The Energon Pub

El Duque wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:Oh BTW, Mattel and Maisto (both of which have official licenses from Audi) dropped by and wanted to have a little talk with Hasbro...........

Also licensed from Audi through the movie licensing deals (ROTF toys fall under the category of official movie merchandise and thus fall under the same licensing deal as that which allows it to appear on film). Your point is moot.

Absolutely incorrect. Why do think we aren't getting a toy version of DOTM Dino? I was told by the head of the Transformers Brand team at Toy Fair that he isn't getting a toy because they can't get a licence from Ferrari. I would be willing to bet a some point down the line we get a not-Ferrari version of Dino though.

Well then you just contradicted yourself. The fact that Audi's parent company is Volkswagen, just like with Ferrari, means that there's no way that Sideways would have been made into a toy if Audi hadn't been ok with it.

The situation with VW and Transformers for years is a testament to that.

If they were okay with it then it would be called an Audi R8 on the package and not a "sports car".

It's been fun, but we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm a pretty busy guy between my "real" life and making sure the news for this site is running smoothly. Cheers!

El Duque wrote:If they were okay with it then it would be called an Audi R8 on the package and not a "sports car".

If they weren't ok with it, then why weren't Hasbro sued for breach of contract (which would have set limits on just where the likeness of an Audi R8 would be allowed to be used)?

MINDVVIPE wrote:Your not making any sense in regards to predatory pricing. The example was apple sueing some school for logo use. Nothing to do with competing products, just logos.
Hasbro could sue TFC, and that still wouldn't be predatory pricing... I have no idea what your on about.

What I'm saying it that you were trying to lump Hasbro poicing people stealing its IPs with a company playing David and Goliath- be it with predatory pricing, or on two organisations/companies both using a logo based on a naturally occurring item. That comparison though, is quite simply fallacious.

MINDVVIPE wrote:I never said they were completely in the wrong, just that it was concievably IP theft. Theres worse things that could happen than IP theft in the business world.

So you never said this:

MINDVVIPE wrote: Obviously Hasbro can push the fact that Hercules is a ripoff of Devastator, and they would be right.

In short, you've already admitted that TFClub stole Hasbro's IPs and that it really is that black and white. No matter how much you try and romanticise it, it will not change that fact.

megatronus wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:Right now you're just clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence after you tried to compare apples with oranges and failed.

Dude, the only one clutching at straws is you. After 8 hours offline, I come back and see you are half of the new posts, making the same tired points or, after having been rebuffed, making new points that are only tangentially related and are often on another track entirely.

You clearly have no idea how a debate is meant to work do you? What's been happening is that people have been making points and said points have been rebutted. Now either the rebuttal is sound, in which case the point is prove moot, or the rebuttal is unsound, the rebuttal is made moot.

The fact is that as much as people try rebuttals which ignore the elephant in the room, they have yet to prove that what 3rd party companies do isn't unjustifiable theft of Hasbro's IPs. There's been nothing tangential or unrelated to the ethics of the situation which I've said

megatronus wrote:You know what, we get it. You think the 3rd party companies are immoral, unethical and flat out wrong.

They are unethical- a simple reasoned look at the facts proves that much, there's nothing subjective about it unless you're going to argue for an anarchist society.

megatronus wrote:But your insistence and perpetual posting doesn't make your argument right or better or mean that you have won whatever "cosmic battle" you think is happening here. All it means is that you've made the most posts.

No but the fact that my logic and reasoning are sound and that noone challenging my posts has been able to explain away the elephant in the room, does. When someone does that, I'll recognise it, but that still has yet to happen, and I don't like peoples' chances of it happening.

megatronus wrote:No one is saying you can't have your opinion, but enough is enough. By strongly arguing against basically every poster here, you have solidified the opinions of said posters. The Skyfire vs. Valk example is apples and apples. The Lambo vs. Hercules example is apples and apples. Those are my opinions, and you aren't changing them.

Your opinions here are flawed, utterly devoid of any profound reasoning and have already been debunked. You can choose to adhere to them all you like, but it wont change their utter fallacy when they've been proven as such.

megatronus wrote:I suggest you go to sleep.

Actually already slept in the middle of this debate, but thanks for the concern.

G1 Legacy wrote:Always continue to feed a know-it-all slack on his rope...because eventually he'll hang himself with it and do the work for ya.

Enough said.

Posts like this do not contribute to the thread, nor does it help keep the flames down.

