Chicago Ted said:
Thyunda said:
Chicago Ted said:
Thyunda said:
I'm slightly disturbed that a military manufacturer feels it should be protected by commercial laws. Surely your priorities should lie with making your products as reliable and effective as possible, rather than worrying about your copyrights being infringed?
What makes this anymore different than any other manufacturer using their legal influence to curtail something? How would this be any different than a car company putting their foot down if one of their cars were used in a game without being given the right to? Shouldn't their priorities be the same?
I'm sorry but I just don't really see the deal about this being a military manufacturer and not anything else. Sure they produce weapons, but does the difference in product really mean they should be treated the much differently?
A car manufacturer competes with his rivals to make more comfortable, or faster cars. An arms dealer has a responsibility to ensure his weaponry kills as efficiently as possible (as in, instant deaths rather than agonising injuries) and that his vehicles keep men alive.
Cars already have safety features. We don't NEED any faster cars.
But when dealing with military vehicles? It's not a business. It's a responsibility. If somebody takes your idea for a helicopter and improves upon it, then it's for the greater good. Even if they violate your copyright.
But doesn't a car manufacturer's have the same responsibility to make sure their cars are as safe as possible as well?
Arms manufacturers (I'm not going to use the word arms dealers because that is an entirely different thing), do compete with several other arms manufacturers in order to make the best product possible. They compete with each other for government contracts for the most part where they may get deals with the government to produce and supply their forces for a set amount of time or units. Because of this competition for a single contract, there still remains a high need in order for protection of their secrets.
Now, this method means that it is very profitable for arms manufacturers to create the best product possible. If these manufactures were allowed to rip off one another, there would be less innovation in their designs and therefore less quality products being produced over time. Why? Because why would you want to spent millions in R&D and several years attempting to develop a new and better product, when another manufacturer can turn around and steal your new developments and creations at the end for no cost at all?
The only thing we can improve with cars is their comfort, speed and handling. Eventually new safety features will crop up, and I will be saying this exact thing about companies that copyright safety features.
A military vehicle is totally different, however. I don't believe they should be a commercial industry. If one manufacturer creates an effective attack helicopter, and another manufacturer has an improvement they could make on the design...then things could only go well for the end user. If this WAS a car manufacturer, I wouldn't care so much. But where peoples' lives are at stake, then I truly believe the industry should be in the hands of less for-profit organisations. Sure, the Government may have a thing for privatising perfectly useful public services (British Rail, thank you) but really, you don't seriously believe that a military manufacturer should be treated in the same way as a luxury corporation, do you?
Side note - yeah, I know the difference between arms manufacturer and arms dealer...I was just looking for another word than manufacturer, 'cause I get sick of writing that word.
