gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

From President's Perspective, Model Aviation V 31, N 8, August 2005 (Bold emphasis mine)

Did the AMA President just outright say that we should NOT DISCUSS an issue he felt important enough to address as one of "...a couple of interesting subjects...which show that AMA is working behind the scenes in your behalf"??? (again, bold emphasis mine)

[X(][X(][X(][X(]

I don't think I can write anything civil right now, so I'll stop here and invite comments.

jiveturkey

did ya know that Union Pacific RR demands royalties paid for any of thier logos or such, as used by the manufacturers in Model Railroading ?

mebbe silence is a good idea.

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

Yes, bspeed, I am aware. As it happens, I've been into mrr for 20+ years, though am currently not active in the hobby.

I take it, then from your post that you agree...that the best way to 'handle' this issue is simply to not discuss it??

Capt. Nexstar

The last thing we need is discussion of this situation on the Internet or in newsletters. As unpopular as it is in the military, this is one of those "don't ask, don't tell" situations.

They must be Gay then since the military policy was qouted. I always wondered about that.

P.S. I wrote marketing told them don't send anyhing else to me that wasn't about my membership.

Capt. Nexstar

Why did they block the word out? I wasn't aware you can't say gay on here. its only 3 letters.
I see that freedom of speech is diffently out the window here, Gee won't joke about that anymore.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

I dunno, maybe it IS a good idea. RC models are a drop in the bucket compared to plastics, most of whom ARE already paying royaties. Better to fly under the radar if possible.
Besides, all the internet chatter I have read about his is complete BS. Complete nonsense. People are TOTALLY deluded...
"Oh, the US Government OWNS the P-38, so nobody has the right to get royalties for it!"

WRONG!
These companies DO own these planes, and they CAN collect royalties and control how their image is used, don't kid yourselves. And it seems like the internet chatter about this always ends up in a pointless circular argument, with most of the people not knowing one thing about public domain, copyrights, etc, etc, etc...
Very consistantly one of the most useless debates I have seen.
The less said, the less likely it is that one of these firms that are hired to collect these royalties will find and crack down on our little balsa model airoplane manufacturers.

As far as DB having "some ideas on how to deal with this issue", I say, HUH? There isin't one damn thing AMA can do about it...it's so far above their heads and political power, it's just out of their realm. The law is not going to change at AMA's behest. Remember, you are really talking about billions of dollars collected...on that scale of things, who is AMA? NOBODY. The less DB says about this, the better!

abel_pranger

Hey ET-

There is something we agree on!

As for him telling me "don't ask, don't tell," he can KMA. The notion that he and his entourage of ambulance chasers are going fix it if "the aeromodeling community were to lay low on this subject" is ludicrous beyond even the recent joint media/legal Michael Jackson freak show.

Abel

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

*shrug*

I'll likely be on the warm end of a few flames for this one, but quite frankly, I think royalties OUGHT to be paid if requested.

Now, please re-read that...I didn't say 'we should pay royalties'. I said IF REQUESTED, then they should be paid.

Frankly, my father would roll over in his grave if he thought Boeing (I can't believe I'm saying Boeing now...*ewww*) decided to ask for royalties from companies/modellers seeking to model his beloved F-15. He would consider it an honor that it was modeled, and would want nothing more than the opportunity to see one fly.

However, quite bluntly, the design (at least various aspects) of that aircraft WERE HIS CREATION. So, while he personally would rather see it enjoyed and flown, he (and thus McDonnel Douglas [sorry, I just CAN'T use the B word again]) are certainly right and just in asking for royalties.

Of course, I've now thread-jacked my own thread, because this will CERTAINLY turn into a yes vs no discussion now...which wasn't its intent.

The original intent is this:

REGARDLESS of how this plays out, to suggest, AS A PRESIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION, that membership simply NOT DISCUSS it, in hopes that it will go away, is downright WRONG. It's contrary to EVERYTHING an organization should stand for and is, bluntly, cowardly.

Consider:

If royalties should NOT be paid, then DEFEND THAT VIEW. DEMONSTRATE why they should not. HAVE THE GUTS to stand for what you believe, and present cogent arguments in support of it.

If royalties SHOULD be paid, then do not consider those to whom they are due so IGNORANT as to expect them to not notice you, and in so doing cheat them of there rightful rewards.

In EITHER case, being told 'shut up, maybe it'll go away' is just ridiculous.

In EITHER case, telling me 'this is one of the very important issues that demonstrates how hard we work for you' and then saying 'but you just shush now, we'll take care of it' is...well, downright insulting.

