4 ms·

> This is not what I'm saying. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure what you didn't mean but here's my best-effort attempt. I think my confusion ca

> This is not what I'm saying. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure what you didn't mean but here's my best-effort attempt. I think my confusion came from the example you cited in your previous post, about the Honda Jet that was removed from a game. The game, as I understand from [1], essentially includes a model of the Honda Jet which is an accurate 3D model of the real-world Honda Jet. It also bears the same name. None of your "common examples" go this far, they do 'resemble' the product that is allegedly sued over, but they are not 1:1 3D (computer model) renditions of the real-world products and are not named the same. > Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music Glad we agree. > The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees This is where we disagree. As a (hypothetical) "creator", I would like to exert control over what I produce, in line with the law, except when I decide to licence it in some liberal fashion (GPL/MIT/CC whatever). How is replicating a 3D model of a plane, along with the name, not an infringement of the rights of the creator? If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly. > they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them Really? There is not a single mailbox design that doesn't violate USPS' copyright?! I will concede that copyright terms are long, but not indefinite (although for practical purposes they may appear indefinite). Finally, I would like to discuss this claim: > Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money On the surface it seems ridiculous. But why would the government (1) outsource the contract to the listed companies and then (2) agree to terms which state that the copyright/trademark belongs to the outsourcing companies? If you think about both (1) and (2) it's either a major flaw in how government contracts work (could be...) or the companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts. Essentially, if the IP was government property, the military jet would cost more taxpayer dollars. What do you think? Honest question. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-jet-flightgear-140603/ https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-je...

AWildC182 7y ago
I think you get what I'm saying then. > If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly. This is the problem though. I don't disagree with anything you said as far as what the state of current copyright/trademark law is, I just disagree with the laws and think they're immoral. I consider the mailbox issue especially egregious. Lets say you want to make some content like the infamous American suburb map in Hitman 2. You want to create an environment that's relatable to your audience so you model a typical American subdivision with houses and roads and all the detail you could dream of. Then you get hit with C&D letters from USPS because you put down a letterbox that you'd see on any street corner, Ford for a Mustang you put in a driveway, another because an NPC was wearing a Polo shirt and so on until you have to totally neuter your concept. Meanwhile if hollywood wants to do the same thing for a movie, nobody bats an eye. Nobody designed any of this stuff sitting in the conference room saying "...and here's how much video game licencing revenue we can expect for this letterbox..." > companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts Trust me... they do no such thing. I've been involved with this several times. At the end of the day, it's just leveraging a broken legal system for rent seeking because...they can!

AWildC182 7y ago

I think you get what I'm saying then. > If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly. This is the problem though. I don't disagree with anything you said as far as what the state of current copyright/trademark law is, I just disagree with the laws and think they're immoral. I consider the mailbox issue especially egregious. Lets say you want to make some content like the infamous American suburb map in Hitman 2. You want to create an environment that's relatable to your audience so you model a typical American subdivision with houses and roads and all the detail you could dream of. Then you get hit with C&D letters from USPS because you put down a letterbox that you'd see on any street corner, Ford for a Mustang you put in a driveway, another because an NPC was wearing a Polo shirt and so on until you have to totally neuter your concept. Meanwhile if hollywood wants to do the same thing for a movie, nobody bats an eye. Nobody designed any of this stuff sitting in the conference room saying "...and here's how much video game licencing revenue we can expect for this letterbox..." > companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts Trust me... they do no such thing. I've been involved with this several times. At the end of the day, it's just leveraging a broken legal system for rent seeking because...they can!