Emerje wrote:Black Hat wrote:No, it's NOT all the same. That's just it. I have nothing but contempt for actual KOs where they just take original molds and sell them as their own. Making an entirely original figure, even one based on an existing character, takes a lot of work.
Nobody denies they put a lot of work into their figures, but it doesn't make it OK to use someone else's characters to do it.
Except as has already been established, the law is literally being rewritten every few years by one company solely out of greed, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
No, you've established a law that doesn't apply here is "broken" (it isn't). Why are you even bringing this up again?
Again. IP laws are absolute nonsense. And you keep coming back to the "Producing for profit" point- If Hasbro's product wasn't so shockingly poor that people felt the need to mass produce upgrades and replacements then maybe the market wouldn't exist.
IP laws aren't nonsense. Intellectual property is no different from physical property. If someone makes a painting it doesn't suddenly get taken away and belong to the public after 50 years.
Maybe if those companies were capable of coming up with original ideas and market them successfully they wouldn't need to copy Hasbro all the time.
To which I say "Good". That's how competition is supposed to work. If someone else makes a better product than you, and they are as a result more successful, then you have two options. You can either improve your own product or you can appeal to a different market.
Yeah, that's how it's
supposed to work, but you're supposed to do it using your own ideas, not someone else's.
By that logic, nobody else except Mercedes-Benz should be allowed to make cars because they were the first ones to make them.
No, because cars are a generic concept, it's the make and model of car that other companies can't make. Nobody is stopping any company from making changeable robots, but they need to come up with their own ideas.
Black Hat wrote:Randomhero wrote:I will say this. I own IP. I created a comic and spent ten years working on it and hearing someone say no one should own anything and it should be a free for all. Yeah....no
Not what I said but OK, whatever floats your boat I guess.
Yeah it is. You're really going to say it's not OK to steal his ideas and characters for a profit against his will, but it's OK to do it to Hasbro?
Emerje
For one, he's a small-time artist with limited funds, compare that to a juggernaut like Hasbro with enough money to probably finance a small private army at this point. They are absolutely not comparable. For another, he actually created his IP. Modern Hasbro didn't, they inherited it from the actual creators (people like Floro Dery, Bob Budiansky etc).
It is shocking how little you understand about how any of this works. First off it doesn't matter how big the owner of the IP is, they're all the same size in the eyes of the law. Second, those individuals that helped develop Transformers did so under contract for Hasbro. The only way it would work the other way is if they came up with the idea and pitched it to Hasbro and Hasbro licensed the rights from them.
TLDR: The law is fundamentally broken and should not be followed or respected in any way, and Hasbro are incompetent at best and do not deserve to have exclusive control of the IP.
Only thing I took from any of this is that you're fine with companies breaking the law as long as it gets you nice things. The law isn't broken in the slightest and the only thing Hasbro doesn't deserve is to have their IP abused.
What's your obsession with defending Hasbro against those eeeeeevil "IP thieves" anyway? Are you on their payroll, "Correct the Record" style? Do you just not want us to have decent toys?
What's wrong with having a firm sense of right and wrong?
Rated X wrote:Im gonna play devils advocate here. I agree with Black Hats Disney arguement. If it aplies to "film" then what makes Sunbow cartoons any different than Mickey cartoons other than 50 years ? Disney set the precedent for Hasbro to whine and b**ch. An original mold that uses the likeness of a Sunbow character is just as much "film" as any use of a disney character because mickey mouse and friends started off with short cartoons.
Did you actually read any of this or did you stop at the part that made you happy? That law doesn't apply to Hasbro and Transformers. Those IP laws only exist for music, film, and books. For an individual like RandomHero it's until his death plus 70 years to his estate. The regular corporate copyright laws that cover everything exist for 95 years after publication so under the current copyright laws Hasbro will lose Transformers in 2078. For Disney, Mickey Mouse's 95 years are up in 2024.