*sigh*

In one day, I've been told the organization that supports a hobby I love is A) hoping those who we might owe won't notice us B) in charge, so i have no business discussing it. FInally, i've been told that a candidate for EVP C) doesn't have time to listen to me

And we woner why people look for alternatives to AMA membership????

dionysusbacchus

My Feedback: (25)

You are very WRONG! These companies would never have made these planes if it were not for the government and the people paying for them. This issue is being taken care of, maybe you don't know as much as you think you do! haw! read this:

[link=http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42299]International Model-Hobby Manufacturers Association [/link]

Shame on those companies!!!!!!!!!!

Dion

SSRCCPREZ

Well, whether they should or should not ask for and receive royalties is a discussion for another day.
What bothers me is the poo-pooing of online discussions by the members. Seems like the "king" would rather his lowly subjects not voice their opinion as we are merely an annoyance to him. Here is a thought,king, we ELECT you.
Well, this lowly plebe will happily go on voicing my opinion in a reasonable and well thought out manner in any form I wish with people whoI am interested in hearing from and discussing with. MAybe DB ought to do the same.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Hi everyone,
News Bulletin: they already know about modeling and some, like LM, are activly pursuing payment; just check out the thread about the Roadkill series P-xx, ooops, (Q-1)-(35+3) twin boom high altitude interceptor. Whew, almost used LM designation without their permission and therefore could've been sued.
As I stated before, it's not the fee, it's the provision of the contract that the companies want to be "held harmless", which means liability insurance for whomever is seeking permission to use the design, etc. I'm not sure about the other manufacturers, but I know LM is VERY aggressive in squeezing every last dollar it can out of their designs.
These manufacturers subscribe to Gordon Gekko's philosophy: Greed is good.
BRG,
Jon

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Well...yes, and no. The money involved is fairly trivial to them. And the lawyers probably keep half of it. These firms run on a contingency basis.
I think it's more about retaining rights over the image, how the product gets used. They want to maintain control. They don't want really junky models of their planes around. They don't want to be in rap videos, whatever.
The Roadkill thing...they DID get a license. For a lousy $200. And then they wanted to actually get blueprints and stuff from Lockmart. I think they had rather unrealistic expectations of what Lockmart was giving them for $200! So they decided not to renew their license. So don't beleive everything you read. $200 is about the minimum it would take for a lawyer to draft a document. If they were that greedy, they would have demanded a lot more money.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

I don't know anything about "ambulance chasers", DB is not a lawyer, but I think he should have said nothing at all on this subject.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

I understand. But the online AMA discussions seem to be consistently tainted by the same old crew of bashers, and by the same old misinformation. I cannot blame DB and the rest of the AMA for giving up on the online forums long ago. Waste of time, they cannot win, I would rather they spend their time doing something more productive. I do NOT think DB should do the same, as you say, and participate. It does not work. Proven time and time again.
On the other hand, you can ALWAYS pick up the phone and pick the guy's brain, you might be surprised at what he has to say.
I can see how what he said might be interpreted just the way you said, I can't defend that, I think DB misspoke.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Here we go again.
I'm sorry. You are WRONG.
The P-38, for example, was A PRIVATE VENTURE BY LOCKHEED. Do you understand that they spent their own money designing that plane? And that they had no guarantee that the govt would buy it? THEY OWN IT. Period.
And the Federal Courts and the laws of the United States of America agree with that, which is why you DO have to pay royalties.


"The issue is being taken care of?"
You just have no idea of what you are talking about. None.


That proposal will go nowhere, and even if it did, it would only apply to future designs.
It just proposes adding a clause to future contracts.
It's really some New Jersey Congressman throwing a bone to a constituent, Stevens International, who import model kits.
Nothing will happen with this.
Do you think some of the basic precepts of IP law are going to change for a handful of plastic model companies? Do you understand the implications? Do you understand the companies like GM and Ford would not stand for it?

Nah, skip it. You don't really understand anything. So I'm not going to bother.
Like I said before, conversations about this subject are totally useless. Useless. People just spouting incredible disinformation, stuff that has NO basis in reality.
"This is being taken care of." Yeah, SURE. Santa is outside, too, in a P-38, ready to take you to Santaland.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

You lie !! Santa's butt is far too big to fit in a P-38.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I have been told, in person, almost the exact same words.

AMA President

Liberator

I knew this was going to happen one day. (sigh) I have to agree with ET here. There are literally hundreds of items that defense contractors have created for the government. Guns, Planes, you name it, they have created it. Many of these items you have never heard of because they were never purchased by the government, but those companies still had to pay millions to develop them
To say that if you are a defense contractor and lose you're rights to an item you create because the government chose to buy it, is absurd.

