Posts posted by maryliddon
The point is that someone so assiduous about intellectual property is selling a computer that looks identical to someone else’s design.
Maybe legally. Who knows0
4 minutes ago, merman said:
Cloanto holds the rights to the C64 and Amiga ROMs, and THEC64 contains licensed C64 (and VIC-20) ROMs.
However the actual C64/Commodore 64 and Amiga names and logos are disputed.
During Commodore's bankruptcy, Commodore Germany (a legal subsidiary) "bought" the rights to use the famous "chicken head" Commodore logo. When Escom took over the rump of Commodore International they made a separate deal to buy back the logo.
But when Escom sold what it had to Escom, there was legal confusion over who owned the actual names of the products.
The end result was Tulip took over Commodore and then Gateway bought up the Amiga line, with PR company Yeahronimo involved as a commercial partner to both. Yeahronimo went out of business and Cloanto licensed the ROMs from them.
Oh what a tangled web...
And yes, Subvert/its director may be acting like a dick. But acting like a dick and being legal are not mutually exclusive...
I was more interested in the look of the c64. You could argue it’s so similar to the original it’d be easy to mistake it as an commodore product.
This is the kind of litigation that can be brought for that kind of thing.
I’ve no idea who’d own the look and feel of the Commodore 64.0
Of course he has, it’s the same guy0
You’re just jealous you don’t have all that Jupiter Ace gold for yourself.2
I feel sorry for Paul, he seems to always get caught up in drama that on the surface seems like it’s of his own making. I’m glad he takes the time to explain how everyone else is at fault and all he’s trying to do is sort things out!3
- Popular Post
From a legal standpoint they’re in the same ballpark but the extent is hugely different. You can’t credibly argue that the YT videos are a commercial enterprise wholly dependent on reselling intellectual property Andrews own. You can’t credibly argue that anyone watching the videos would come to the conclusion that these are official products made by the rights holders.
He probably has a case that could be argued in court though I don’t think it’s a 100% certain he’d win and I’m pretty certain he’d find it incredibly hard to show any real damage to his business that would warrant any remedy beyond removing or editing the videos.
What he wouldn’t be able to do through the courts is run Octav1us out of business, something he has come close to doing here.
i get the impression that he knows this and has conflated the obviously wrong copyright infringement of soft toy sales with the YT vids to try and justify what looks like a tone deaf overreaction.
And that’s the core thing for me, issuing copyright strikes, without any warning and a well liked retro YT channel just seems incredibly thick given the only way he’ll make money from such a razor thin intellectual properties as Horace, Oric, Memotech or Jupiter Ace (all owned by Andrews and intended for future exploitation) is with the support of the people he’s pissing on.
And despite the obvious idiocy here it’s a stance he;s doubling down on as people pick apart the contradictions of the statements he’s made on the subject.
In short: He’s likely within his rights to do what he’s doing legally but it’s pretty stupid and he’s acting like a dick
BONUS QUESTION: Does Andrews and co have any rights to the Commodore 64 for their The C64 project? The naming (The C64 vs Commodre 64) suggests they haven’t and if so I’m really surprised they’ve not been been hit with trade dress litigation. Honestly asking as I don’t know.10
Funnily enough that may be acceptable usage of Horace.
George's video's, for example, are fine according to Andrew because:Quote
Sorry Gary missed this post amongst the hundreds/thousands of abusive tweets, posts and even people trying to call me, oh and posts about our offices burning down. I had actually never seen this before till watched it a few moments ago. The issue with the other channel was the use of Horace as a character/co-presenter if you will on the channel, and the way that was portrayed. The channel owner described to me as this as her ‘third person’ persona she has for YouTube, as Horace being in a sort of relationship with her online persona. So while George’s videos are not to everyone’s taste, this was a game review (of sorts) as opposed to using the character as above. So I could think of 12000 reasons why these two scenarios are different.
Clear as day.