Either contribute positively, or don't contribute at all.

Point taken, but of all the underlying tension going on in this thread, I'm surprised thats the comment you latched onto as out of line. I'm just saying.

It was a comment on waiting out a debator thats seemingly in it for the sake of being right as opposed to contributing to a little good natured TF comradery and I felt I was well within the acceptable behavioral protocols of Seibertron.com to say it.

Bowspearer:

I decided to skip the Colt 45 and instead I indulged on some premium Fosters Lager earlier. I love these little guys from down under ! They make a product the same color, same taste, same suds, just from another country and Anheuser Busch doesn’t even give a crap. No lawsuits, claims of intellectual property, nothing. Maybe we should just get the Hasbro executives all drunk. Problem solved.



You had mentioned earlier what if someone broke into my house and stole my property on the basis that I said “no you can’t have it”. How would I feel ???

So let’s say I broke into your house:



If I took the huge pipe organs, obviously I would be a thief. (and a pretty good one at that) But we are not talking about tangible property here. We are talking about a very seldom heard of term called “intellectual property” that is loosely based on opinions. Weather it be Hasbro’s opinion or TFC’s opinion, it’s just an opinion. You cant sue someone over an opinion. And if you cant sue, then you shouldn’t ban either. That’s just trying to make a comeback after you lost. And Hasbro lost the battle a long time ago.

Next up we have the Audi argument. I do believe El Duque is right. We have seen Hasbro call vehicles by name on their packaging before. And then we have the “sports car”. Same thing for Dino. Ferrari basically told Hasbro to “suck it”. I suppose whatever relations Takara had with Lamborghini in the 80’s have soured, so the Sideswipe “Not Lambo” was born.



I commend Lamborghini for not acting like a little b**ch and suing Hasbro for stealing their intellectual property. Hasbro could take a lesson in class from the Italians. If they got a problem with you they come see you in person, not in court. Capish ?


By this point I see you believe you are some kind of lone warrior acting on Hasbro’s behalf. You are going to slay the killer croc known as “Hercules” and restore order to the vast land of Hasbro.



Hasbro has done a great job programming you my friend. I don’t even think Matrix itself could reverse the effects of corporate brainwashing that has infested your body like a plague.

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:Oh BTW, Mattel and Maisto (both of which have official licenses from Audi) dropped by and wanted to have a little talk with Hasbro...........

Also licensed from Audi through the movie licensing deals (ROTF toys fall under the category of official movie merchandise and thus fall under the same licensing deal as that which allows it to appear on film). Your point is moot.

Absolutely incorrect. Why do think we aren't getting a toy version of DOTM Dino? I was told by the head of the Transformers Brand team at Toy Fair that he isn't getting a toy because they can't get a licence from Ferrari. I would be willing to bet a some point down the line we get a not-Ferrari version of Dino though.

Well then you just contradicted yourself. The fact that Audi's parent company is Volkswagen, just like with Ferrari, means that there's no way that Sideways would have been made into a toy if Audi hadn't been ok with it.

The situation with VW and Transformers for years is a testament to that.

Ferrari is owned by Fiat, not Volkswagen.

All Audi wanted was their car to be put in a movie to advertise it a bit, no toy deal was done.

The Sideways toy does not turn into an Audi R8, it turns into an approximation of an R8, as in it kinda looks like one but has enough differences from one for Volkswaven not being able to sue.

@Bowspearer, the example of apple sueing over logos is a perfect example for my intention of proving that big companies with lots of money often go after tiny business that aren't threats. Hercules IS NOT a threat to Hasbros funds. That victorian school IS NOT a threat to Apple funds. That example was more than adequate as they could both argue an infringment on copyrighted IP, when both of them really stand to gain very little, except for the bad publicity and a few more dollars in their pockets.

As for Hercules, I give up on that arguement, because you are just seeing the fact that it is Devastator, and not the details of the figure being so different from anything Hasbro has made before. Dealing with IP theft, as Rated X said, is based on opinion in these cases. Maybe not for G1 knockoffs... but definitely in these cases.

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:If they were okay with it then it would be called an Audi R8 on the package and not a "sports car".

If they weren't ok with it, then why weren't Hasbro sued for breach of contract (which would have set limits on just where the likeness of an Audi R8 would be allowed to be used)?

Probably because Hasbro made enough changes to the vehicle mode to be able to legally defend a claim that the toy wasn't an Audi R8, regardless of the fact that the character in the movie may have been an Audi R8. They got as close as they legally could when making the toy, while still not being an Audi R8.