The one thing about the modeling industry having to pay the fee to use the likeness, is that the company wishing to kit the item, or provide the arf could be compelled to create an EXACT REPLICA of the item to stay true to copyright laws. That would be a good thing. As someone who likes warbirds, it would be great to see an arf that was actually true to scale and accurate. I also would not mind paying a little bit more for that as well.

In any event, I think it is very important to look for the possible silver lining and discuss the good stuff. and hey if it's all bad, we need to discuss that as well.

And for the Pres of the AMA, if you wanted to guarantee a discussion on this topic, you did EXACTLY the right thing.


Tom

oh yeah P.S. Santa flies a B-24...more leg room and an easy gift dispersal system.

coolbean

That makes more sense than anything else I've read in this thread.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

My B-17 pilot buddy maintains that the B-24 is just the ugly shipping crate they box the B-17 in.

Totally agree with the above post. Saying "don't talk about it" is like saying "whatever you do...don't press that red button..." Man, everybody is going to press the button.

It's amazing how completely delusional people are on this subject. I remember having it out with the guy from EAM over on Ezone about this, he steadfastly maintained how the public owned these planes, blah blah blah, how he was going to write his congressman...
In the meanwhile, he was so confident of his position that he actually changed the name of his new kit from "Boeing B-17" to "Bomber-17" in a really pathetic attempt to circumvent the LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Like GWS changing from C-130 to "Four Engined Transport". Oh, you think that's cute? Hope Lockmart cleans your clock, because you were too cheap to pay your pithy little royalties. GWS is no cottage industry, they are in it for the dough, cough up, cheapskate!
But the post above saying "this is being taken care of..." My Gawd. Can you be more obtuse? Hey, since you live in Candyland, can you cut me off a big chunk of Rock Candy Mountain and have the Easter Bunny deliver it to me?
Another thing people just don't seem to grasp is that you can build all the models you want, of any plane you want, and nobody can stop you. Not even the evil Lockmart! It's when you start SELLING the models that they can stop you. In no uncertain terms...you ARE capitolizing on THEIR work...they PAID Kelly Johnson to design the P-38; they did it for money, not love, and you don't have the right to steal it.
Feel free to build all you want for yourself...just don't be surprised when you try to SELL one that the rightful owners want their cut, and want control of how their designs are being used.

Gordon, what you do not know is that Santa Atkinsed down to just around 220 pounds. He had a minor heart attack in January while feeding the reindeer, and the writing was on the wall. His cardiologist said it was either strict diet and give up the smoking(2 packs of Luckies a day!) or gastric bypass, because he was not going to make it for another year at the rate he was going. He looks great, let me tell you, not quite as jolly as he used to be, but the twinkle has returned to his eye, and he easily fits into a P-38.

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

Glad to see that this thread has turned back to the issue that prompted me to start it.

I didn't wish for a discussion on whether or not royalties should be paid, but rather a discussion of the fact that the AMA president essentially told his membership to keep their mouths shut.

He's saying 1 of 3 things:

1) Let's all be quiet, maybe our parents won't find out.

2) You don't know enough about the issue to discuss it, let the adults handle it

3) I can't possibly weasel us into a better position if you people run around exploring actual facts.

I'm not sure which, but the simple fact that the man was downright STUPID enough to say what he said makes my head spin.

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

DB is far from perfect. He talks an awful lot, and sometimes steps into it. I like the guy, but I have to say I think he should have said nothing, I cannot defend what he said on this subject.

AirBearMA

My Feedback: (1)

Maybe I have this wrong but wasn't it the military that gave out the model designations of planes??? Lockheed did not call their plane the P-38. The goverment gave the plane the designation P-38.

gboulton

My Feedback: (15)

In most cases, you are correct, AirBear. there are a FEW exceptions (none of which come to mind *heh*) but, in general, yes.

Either the aircraft did not exist until the military contract was awarded, and the plane received its only designation from the branch that ordered it (an example would be the F-15 Eagle), or, optionally, the plane existed with a civilian designation and, when put into military service, received a military designation. An example of the latter would be the slightly modified McDonnell Douglas DC-9 flown by USAF AMC as the C-9 Nightingale.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

I wonder if this is true. In the case of small ticket items maybe, but in the case of large ticket items such as new aircraft design, much of the research funding is sponsored by the government...ie your tax dollars. I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as some would think.

It may be that some projects were/are self funded and some are/were government funded. That could change the outcome of different lawsuits...I would think.