cwbrown

Here you go. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...23&hl=battlecry

Never been booted either. I'm wondering what's the point of this thread too?

I would be VERY suprised if Tatsunoko had ANY ground to chanllenge Big West at this point. Ignoring abuse of your rights typically results in the loss of said rights. At this point, with tons of sequels made by Big West with no cut given to Tatsunoko, and the US releases of Macross 2 and Plus, ALSO with no involvement of Tatsunoko, I'd think one would be hard-pressed to find a judge willing to uphold any Tatsunoko claims. Actually, ignoring abuse of your rights only leads to loss of rights to those particular items, not everything under the sun. The loss of rights would be narrow and specific. That's why, for the sake of argument, TP or HG are not totally wrong saying they lost the rights to the videos of M+ and MII (for whatever reason they lost them), but not necessarily the merchandise to those shows or any future sequels. Not saying they have those rights, just that if they do, their statements about not challenging the rights to those two are not surprising. For all I know, and I don't, they might still have a claim for monetary damages against BW, but I doubt they have any equitable claims to stop current and future sales of M+ and MII. But, they would still be able to stop anything else still.

Got the theatricals, getting all the extended, and will probably get the uber box, but only if there's something new in the movies, not just the extras. Sick, I know.

Almost. He was also credited with Assistant Animation Director on Ep 27 (according to Animeigo). Animeigo's Liner Notes Now, why Kenji Yoshida and Ippei Kuri are not listed at all, I don't know.

How did they get advertised and distributed!? Beats me. I just know they exist. Advertising was probably pretty close to nil, or maybe through some word of mouth at conventions and the like. Streamline also probably focused on the largest markets, like LA. Distribution, who knows. Anyone else with a better answer?

You're welcome.

I think that WAS (or at least so say HG) the plan, but they were never released. Agent One, what do you mean, "they were never released"? Mospeada Tapes on Ebay Macross Tapes on Ebay Mix and Match from all three on Ebay As stated, the Macross ones were never finished, but they were clearly released.

Can you tell me if perhaps there was an "animation direction/production" section, rather than overall direction/production? I'm wondering now how there could be such drastic differences.

Credit where it's due, pal. If it weren't for them, there would be no Robotech. Just to satisfy my curiosity, Pat, who would you have credited? The reason I ask is that there were some credits for the original animation in the series. I actually asked this on the old thread, and I don't think anyone ever gave me an answer. This is from the RT episode "Blue Wind", episode 13: Original animation produced by Tatsunoko Productions [with TP's full formal name] Producer Kenji Yoshida Director Ippei Kuri Is this information accurate? Is it misleading? I ask from the standpoint of the original Macross eps. I don't own them (hopefully "yet", they're expensive), so I don't know how the credits even went on the original eps. But, from the standpoint of "credit where credit is due" I think that including the original director and producer (while maybe not "enough") was fair and didn't completely hide where RT came from. Could they have included BW and SN as "character designers"? Sure. But, they also didn't list Anime Fiend as the animators in any of the eps, AFAIK.

No, it didn't. Neither decision said anything explicit about the derivatives at all. People here have interpreted the copyright split to come out either way on which company has what rights to make derivatives (and, more to the point, release them internationally). You can read the two district court cases in only the last few pages pretty easily. The oldest one is above, and the newer one is only a few pages back (or look at Wrylac's sig since he links to them both). I'd love to see what cwbrown has to say about what is implied in the Jan03 ruling. Hey wrlac, no flamebaiting please. I really don't want to see this thread get as ugly as the other one did. That was anything but a flame bait. cwbrown and I have a good relationship, he was the very first person to see the translation Naoko did for me, and he knows that my post was simply an attempt to draw out a legal analysis on the Jan03 ruling from him, as he is a lawyer. Ditto.

No...it had 2 scenes of being blown up. Once in Force of Arms and the other in To the Stars. Also, its not really an Orguss...its a Valkyrie "dressed up" to look like an Orguss. I didn't say it was an Orguss. I called it by what people have been calling it. Is that a yes? I'm thinking there's probably a "no" hidden in copyright law somewhere, mainly fair use (assuming something similar exists in Japanese copyright law). Fair use in the US would allow the use of the characters and mecha in a "parody", which, as I understand, was what Macross was intended to be. Thus, Studio Nue, et al, could use those characters as part of the "joke". However, trying to exploit that parody any further (through products, etc) would violate the fair use of those items for the parody (again, as I understand how it would work, I'm not an IP lawyer).

Because Yamato doesn't want to, perhaps? Just because one can do something (even legally speaking), doesn't mean one must or even will do something. Yamato (and likely BW) has a bunch of other priorities that it is interested in, and making a toy out of an animation mistake is probably not one of them.