Exactly the same as what was done with Hercules, as I see it. If the third party makers are wrong for doing it, then Hasbro would be just as wrong here, wouldn't they? They both went just as far as they had to in order to make their toys without setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

Audi probably hasn't sued because Hasbro did to them what TFC toys did to Hasbro. As I've said before, it would probably be a lose-lose for Hasbro to pursue TFC in court over this. If they lose, they either make or confirm precedent that allows TFC and other companies to continue going the way they have been. If they win in court, they set the precedent that would open them up to lawsuits from companies like Audi.

Rated X wrote:You had mentioned earlier what if someone broke into my house and stole my property on the basis that I said “no you can’t have it”. How would I feel ???

So let’s say I broke into your house:



If I took the huge pipe organs, obviously I would be a thief. (and a pretty good one at that) But we are not talking about tangible property here. We are talking about a very seldom heard of term called “intellectual property” that is loosely based on opinions. Weather it be Hasbro’s opinion or TFC’s opinion, it’s just an opinion. You cant sue someone over an opinion. And if you cant sue, then you shouldn’t ban either. That’s just trying to make a comeback after you lost. And Hasbro lost the battle a long time ago.

Hate to break it to you, but resorting to a semi-racist argument, really doesn't give your argument much in the way of credibility. Secondly, we're talking about a term which is commonplace when you're talking about any design company of any kind- and is based on what people create. To try and reduce original and profitable ideas and creations to "opinions" is a fallacy which confuses opinions with ideas. Stealing IP rights is no different to stealing the deed to a house. Furthermore as Burn has already commented it's all too easy and convenient to argue that IP laws are ridiculous when you have none that need protecting.

Rated X wrote:Next up we have the Audi argument. I do believe El Duque is right. We have seen Hasbro call vehicles by name on their packaging before. And then we have the “sports car”. Same thing for Dino. Ferrari basically told Hasbro to “suck it”. I suppose whatever relations Takara had with Lamborghini in the 80’s have soured, so the Sideswipe “Not Lambo” was born.



I commend Lamborghini for not acting like a little b**ch and suing Hasbro for stealing their intellectual property. Hasbro could take a lesson in class from the Italians. If they got a problem with you they come see you in person, not in court. Capish ?

And you like El Duque have completely ignored the fact that the parent company to Ferrari, Audi and Lamborgini amongst other car brands, is Volkswagen. Considering how game HasTak have been to risk VW's wrath by making unauthorised reproductions of their vehicles in the past, it's questionable at very least, that Hasbro would have gone ahead and disregarded VW refusing to allow their brands to be used by Hasbro with Transformers.

Rated X wrote:

By this point I see you believe you are some kind of lone warrior acting on Hasbro’s behalf. You are going to slay the killer croc known as “Hercules” and restore order to the vast land of Hasbro.

Far from it- I've already raised several issues I could name off the top of my head that I have with Hasbro. Hoowever that doesn't change the ethics involved with 3rd party companies when they release products which are unlicensed.

Rated X wrote:Hasbro has done a great job programming you my friend. I don’t even think Matrix itself could reverse the effects of corporate brainwashing that has infested your body like a plague.

And when did I say that Hasbro don't have alot to answer for (in fact between themselves and Mattel, the toy industry has been practically destroyed in the process of being turned into a virtual duopoly)? However none of that changes the fact that what is happening here is unjustifiable IP theft.

MINDVVIPE wrote:@Bowspearer, the example of apple sueing over logos is a perfect example for my intention of proving that big companies with lots of money often go after tiny business that aren't threats. Hercules IS NOT a threat to Hasbros funds. That victorian school IS NOT a threat to Apple funds. That example was more than adequate as they could both argue an infringment on copyrighted IP, when both of them really stand to gain very little, except for the bad publicity and a few more dollars in their pockets.

As for Hercules, I give up on that arguement, because you are just seeing the fact that it is Devastator, and not the details of the figure being so different from anything Hasbro has made before. Dealing with IP theft, as Rated X said, is based on opinion in these cases. Maybe not for G1 knockoffs... but definitely in these cases.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The apple logo situation is ludicrous on the grounds that the apple is not an original creation by Apple. The Hercules situation on the other hand is based on an original Hasbro creation. That is where your argument completely falls apart. As for the differences, the individual figures do have some differences and in most cases, yes you could argue inspiration. However the combined form itself is clearly a ripoff of Devastator.