I'm taking lack of response to this as confirmation it's not just okay for George, but alright for everyone do similarQuote
Hey, if you're saying the above is fine then that's grand. It set's a clear standard for what's AUH (Acceptable Usage of Horace)
Given the current atmosphere, I'm sure a bunch of YTers would be keen to make videos portraying Horace as a priapic sexual assault enthusiast knowing there's no chance of reprisal from the rights holders.1
Not during my employment. It was Beam Software Pty. That was way before the Infogrammes buyout.
While I was there we were working on mainly NES and early SNES titles.1
How is he going to remove the strike if he never did the strike in the first place!0
I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me.
This bit is the doozy. The channel gets copyright struck because someone else fraudulently claimed on his behalf but he has no plans to correct that fraud.
If someone was causing trouble and claiming to be me I'd probably want to sort it out rather than not bothering to because the person claiming to be me wasn't me.
I asked him on FB if he'd be happy for others to forward his statement to YT to put this wrong right. No reply.1
Well to be fair it looks like it's been written in a way that you were supposed to come to that conclusion1
5 minutes ago, ulala said:
I thought we had established that there was contact before the strikes in that case, i cant keep up with it.
There doesn't seem to be. Andrews series of events has him emailing whoever was behind the plushies and then Octav1us got in touch with him after she got the (c) strikes.0
Given that George is working with Andrews on new HORACE WARE I can only assume that this is an approved usage of the his IP
Get's off to a strong start with some great bants about William Tangs stinking member!1
40 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:
The thing is, there's all these internet detectives going online to try and find evidence of ownership. They don't find anything and declare "there's no proof!"
Which completely ignores the fact that there isn't some sort of great big centralised directory of who owns what.
The only way to know for sure would be to examine all of the contracts involved and get confirmation from all of the involved parties. It just isn't worth anyone's time and effort, just to satisfy the demands of the internet detective brigade.
I'd say given the often hard to verify provenace of IP ownership and that this particular IP would have had to pass through several bankruptcies to get to the current owner it's fair question to ask for anyone claiming the rights to this kind of thing to provide some solid proof to their claim.
And you'd expect anyone who bought the rights would have that documentation to hand as they'd have been part of the sale.
Or are you suggesting it wsn't worth the new owner's time and effort to verify they actually own this IP?
FWIW I used to work at Beam Software, with both Fred and William, and knowing how shambolicly run the company was it would not surprise me if the rights ownership of the games they created was badly documented and unclear8
I went the duplo route and got an already populated rack, the Erica Synths techno system. It’s a kind of a 909 made out of bits, a bass module, mixers, a couple of fx and a sequencer. I’m finding the amount of options for hooking things up a little overwhelming with the modules I’ve got already.0
Having an emormously good time live playing with a little modular rack with some analogue drums and a bassline. I just need more hands to get a bit more variation2
On 17/09/2019 at 14:41, Wools said:
I don't want to be one of those pricks who says 'I know the truth, but I'm not telling!' but that's totally what I appear to be doing.
I wasn't there at Lionhead when it all fell apart on Unity, but came in soon after and heard some stories that all seemed to collaborate with each other. All I'll say is publicly, everyone went their seperate ways but over the years, the fans have blamed Lionhead or Nintendo. But the version of the story I've heard is the blame lays squarely at Jeff's door.
Then again, could all be bullshit! Just don't take the Unity dev story at face value.
I've not seen anyone bashing on LH or Nintendo over Unity.
And the end of the project was amicable (I handled the contractual side of things for Jeff)
It's a shame the thing never came together as a game but the experience and technology kickstarted a whole new set of opportunities for Llamasoft which I know Jeff is grateful for4
Got some modular bits n pieces. This is harder work!
Both to make and listen to0
Ha! this is shit. But I had an enormously good time jamming this acid nonsense out1
Kickstarter is live4
This was fun, I did the music for a demo that shown at Assembly yesterday
You're not married then1
Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?
in Retro & Arcade Gaming
That’s interesrting though from a bit of research it sounds like UK protection if 3D design is > 10 years and recently got a boost to 70 if you can demonstrate the design shows artistic craftsmanship.
Crikey the change to 70 years of protection for 3D works is retrospectively applied. The c64 case in the UK may not be public domain?