EA Claims First Amendment Protections For Battlefield 3 Helicopters

[Thyunda]

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.

Yes but it's the same company. Who do you think makes the military spec trucks and cars and 18 wheelers and tanks? I'll let you in on a secret it's the same companies who make the trucks and cars that we drive on the road. It's the same with the helicopters and other aircraft they don't just make military gear they make stuff thats available to the public as well. They are just as entitled to protect their copywrites and trademarks as GM, Ford, Jeep or Toyota are.

Besides which from the sounds of the article or the way I'm reading it is EA and the parent company of Bell were in negotiations as to who would get what money and EA released the game before anything was actually decided and so EA in order to try and strengthen their position in the negotiation and maybe evan not have to pay anything launched this lawsuit. This isn't Bells doing this is all on EA and Bell are the ones who have to fight it. EA is in the wrong here and are trying to screw Bell it's not Bell trying to screw over EA. So if anything you should be mad at EA for forcing this maker of military equipment into a legal battle.

Then don't you think they should be content with the licensing fees they get from allowing their commercial vehicles to be used in-game? Battlefield 3 was attempting to portray a 'realistic' real world battlefield. This is not the same as advertising your real-world racing cars. In fact, I would have marked this closer to 'education' on the fair use spectrum.

 

[risenbone]

What exactly do you think was being negotiated? Thats right the licencing fees for EA to use the vehicles in their game. Thats what EA is trying to avoid paying. Don't make me laugh with the educational fair use sorry but playing Battlefield is nothing like being in the actual real life military neither is COD evan ARMA while closer than both of them is nothing like being in the actual military.

 

[The3rdEye]

Have we not been using real life weapons and vehicles in video games for years now, or at the very least high grade facsimiles?

Command and Conquer was released in 1995 and featured a Chinook transport and I'm pretty sure no one whined back then, or after sequels featured F-22's, A10's... and that's just one series. But then none of those series ever made as ridiculous an amount of money as Battlefield, CoD and their ilk.

Let's see, I'm no financial analyst however

May 2006 Textron shares are trading at roughly $49 a share.
Closing of 2007 that climbs to $65 a share.
For the last two and a half years they have not broken $28 a share and they've been at an average of $18 dollars a share.

Yeeeeah...

 

[Kargathia]

You all realise of course, the difference between copyright infringement and freedom of speech, don't you? There's no point being disingenuous here. And please note that EA has gone to a body which is perfectly capable of telling them to stop being so stupid and get back to work. Which they've done for SOPA as well. If SOPA passes, blame your lawmakers, not it's supporters. If they win the rights to use the helicopters in this trial, blame your lawmakers, not EA.

I'm not exactly sure how one is absolved from being a hypocritical asshat just because somebody lets them. If anything, it creates a separate instance of blame for the presiding judges and lawmakers.

Have we not been using real life weapons and vehicles in video games for years now, or at the very least high grade facsimiles?

Command and Conquer was released in 1995 and featured a Chinook transport and I'm pretty sure no one whined back then, or after sequels featured F-22's, A10's... and that's just one series. But then none of those series ever made as ridiculous an amount of money as Battlefield, CoD and their ilk.

Let's see, I'm no financial analyst however

May 2006 Textron shares are trading at roughly $49 a share.
Closing of 2007 that climbs to $65 a share.
For the last two and a half years they have not broken $28 a share and they've been at an average of $18 dollars a share.

Yeeeeah...

It seems the difference lies in whether you use the full name. But apart from that it certainly is a very grey area at times, where I've no doubt that the likelihood of being sued goes up along with your revenue.

 

[Stilkon]

A SOPA supporter trying to protect their freedom of speech. How ironic...

You, sir, hit it right on the head. And I thought EA was bad enough already...

 

[senordesol]

I get the sense that several games (and other forms of media) have featured real-world content before. For example, if you're watching a movie or TV show and a Vovlo just happens to appear in the background, did they have to pay Volvo?

I realize there's a bit of a difference since time had to be spent building and modelling and scripting the aircraft (therefore, was in no way 'incidental'). But I could definitely see the 'fair use' argument when it comes to military equipment. The army is a public entity and in order to accurately depict the army in media, you need to reflect the (non-classified) equipment it uses. Racing games are different (I think) because they are not reflecting a public entity.

Or that can be complete bullshit, I don't know. I just find it hard to believe that all the military shooters obtain licenses from the manufacturers of all the depicted equipment (particularly foreign manufacturers like Russian, Chinese, German, and British weapons...not to mention THEIR vehicles too.)

 

[nsqared]

A SOPA supporter trying to protect their freedom of speech. How ironic...

EA should shut up though because they support SOPA.

EA decision making makes no sense to me. Trying to restrict rights of others but using those same rights to protect themselves.

You all realise of course, the difference between copyright infringement and freedom of speech, don't you? There's no point being disingenuous here. And please note that EA has gone to a body which is perfectly capable of telling them to stop being so stupid and get back to work. Which they've done for SOPA as well. If SOPA passes, blame your lawmakers, not it's supporters. If they win the rights to use the helicopters in this trial, blame your lawmakers, not EA.

I thought that the only reason that SOPA and PIPA have gotten so far was because they were pushing it to the congressmen who don't know anything about the internet, and that's why our protests around the web have not had much of an effect.
I just think it's ironic that a company is fighting for it's use of a patented helicopters in a game when it's also pushing an act that will hurt the internet and blow up in our faces.
It may say that entertainment companies can block websites that have copyright infringement, but you've seen how far these companies will go, they'll sue 12-year-olds over something so trivial.

 

[an874]

A SOPA supporter trying to protect their freedom of speech. How ironic...

EA should shut up though because they support SOPA.

EA decision making makes no sense to me. Trying to restrict rights of others but using those same rights to protect themselves.

You all realise of course, the difference between copyright infringement and freedom of speech, don't you? There's no point being disingenuous here. And please note that EA has gone to a body which is perfectly capable of telling them to stop being so stupid and get back to work. Which they've done for SOPA as well. If SOPA passes, blame your lawmakers, not it's supporters. If they win the rights to use the helicopters in this trial, blame your lawmakers, not EA.

I thought we were allowed to blame both if SOPA passes.

We are. When rich people or big corporations campaign to have a law passed and that law passes, we are well within our rights to tell said parties to go fuck themselves.

 

[Akimoto]

Well, isn't it? I mean, I'm not about to try it, but I'm pretty sure I could take a dozen 5.56mm bullets to the chest and still be alive. I mean, all I have to do is hide behind cover for a couple of seconds, right?

I suspect a sarcastic nod to games like MW, if so a cookie for you good sir.

Still, not possible, unless you are pumped full of adrenaline and a cocktail of drugs. The closest to a combat simulator on the PC is VBS 2 which is used in the U.S, Australian and Singapore Army. Sorry Ea and Dice, your games are fun and I appreciate stuff like bullet drop but proper combat experience is still in combat itself.

OT: EA for God's sake, make up a name, change the features or something. How lazy can you get?