Dead Metal wrote:Ferrari is owned by Fiat, not Volkswagen.

Granted, but the point with VW and Audi still stands

Dead Metal wrote:All Audi wanted was their car to be put in a movie to advertise it a bit, no toy deal was done.

The Sideways toy does not turn into an Audi R8, it turns into an approximation of an R8, as in it kinda looks like one but has enough differences from one for Volkswaven not being able to sue.

Highly doubtful considering that as Hasbro was making the movie to sell toys; there would have been something about merchandising in the fine print in the contract for ROTF.

Bowspearer wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:Ferrari is owned by Fiat, not Volkswagen.

Granted, but the point with VW and Audi still stands

Dead Metal wrote:All Audi wanted was their car to be put in a movie to advertise it a bit, no toy deal was done.

The Sideways toy does not turn into an Audi R8, it turns into an approximation of an R8, as in it kinda looks like one but has enough differences from one for Volkswaven not being able to sue.

Highly doubtful considering that as Hasbro was making the movie to sell toys; there would have been something about merchandising in the fine print in the contract for ROTF.

No, Audi wanted the R8 to be featured in a movie and paid Paramount money to put it in. The contract was between Audi and Paramount, it was product placement paid for by Audi. It's the same like Having a Burger King appear in the movie.


Had there been a toy contract, Sideways would actually turn into an R8 in toy form and would have the Audi logo and trademarks.

CommanderHazar wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

El Duque wrote:If they were okay with it then it would be called an Audi R8 on the package and not a "sports car".

If they weren't ok with it, then why weren't Hasbro sued for breach of contract (which would have set limits on just where the likeness of an Audi R8 would be allowed to be used)?

Probably because Hasbro made enough changes to the vehicle mode to be able to legally defend a claim that the toy wasn't an Audi R8, regardless of the fact that the character in the movie may have been an Audi R8. They got as close as they legally could when making the toy, while still not being an Audi R8.

Except that that completely ignores the merchandising situation with Transformers movies to begin with, which I'll elaborate on in the next post.

CommanderHazar wrote:Exactly the same as what was done with Hercules, as I see it. If the third party makers are wrong for doing it, then Hasbro would be just as wrong here, wouldn't they? They both went just as far as they had to in order to make their toys without setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

Audi probably hasn't sued because Hasbro did to them what TFC toys did to Hasbro. As I've said before, it would probably be a lose-lose for Hasbro to pursue TFC in court over this. If they lose, they either make or confirm precedent that allows TFC and other companies to continue going the way they have been. If they win in court, they set the precedent that would open them up to lawsuits from companies like Audi.

Except that the argument in this case would be that Audi went into this movie deal, knowing that the movie was being done by a toy company and being done to sell toys and so by agreeing to feature their cars in the movies, they were accepting that their cars would show up as toys (I'm actually highly skeptical about the claims that Dino didn't show up because Ferrari refused to allow a toy of it for that reason). The same cannot be said of the TFC Hercules situation.

Dead Metal wrote:No, Audi wanted the R8 to be featured in a movie and paid Paramount money to put it in. The contract was between Audi and Paramount, it was product placement paid for by Audi. It's the same like Having a Burger King appear in the movie.

But then that ignores the contractual obligations which were in place between Paramount and Hasbro which then become a factor in said contract between Audi and Paramount. If Hasbro has in their contradct that anything showing up on screen can be made into a toy and then Audi pays Paramount to put the R8 on screen, then Hasbro are completely entitled due to their contract to make a likeness of the R8 as a toy of Sideways with complete impunity.

Bowspearer wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:No, Audi wanted the R8 to be featured in a movie and paid Paramount money to put it in. The contract was between Audi and Paramount, it was product placement paid for by Audi. It's the same like Having a Burger King appear in the movie.

But then that ignores the contractual obligations which were in place between Paramount and Hasbro which then become a factor in said contract between Audi and Paramount. If Hasbro has in their contradct that anything showing up on screen can be made into a toy and then Audi pays Paramount to put the R8 on screen, then Hasbro are completely entitled due to their contract to make a likeness of the R8 as a toy of Sideways with complete impunity.

No they do not, the Audi R8 is protected by copyright and trademarks, for which one has to buy the licences before using it.

Hasbro has the right to use the character and his design, but no the right for his alt-mode, those rights are handled separately.

