No Doubt Gains Ground in its Lawsuit Against Activision
- Thread starter Lauren Admire
- Start date
A fine example of the futility of suicide.Tdc2182 said:
What kind of douche kills himself and leaves his family, friends, and fans morning b/c he didn't want to be a part of the corporate music industry that allowed his shitty music to become famous. I think next week they should put his likeness in a dress and sell tampons...
Actually I don't know how much "No Doubt" is worth even if they don't perform anymore. Plus Gwen Stefani herself DOES still perform as far as I can tell. I'd also suspect most members of the group probably still play with various other groups, even if they aren't "A" list anymore. A career floating around on cruise ships with some "former A listers" band or whatever is still a career.
That said, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on here, since it seems to me that they didn't understand what the Avatars were for in the game.
Not to mention the fact that I believe "parody" was defended as an art form when Wierd Al was brought to court a couple of times for using people's images and the general sound/rhythym/beat of their music. Meaning that someone can't sue when someone parodies or satirizes them even without paying them royalties, even if it could be considered "defamation of character". This is also how various celebrity impersonators in general get away with what they do (like that dude who does "Frank TV" or whatever it's called).
As a result I would think most of what "No Doubt" is complaining about (them performing other songs, which might make them look ridiculous) would be totally legal without paying them. The more ridiculous it is, the more protected it would be. The big question being about their avatars performing their own songs "straight" and they themselves say they agreed to that.
Such are my thoughts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Activision fan, but I do agree with them here. Just as I ironically backed "White Wolf" (despite not caring for them) against the "Underworld" movies (even if they lost, however understand I did this because of a specific story they published, NOT because of the similarities of the monsters and "lore").
That said, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on here, since it seems to me that they didn't understand what the Avatars were for in the game.
Not to mention the fact that I believe "parody" was defended as an art form when Wierd Al was brought to court a couple of times for using people's images and the general sound/rhythym/beat of their music. Meaning that someone can't sue when someone parodies or satirizes them even without paying them royalties, even if it could be considered "defamation of character". This is also how various celebrity impersonators in general get away with what they do (like that dude who does "Frank TV" or whatever it's called).
As a result I would think most of what "No Doubt" is complaining about (them performing other songs, which might make them look ridiculous) would be totally legal without paying them. The more ridiculous it is, the more protected it would be. The big question being about their avatars performing their own songs "straight" and they themselves say they agreed to that.
Such are my thoughts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Activision fan, but I do agree with them here. Just as I ironically backed "White Wolf" (despite not caring for them) against the "Underworld" movies (even if they lost, however understand I did this because of a specific story they published, NOT because of the similarities of the monsters and "lore").
You think Activision would get bored of sueing and counter sueing everyone who looks at them funny. They rarely even win thier counter sues.
I'm rooting for Activision. No Doubt are being stupid, there lawsuits are as ridiculous as Activisions. Therefore, the first one to sue is the dick in this clash. Therefore, No Doubt are being dicks. So go Activision.
A wild MEGACORPORATION has appeared!
You use LAWSUIT!
It's not very effective!
MEGACORPORATION uses COUNTER-LAWSUIT!
It's not very effective!
You use FIRST AMENDMENT!
IT'S SUPER-EFFECTIVE!
You use LAWSUIT!
It's not very effective!
MEGACORPORATION uses COUNTER-LAWSUIT!
It's not very effective!
You use FIRST AMENDMENT!
IT'S SUPER-EFFECTIVE!
I can't help but feel a simple 'sorry No Doubt, seems we both misunderstood the terms of the agreement and we promise in future to make contracts clearer and explain fully to any future artists what we intend to do with both their music and their looks, and we'll put one of your tracks in the next game without avatars and pay you a bonus fee' would have done about 50 times more good than the 400 lawyers currently earning a new sports car from this crap.
Why oh why can people not occasionally choose to settle things like gentlemen over a table with sensible discussion, instead of feeding those ambulance chasers.
(I know some lawyers convict rapists and help bust corrupt cops and officials and all that, but I very much doubt that there's much overlap in the venn diagram showing 'hero lawyers' and 'celebrity lawsuit and flippant injury claim lawyers' is all.)
Still just being creative doesn't always make you right, and being a corporation doesn't always make you wrong, but I still say this could have been dealt with for $10 over two coffees and a muffin, instead of the hundreds of thousands it's costing in legal fees.
Why oh why can people not occasionally choose to settle things like gentlemen over a table with sensible discussion, instead of feeding those ambulance chasers.
(I know some lawyers convict rapists and help bust corrupt cops and officials and all that, but I very much doubt that there's much overlap in the venn diagram showing 'hero lawyers' and 'celebrity lawsuit and flippant injury claim lawyers' is all.)
Still just being creative doesn't always make you right, and being a corporation doesn't always make you wrong, but I still say this could have been dealt with for $10 over two coffees and a muffin, instead of the hundreds of thousands it's costing in legal fees.