qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 17,865 (2.87/day)
- Location
- Quantum Well UK
| System Name | Quantumville™ |
|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-2700K @ 4GHz |
| Motherboard | Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 |
| Cooling | Noctua NH-D14 |
| Memory | 16GB (2 x 8GB Corsair Vengeance Black DDR3 PC3-12800 C9 1600MHz) |
| Video Card(s) | MSI RTX 2080 SUPER Gaming X Trio |
| Storage | Samsung 850 Pro 256GB | WD Black 4TB | WD Blue 6TB |
| Display(s) | ASUS ROG Strix XG27UQR (4K, 144Hz, G-SYNC compatible) | Asus MG28UQ (4K, 60Hz, FreeSync compatible) |
| Case | Cooler Master HAF 922 |
| Audio Device(s) | Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty PCIe |
| Power Supply | Corsair AX1600i |
| Mouse | Microsoft Intellimouse Pro - Black Shadow |
| Keyboard | Yes |
| Software | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit |
In a somewhat ironic case, Electronic Arts is claiming First Amendment rights to depict helicopters made by Textron, parent company of Bell Helicopter, without permission. EA has been in talks with Textron about using the likeness of their helicopters in EA's games, but the two sides are unable to come to an agreement. Now, EA can feel a lawsuit from Textron coming on, so they have made a pre-emptive strike with one of their own, according to a copy seen by Kotaku, which was filed on January 6th in the federal court for the Northern District of California. On December 21st, Textron had demanded that EA stop depiction of three of their Bell helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter (pictured) the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey (jointly produced with Boeing) whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing.
EA has a better chance of winning this than one might think, since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that video games have the same free speech protections as other expressive works as film, books and music. Since that ruling, EA has prevailed in a similar case, where a federal judge ruled that EA's depiction of a recognizable, but unnamed real-life college quarterback without his permission, was within the bounds of free expression.
And why is it ironic? Because big media companies are always complaining about 'piracy' and people misusing their intellectual property without proper compensation. They then get dodgy internet censorship laws like SOPA drafted in to supposedly combat it. However, they are more than happy to do the same to others, in this case Textron, hence this is just another case of hypocrisy - and why didn't EA sort this out before releasing BF3 in the first place? If Textron said no, regardless of what kind of deal EA tried to make, then they should simply respect Textron's decision and use different helicopters, not demand use of them without any compensation under "fair use". Of course, they might have a bit of a problem in picking which other helicopters to use, as all of them are made by someone, who is likely to object, but that's another story. So, be prepared for some very generic-looking helicopters if EA lose this one.
See here and here for previous examples of hypocrisy that we've reported on.
These are the real-life versions of the three disputed helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y and V-22 Osprey:
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
EA has a better chance of winning this than one might think, since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that video games have the same free speech protections as other expressive works as film, books and music. Since that ruling, EA has prevailed in a similar case, where a federal judge ruled that EA's depiction of a recognizable, but unnamed real-life college quarterback without his permission, was within the bounds of free expression.
And why is it ironic? Because big media companies are always complaining about 'piracy' and people misusing their intellectual property without proper compensation. They then get dodgy internet censorship laws like SOPA drafted in to supposedly combat it. However, they are more than happy to do the same to others, in this case Textron, hence this is just another case of hypocrisy - and why didn't EA sort this out before releasing BF3 in the first place? If Textron said no, regardless of what kind of deal EA tried to make, then they should simply respect Textron's decision and use different helicopters, not demand use of them without any compensation under "fair use". Of course, they might have a bit of a problem in picking which other helicopters to use, as all of them are made by someone, who is likely to object, but that's another story. So, be prepared for some very generic-looking helicopters if EA lose this one.
See here and here for previous examples of hypocrisy that we've reported on.
These are the real-life versions of the three disputed helicopters, the AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y and V-22 Osprey:
View at TechPowerUp Main Site
The only slight difference, is that I say they're both being jerks, while you only think Textron are being jerks. Let me put it in different words and see if we can reach a full agreement. I disagree with this bit only: "No, just Textron. There's no hypocrisy."
I think this is wrong of them, but it's their right. One could also argue in Textron's favour perhaps, of how much difference does it actually make to sales of their helicopters anyway? Think about it, governments aren't gonna buy their products because they featured in some video game! No, they'll go by the usual tendering processes that have been around forever. Therefore, one could argue that it's reasonable for Textron to demand payment from EA, as the benefit is not mutual.
I think this must be the best pathetic whinge I've seen in a while, lol.