If Hasbro had the toy rights to the Audi R8 design, then why does the toy not feature the Audi rings, or indeed all the little details? Why is it just an approximation and why is there no mention of the R8, Audi or Volkswagen on the packaging?

Simple, they don#t have the rights to either.

Dead Metal wrote:

Bowspearer wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:No, Audi wanted the R8 to be featured in a movie and paid Paramount money to put it in. The contract was between Audi and Paramount, it was product placement paid for by Audi. It's the same like Having a Burger King appear in the movie.

But then that ignores the contractual obligations which were in place between Paramount and Hasbro which then become a factor in said contract between Audi and Paramount. If Hasbro has in their contradct that anything showing up on screen can be made into a toy and then Audi pays Paramount to put the R8 on screen, then Hasbro are completely entitled due to their contract to make a likeness of the R8 as a toy of Sideways with complete impunity.

No they do not, the Audi R8 is protected by copyright and trademarks, for which one has to buy the licences before using it.

Hasbro has the right to use the character and his design, but no the right for his alt-mode, those rights are handled separately.

If Hasbro had the toy rights to the Audi R8 design, then why does the toy not feature the Audi rings, or indeed all the little details? Why is it just an approximation and why is there no mention of the R8, Audi or Volkswagen on the packaging?

Simple, they don#t have the rights to either.

Again, you're comparing apples with oranges though by trying to compare this with the Hercules situation. Even if you go with the line that there's nothing contractually allowing Hasbro to directly use an R8, the situation is far from clear cut.

The fact is that when Audi paid to have the R8 included in the movie, they allowed for a character to be created around the R8- in fact it could be argued that that is exactly what Audi wanted when they sought out having the R8 featured.

That character is Hasbro property as part of the contract between Paramount and Hasbro, so when Hasbro releases a toy of their intellectual property that is entirely their right. Reducing certain details in that case so that it becomes merely an approximation then is completely ethical as the IP is of a character which changes into an R8 or a likeness thereof.

The same could be said of Classics Sideswipe for example regarding the Lamborgini Countach 500S.

Hercules is a completely different situation- there is no IP developed by TFClub through any kind of licensing deal involving Hasbro and so there is simply nowhere near the same level of ethical justification there in that case or thee case of 3rd party toy companies.

5150 Cruiser wrote:But it really isn't. It always starts small... And then it grows and grows... Then others catch on and do the same thing. Next thing you know you have dozens of compaines gaining off you IP.

As i said before, i give the 3rd party compaines props for seeing a market and catering to it. But for those that are basing there designs on Hasbro IP, they have a case. (if they chose to persue it). Profit margin has nothing to do with it and just because you don't currently offer the product that is being produced, doesn't give someone else the legal right to use it.

(again, i'm saying this if Hasbro/Tak ever decides to take legal action. At this time i understand all thats actually happening is 3rd parties are being banned at there own event; which I feel they are completely justified in doing.)

Seriously, dozens of businesses profiting off of the supposed "intellectual property" of one small businessman? Don't be absurd. Again, there is nothing I could create that some other company does not provide. I could not simply state they've stolen from me because their product is incredibly similar. Unless they are actually taking a completely unaltered product that I created and re-producing and selling it for a profit, I simply can not call it theft. They're not using my name, they're not using my logo and they've not stolen my finished product. Should I sue them because what they've created looks allot like one of my dozens of concepts? No because it's ridiculous to throw the book at someone over re-using IDEAS. Should people get thrown in jail because their song sounds similar to someone else's? No don't give me this "it's not quite different enough" load of crap, your are simply defending a concept which is inherently wrong. This "intellectual property" nonsense is always being applied in whatever broad or small strokes people care to use at the time when it's convenient. 90% of why this world is going to hell is so many of us have become compliant with outright insanity, it makes me sick. Then again I'm addicted to plastic, so who the hell am I to speak?

Hugh... Hasbro is not worth millions, they're worth 3.5 billion. They have nothing to fear and it's not worth taking action now or maybe even ever. Most of these guys will probably go under or just plain disappear when the economy hits rock bottom anyway.

I don't really care that Hasbro wants these guys out of BotCon. It's their party, they can do what they want, even if all it does is piss off everyone who payed admission. But throwing the word "theft" around as so many do? Yeah whatever.

This really isn't worth arguing over anymore. But honestly I just feel like being a jerk right now so I'm posting anyway. It'll die down eventually, just needs to drop from the front page and people will forget about it.

