You may note most racing games with real cars have a huge licensing list, same with military games.evilneko said:
EA Claims First Amendment Protections For Battlefield 3 Helicopters
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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?
Well you can only pay engineers and drafts people so much and you can only have so many working on a particular project before they start getting in each others way and if your a corperation in this day and age and you don't employ so kind of legal team your just asking for trouble. In other words the guys doing the legal stuff are not the same ones doing all the designing of fiddly bits that go into the making of an aircraft and they were just hanging round the office cause we havn't been sued by any one whoes uncle died because our helicopters weren't designed to withstand a direct hit from a 100 kilotonne nuclear device so we let them loose with a nice easy copywrite case.
To take your worry to the next step. Should GM stop making all those cars and concentrate all there effort into making the engines that go into the tanks and military spec trucks that they also make? Boeing should stop making those silly comercial aeroplanes and stricktly focus on building and developing figher jets and military grade transporters. Neither of them should consern themselves over such trivial matters of copywrite or trademark infringments that they have spent countless years and dollars developing.
To take your worry to the next step. Should GM stop making all those cars and concentrate all there effort into making the engines that go into the tanks and military spec trucks that they also make? Boeing should stop making those silly comercial aeroplanes and stricktly focus on building and developing figher jets and military grade transporters. Neither of them should consern themselves over such trivial matters of copywrite or trademark infringments that they have spent countless years and dollars developing.
EA decision making makes no sense to me. Trying to restrict rights of others but using those same rights to protect themselves.
Part of me wants EA to win because the precedent it could set could bite EA in the ass. I look forward to when rival sports games are released with full licenses despite EA having sole rights because licensed rosters and kits add realism so we are protected by the first amendment.
Part of me wants EA to win because the precedent it could set could bite EA in the ass. I look forward to when rival sports games are released with full licenses despite EA having sole rights because licensed rosters and kits add realism so we are protected by the first amendment.
EA your probably not going to win. Though if they lose will BF3 just get shut down or do they even have a backup plan? Knowing EA it'll probably be sell BF3.2 for sixty dollars without the helicopter.
Damn you Captcha at least be easy enough to read I don't need to spend longer time then took me to type post to get something readable.
Damn you Captcha at least be easy enough to read I don't need to spend longer time then took me to type post to get something readable.
most likely they will have to pay some fine and then release an update that changes the name and possibly the appearance slightly so as to avoid infringements. so expect a "chime AH-1Z venomous snake attack helicopter" to suddenly appear.Domehammer said:
Considering how often I enjoy going kamikaze onto a group of enemy soldiers in said helicopters, they may be thinking it's saying that their helicopters are shoddy.evilneko said:
Which they're not. The make very good improvised aerial-to-ground explosives.
Considering my friend's general plans of attack in helicopters in BF:BC2 is made up of 'Cover Helicopter in C4 and crash into biggest threat' I'm inclined to agree.dancinginfernal said:
OT: This...just seems silly, not in the 'Hurr, 'Mericans' way, but the 'This is petty' way. I get that it's their product and they need to protect it, but that line of defence just seems poor and half-hearted.
Couldn't have said better myself, my friend. EA, how is it possible for you to be this fucking hateful. I would really hope EA loses this one, but I'm afraid this might set a bad precedent when it comes to the depiction of real life elements in games.Harper0341 said:
Harper0341 said:
nsqared said:
The Artificially Prolonged said:
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.
Double A said:
If my team let the offence through, I'd blame the defence, rather than blame the attacking team for "being too good". Or the referee for "not being on our side".
If I were head of Textron, I would tell EA that I would drop a lawsuit if they added DLC that had a map that was one huge, "I'm sorry, Textron!" level with advertisements and if they took down Origin.
Seriously, if I had a better computer, I would buy that game the moment they took down Origin. WHY EA, WHY?!!!
But seriously, how could this have slipped past EA? Or rather DICE, the developer, since they are the ones who put them into the game. But the lawyers at EA SHOULD have noticed this. It is unacceptable that it slipped past them. DICE's fault for not getting the proper permits and EA's fault for not double-checking. Sigh.
You, sir, have just won the thread.
Seriously, if I had a better computer, I would buy that game the moment they took down Origin. WHY EA, WHY?!!!
But seriously, how could this have slipped past EA? Or rather DICE, the developer, since they are the ones who put them into the game. But the lawyers at EA SHOULD have noticed this. It is unacceptable that it slipped past them. DICE's fault for not getting the proper permits and EA's fault for not double-checking. Sigh.
Harper0341 said:
You, sir, have just won the thread.
My thoughts exactly.Harper0341 said:
No they didn't, check online. EA still supports SOPA.Terminate421 said:
And as it's a modern combat simulator, ALL aircraft must therefore fly like..oh wait.Treblaine said:
News tomorrow: "Aircraft manufacturers modify aircraft to match BF3 physics"
This is nuts. How many tom clancy novels use real world tech? ALL OF THEM. how many times has he been sued for that. 0
This is a videogame, supposedly an inferior form of media so technically it should be even lower on the scale for Textron.
Besides, they might even make extra sales off of the free press.
This is a videogame, supposedly an inferior form of media so technically it should be even lower on the scale for Textron.
Besides, they might even make extra sales off of the free press.
JWAN said:
Dude it's not like a gaming peripheral. What are you, nuts? No government is going to form a purchase decision (military hardware, again, not gaming peripherals) based off a videogame.
And furthermore, it's a lot easier to get details of hardware factually incorrect in a videogame. Most of Tom Clancy's stuff is just regurgitating a press briefing for an item. In a game, you actually have to model the thing realistically.