while Hasbro legally has no case against third parties yet (and I doubt they ever will), they can ban them from any event they organise, which includes BotCon.

The problem with that argument though is that it ignores character likeness rights. On those grounds, the figures at the very least and in 99% of all cases are in breach of copyright law in these cases.

The law is a fickle thing isn't it? It's like the likeness of the cars debate: both depend on patents submitted. Change enough parts of it, and it's a completely different thing. Take into account colors are usually ignored by law AFAIK and we're back to square one.

Bowspearer wrote:

JelZe GoldRabbit wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

That actually may be an exception to this whole discussion. As I don't know what the "Market Pantry" brand is, this is speculation, but if that's a supermarket's generic brand, that what you're seeing there is potentially legit- where that chain has actually paid General Mills to make them "generic" Lucky Charms that have then been boxed up and labelled as "marshmallow treasures". In that case, everything would be legit and money would have changed hands on what would be a contract worth several million dollars and most likely covering several of their brands.

That of course is based on the possibility of Market Pantry actually being a supermarket's generic brand of course.

Not quite. Both are brands with the same type of product. The catch is this:

The concept of the product can't be protected by copyright law, the execution of that concept however, can be.

Same with Transformers. Hasbro is executing the idea of transforming robot toys one way, while the 3rd parties execute it in a different way. However, they have to make clever use of the legal grey area of generics in order to do so.

Fact remains that while Hasbro legally has no case against third parties yet (and I doubt they ever will), they can ban them from any event they organise, which includes BotCon.

The problem with that argument though is that it ignores character likeness rights. On those grounds, the figures at the very least and in 99% of all cases are in breach of copyright law in these cases.

No, in order for Hasbro to sucessfully sue they would have to be exact reproductions of existing toy designs, or have less than 20 differences with them.

Hercules is shares hardly any similarities with any official Hasbro toy, and especially not FansProjects stuff.

That is why Hasbro got away with Classics Jetfire, it resembles a Valkyre, but not close enough for any court to decide that it breaches Bandai's IP.

Counterpunch wrote:

Someone justify this in the context of this discussion.

Within the context of this discussion... hmm.

1) I'm a bad, immature, and immoral sugar grained breakfast consumer if I eat product: X.
2) IP is the best idea since the concept of owning/selling land that was stolen from it's previous occupiers.
3) Cases of "marshmallow treasures" will be confiscated in the dealer room at Botcon from here on out.