No, it didn't. Neither decision said anything explicit about the derivatives at all. People here have interpreted the copyright split to come out either way on which company has what rights to make derivatives (and, more to the point, release them internationally). You can read the two district court cases in only the last few pages pretty easily. The oldest one is above, and the newer one is only a few pages back (or look at Wrylac's sig since he links to them both). I'd love to see what cwbrown has to say about what is implied in the Jan03 ruling. So would I. All I meant is that the decisions did not say "the derivatives belong to X". That's explicit. To go anywhere else with the decision requires understanding Japanese copyright law to draw the conclusion of what the case means, not just what it says. Now, for myself, that would require a major three step process. One, understanding copyright law at all. Two, understanding Japanese copyright law. Three, melding those into some cohesive group. I don't have a strong understanding of copyright law at all (or pretty much any intellectual property law). It's a big area of law to learn, and I don't have the energy or the resources being outside of law school. Learning Japanese copyright law would require that much more work. And no, the statutes alone aren't really sufficient. I would also need to understand case law for how those statutes have been applied and interpreted (Japan being a civil code country notwithstanding, which would just be one more layer of understanding I would need). I can't translate enough cases to do research to figure it all out. The meaning behind the first case I got translated came from a Japanese professor who was on exchange at my law school. I believe he is back in Japan now. The translation came from a Japanese student in my law school. I've lost touch with her, although when I can get her email address, I'll try to reach her to re-connect that network, and maybe then I will be able to post some meaning of the Jan '03 case. Who really knows. This whole thing has become pretty low priority to me. The international release of anything new that is Macross related may or may not happen. I don't know who's fault it is, and I don't really care anymore. Both companies seem to want to have releases, but can't figure out how to make it happen. So, I will deal with what I have and what I can get (limited funding being the biggest factor). If I get the energy to do more, I will.

No, it didn't. Neither decision said anything explicit about the derivatives at all. People here have interpreted the copyright split to come out either way on which company has what rights to make derivatives (and, more to the point, release them internationally). You can read the two district court cases in only the last few pages pretty easily. The oldest one is above, and the newer one is only a few pages back (or look at Wrylac's sig since he links to them both).

Just make sure you separate RT 3000 from whatever is being planned for 2004. RT 3000 was scrapped a couple years ago after that trailer was booed off the stage when it was presented. (And yes, it did suck.) We haven't seen anything for RT 2004 yet.

I believe those are the medals where it's impossible to get the stars. There were 3 medals that had the stars listed in early versions of the game, but it was not possible to actually get the stars (for whatever reason). Vicious Cycle proceeded to fix that problem in the GC release and the later releases for PS2 and X-Box. You could probably scan the RT.com Gaming Forum to get more information.

Essentially though, it doesn't matter why either company failed to protect those rights, if they existed. If HG does have rights to international distribution, as wrylac (and HG) contends, the failure to protect them only applies to those products that were released. Any future releases (such as the Yammies and Sunwards) can still be blocked. In other words, HG's and TP's failures regarding Mac+, MacII, DYRL, etc, don't matter if HG's contentions are correct.

Well Roy, The one thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe there is any question that BW can make and distribute anything it wants within Japan. Maybe I'm wrong, and it is in dispute (between the companies, not here), but I don't think so. The big question comes down to its authority to distribute those products internationally, at least without some form of go ahead from HG/TP (notwithstanding the previous releases).

Actually, you couldn't. It would be hearsay. Well, unless one of the exceptions applied, but we won't get into that.

My one question about HG and BW is, why would HG need to pay BW any more if HG already owns, not licenses those rights. Maybe I totally misunderstand something that someone has said. But, it seems to me that TP already made its payment with the rights transfer, and that no more is owed. Unless HG still makes some payments to BW of which I am not aware. Anyone with enlightenment?

Apollo, not to be mean, but you pulled a serious logical fallacy by bringing up what HG has done (I just can't remember the name). <_< The focus of the discussion was on the competence of ANN in relation to reporting this series of cases. So, my question to you: Has ANN been competent and/or reliable when reporting this series of cases? My argument is a resounding "no". And I use that initial article as my evidence for their shoddy work. Therefore, I do not believe anyone (on either side) should be quoting ANN for any information whatsoever. Do you agree or disagree?

I think you're exaggerating the "HG lost everything" statement, although I can't remember exactly how it was presented. IIRC, they reported the court case decision and speculated that this PERHAPS meant HG may lose a great deal of power regarding the Macross franchise. Here you go, SuperO: Harmony Gold does not own Macross License - Japanese Courts rule Absolutely terrible, piss poor, unconscionable (sp?) reporting, IMHO. Got all the facts wrong, and other than the edit, which said that TMS was not affected, said that HG had nothing. No mention of "perhaps" whatsoever. Especially the injunction against HG. HG wasn't even a party to the suit. And this article cause days of confusion, anger, cheering, and angst on these boards. And this article caused more of "HG is a bunch of liars" when it released its own press release saying that it was not affected by the decision because it was in Japan and HG was not a party. Even the "Japanese source" says nothing other than BW won.

I don't trust ANN for anything. Remember that article they printed that said that "HG lost everything"? I think that ANN prints only fan speculation and discussion boards. Edit: I would also agree that ANN is potentially no more or less reliable than anyone here, but I do think ANN is more ignorant (as in doesn't know as much) as the people here to make intelligent speculation.

Two easy possibilities. One, Mom signed as parent. Solves that problem. Two (as an and/or), the court signed off on it. That makes it a judgment, not just a settlement. It would make sense except for one problem. By having a public folder, the person opened up that part of the computer to the public, not "who I choose". That includes anyone, including law enforcement or any private entity. You don't want anyone in the public to look, don't have a public folder. Completely untrue. Again, once you have reached out to the public, in this case the internet, your info is fair game. Just so you know, the phone numbers that you call are not protected under any warrant requirement. The content of those calls is protected, but not where the calls went or the fact that you made those calls. With the internet, all the information that is needed to get your identity can be had from your ISP, not by looking at your computer at all. The warrant or subpoena is laid on the ISP, not on you. So, that's how they can get it.