It just so happened that those short cartoons were shown on the big screen because TVs hadnt been invented yet. So its all the same s**t but different time eras. Its not another companies fault if Hasbro doesnt get the character right or doesnt make an attempt to make the character in toy form at all. Thats Hasbros loss. I say use it or lose it. I dont see Hasbro doing anything with DJD so why not let MMC take a stab at it?
MMC can take a stab at it, for a license fee.
Hasbro can always make MMC an offer to buy the license. After the fact shouldnt make any difference.
It should be the other way around. Too bad Hasbro currently doesn't allow other companies to make transforming figures for them, neither does Takara Tomy unless it's a pen.
Im sure Flame Toys wouldnt be doing a licensed non-transformable Tarn if MMC hadnt broke the boundary and gave the character so much exposure. If anything, flame toys is eating off MMCs plate.
Using your food analogy you're saying it's foolish for Flame Toys to pay for their meal and it was smart for MMC to dine and dash.
Now on to actual KOs (identical copies of an existing mold) KOs dont cost Hasbro much money because they are mostly bought by people who had no plans of buying the original at the original price to begin with. You cant compare a KO Megatron to a KO radiator for a Camaro that is an actual necessity to continue using the vehicle. But you dont need the megatron to stay alive and keep breathing. I just bought the KO megatron on impulse because I liked the price. I bought KO radiator out of necessity and benefited from the price. See the difference? Thats why Chevy actually looses money from KOs and Hasbro really doesnt loose money at all. For every guy willing to wait for the inevitable KO a year later, theres 100 guys who gotta have it the moment it comes out at full price. Impulse buys are not the same as necessities. So Hasbro looses no money because I chose to buy something that I wouldnt normally buy at regular price to begin with.
Thief logic: I wasn't going to buy it anyway so it's OK for me to steal it. I'm not saying you're a thief, but it's the same logic. You could have also gone with option B and not bought it at all.
Also your Camero comparison is faulty since the law long ago approved the use of essential car parts produced by companies other than the original equipment manufacturer to prevent unfair pricing and give consumers options. You can't copyright a part, just its design. It can function like an OEM part, it just can't carry the same markings or be marketed as authentic.
Also on a side note, I think we are not really going off topic here. Flame Toys is basically a 3rd party company that got down on its knees and did you know what to obtain a license from Hasbro. Thats the only reason they are offical.
I agree that it isn't off topic since it was the Flame Toys figures that got this ball rolling.
And by doing "you know what" I assume you mean they signed a licensing agreement and gave them some money.
So MMC didnt stoop to that level with their Tarn like Flame Toys did with theirs...who cares? MMC kept their dignity. They didnt sign off 50% or more of their profits to Hasbro who collects a check for sitting on their ass and doing absolutely nothing.
Since when is doing things within the letter of the law "stooping"? And since when is stealing another companies IP maintaining dignity?
Man, I can't wrap my head around the logic of you guys. Do you think Hasbro is stupid for licensing Star Wars and Marvel? You guys seem to think they should have just made those figures anyway because copyright laws are stupid. Maybe Hasbro should start making DC figures while they're at it if they can make them better than Mattel.
The animators who drew the Sunbow cartoons are not on Hasbros payroll anymore. Artwork shouldnt be passed down through corporate hands for generations. Thats ludacris.
They weren't "passed down", they belonged to Hasbro in the first place. Sunbow did that work under contract for Hasbro, it didn't belong to Sunbow. You want to talk about it being done wrong then look no further than GoBots where Tonka had Hanna-Barbera make their cartoon, but forgot to retain the rights to the cartoon character designs which stayed with Hanna-Barbera and now Warner Bros.
So yes when the topic is "Flame Toys" all aspects of the IP theft debate should be on the table. One of these days one of these 3rd party companies is going to strike a deal with Hasbro and make this site eat its words. I would laugh my ass off if this site is ever forced to front page a former 3rd party product because Hasbro buys them out of business and obtains the molds. It would be so ironic.
Wouldn't you be the one eating your words since it proves the legal method is the right way and it got one of your precious companies to see the errors of their ways? I would definitely be lauding it over anyone saying it's foolish to not just take the IP and make something with it since it's what I've been wanting from the beginning.
Emerje