Vicalliose wrote:But throwing the word "theft" around as so many do? Yeah whatever.

Which is exactly what this is. Devastator is not public domain. Neither are any of the Transformers character designs. If they were then the notion of them being stolen would be fallacious.

However we are not talking about public domain- we are talking about trademarked and copyrighted ideas- where companies have not only refused to allow their ideas to be freely and publicly used, but have taken deliberate steps to control just who is allowed to profit from their ideas. That is their right, just the same as if they'd invented a revolutionary new device and patented it. As such, it is entirely reasonable to claim that ripping off IPs is theft.

Kick me when this is over

Vicalliose wrote:This really isn't worth arguing over anymore. But honestly I just feel like being a jerk right now so I'm posting anyway. It'll die down eventually, just needs to drop from the front page and people will forget about it.

By all means, keep being a jerk. Don't complain when you end up with a warning though.

It is funny how this all works in miniature figure business. Example; Dwarf slayer warriors by Games Workshop:


Dwarf berserkers by avatars of war:




I could give hundreds of similar examples and Games Workshop just hasn't sued anyone? Why? Well maybe they don't have as good layers as some folks here are or then they don't really have any actual solid case. Even though there are lots of similarities, GW doesn't own the idea to make half naked, crazy, dwarf barbarians. And GW has actually sued some KO makers and they actually are quite feisty.

But I suppose those are also just apples and oranges, buttblugs and spacerockets....yeah whatever.

All I know is that takara (who actually makes and designs the toys), doesn't have any rights to the idea of transforming robots. Not even to a green contruction vehicles.

It is just silly to compare those who buy 3rd party products (save KO's and and igear mold thieves)to some guys who would most likely also mug and rob old ladies. I mean come on. That analogy is not only a childish, nor is it valid. It is also a bit weird how people are actually robbing takara/hasbro if they buy some HOS inspired transforming robots or oyur favourite example the Hercules. I mean what are you actually stealing here, for hasbro sure don't have anything similar and most like they never will have for They do toys mainly for kids. You are stealing some ideas or what? Copyright doesn't apply to ideas.

But whatever the case, it is funny how even some very obvoius examples are just "apples and oranges", but in case of habro versus 3rd party they aren't. Or is it that this whole IP clusterf*ck isn't that clear matter. Also funny how much critique this IP consept has raised. Some perhaps not that justifiable but there are still some good points as well.

Also, it is good to remember that some laws are there only to protect big corporations and give them more rights and power over others, even thought that doesn't always seems very fair. Oh wait...that is just conspiracy theory and no way there could ever be wily money hungry politicans or simply politicans that can be easily mislead. I mean people do make mistakes and may be mislead by false information and such. Think about this SOPA/PIPA thing? Is that a good thing? Think what parties are supporting it? Are you 100% sure that those are for the common good and to make things better for honest people? But againg; law is the law. No matter how unjust and silly it might be. Even if some laws would mean that I would have every legal right to kill my daughter if she brings shame to my family name. Well maybe not in your country, but in some countries that is THE LAW. This is just for those who always bring this law says so into every conversation. Sure, most laws are good to be there and lawless society would be in constant chaos and turmoil, but not all laws should be taken for granted.


But is just go back to mug and rob some old ladies and little babies, for that is what we thieves and misfits of this society do.

Dorkimus wrote:It is funny how this all works in miniature figure business. Example; Dwarf slayer warriors by Games Workshop

The problem with your argument is that there is a glaring fallacy in the form of trying to use public domain IPs to argue a case for condoning stealing copyrighted IPs.

Dwarves are mythcal creatures, as in the concept of tabletop gamin minatures. The only time you run into stealing IPs in that genre of gaming is if missions or the gaming system is ripped off. Even then you run into public domain things like D6.

That's a completely different situation to using copyrighted and trademarked designs without permission from the rights holder/s.

Quite simply put, you're comparing apples and oranges here and your entire point is moot because of it.

As to your points about SOPA and PIPA, there's a difference between the extremes being proposed with it (which were utterly ludicrous) and someone cashing in on someone else's ideas which they've had copyrighted.

Also you talk about corporations exploiting copyright laws, yet a recent example which comes too mind is the reverse. The exact ad and band escape me now, but there was an ad on this year's Superbowl which completely ripped off a song by an Australian band to use as an advertising jingle. Thankfully because of copyright laws, they can get justice from the corporation that blatantly stole their IP.

That's the thing- laws protecting IPs actually work both ways.