ewilen

Speaking as a non-expert in copyright law, I would guess not. Mainly because HG apparently took pains in the Sentinels not to use the line art from Macross. So the modified battlepods were probably at least a reasonably-good-faith effort to avoid creating something that could be legally considered a copy or derivative of the Regult line art. My guess is that "reminiscent" isn't enough to qualify as a copyright violation, though exactly what does qualify is probably a very complex issue. Edit: on second thought (and after some searching), it appears that the criterion is "substantial similarity" combined with intent (i.e., some proof that the accused had seen the alleged "original" and intended to base his work on it). If that's correct, then the modified battlepods probably would be seen as a derivative. But the case wouldn't be clearcut for a variety of reasons, which would open the way to a legal war of attrition and a settlement, as with Superman vs. Captain Marvel.

It's Ricardo Montalban.

You realise, anime simply means cartoon, right? And opera means musical.

I almost completely agree with that, except that in the line art case, BW does ask for an injunction against TP using the line art in new animations, or causing a third party to do the same. This may be an oblique reference to Harmony Gold. (The court denied the injunction on the grounds that there wasn't any reason to believe that TP was going to do so. And indeed it does not appear that HG has ever created new animation based on the character and mecha designs from Macross, nor does it seem likely that they will do so.)

Which case? There are three cases, if I recall correctly. Big West vs. Tatsunoko Productions is the one that was ultimately won by BW, resulting in BW having copyright on the line art for SDF Macross. Tatsunoko vs. Big West is the one that was ultimately won by TP, resulting TP having copyright on the SDF Macross TV series. Tatsunoko vs. Bandai et. al. is the one that AFAIK was won by Bandai/BW, resulting in TP being unable to claim ownership of the Macross trademark. (There may have been a separate case on a related issue, with the same outcome.) Note that, in appeals, the loser of the original case becomes the plaintiff. So the appeal of BW vs. TP at the Tokyo District Court level became TP vs. BW at the Tokyo High Court level. Can you read Japanese? I would strongly suggest reading the article in IP/Cyberlaw Watch, Autumn 2003, which you can find in English on this page: http://www.maxlaw.co.jp/e/ipclw/ It is a bit out of date, though, as some of the cases hadn't been fully litigated yet at the time it was written. I would avoid, or at least take with a grain of salt, the "Plight of the Valkyrie" articles by the Hobbylink Japan owner. They were written early in the process, before all the issues had been separated clearly, and they contain several important errors. I also wouldn't take anything written by wrylac or BankofKev as the final word on any issue. After reading the references that have been posted here, if you have any more questions, you might want to post them in the license debate thread.

If the picture on the side of the box is accurate, it's pretty ugly in fighter mode. I wonder what "Megaro Zamac" is all about. It's also interesting that they took not only the Macross idea of a plane with legs, but even the name "Gerwalk".

Somehow, I think you've hit on an argument for mandating that certain movies should be designed so as to require the viewer to operate a treadmill continuously in order to watch them. Oh, c'mon, go easy. I enjoy swimming and golf (no carts), but when I sit down to watch a movie, I sure as hell don't want to get up in the middle either. Of course, I may be the one person on earth who didn't care for the Lord of the Rings movies, so I can't say I've actually run into that problem. Still, the idea of using HVD to cram a lot more episodes/series/movies on a single disc is nice. Even if you had to do the work yourself (that is, buy a recordable 200GB HVD, then convert your entire Macross collection to one disc with a PC). Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were out of shape. But there are a lot of SF/fantasy fans who could probably stand to drop a pound or two. (Applies to a few other genres, too.)

Somehow, I think you've hit on an argument for mandating that certain movies should be designed so as to require the viewer to operate a treadmill continuously in order to watch them.

Thanks for the IRIAF aircraft pics, Nied. But much if not all of what I was able to find about them seems to trace back to Tom Cooper, the rest from official Iranian claims and boasts. I'm not saying that he lacks integrity, but I wonder how much about these aircraft, and the Iranian aviation industry in general, is known publicly outside of reports by him and public announcements out of Iran. Elsewhere you wrote that I was forgetting that cruise missiles are expended as they are used. Actually, that occurred to me, but each sortie by an aircraft also entails expending resources. To properly compare cruise missiles and, say, an F/A-22, you would need to factor in the expected cost of an F/A-22 sortie, including: Risk of loss of aircraft and/or crew multiplied by the cost of replacing same Fuel Munitions Turnaround costs (time, manpower, spare parts) Aircrew turnaround time. Pilots need to rest at some point. I don't really have a handle on any of these, to be honest, but it might be an interesting exercise if you, I, or anyone else has the time. Another factor to consider is political cost: Raptors need bases near the area of operations, which may be troublesome for the host country. There is also the vulnerability of the bases to attack by ballistic or cruise missiles carrying either conventional or NBC warheads. The platforms for both naval and air launched cruise missiles are less vulnerable to this sort of threat, due to mobility, concealment, greater strike range, or a combination.

This doesn't: http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

Based on the contents are the first two episodes of SDF Macross TV, as they were originally shown in 1982. That is, they were shown back-to-back, with special "eyecatch" footage before/after the commercial breaks, instead of the standard "eyecatch" used in the remaining episodes. Also, they had a different end title animation and (possibly, not sure) slightly different opening title animation. Part of the reason for the different footage was probably to hide the transforming nature of the Valkyries and the giant size of the Zentradi before they were revealed in the story.Oddly/annoyingly, the Animeigo Macross DVDs don't preserve these differences. But they can be seen elsewhere including the Robotech Perfect Memory tape and the Macross 20th Anniversary DVD.

I'd like to hear more about this. How many fighters have the Iranians built to the point of combat-readiness? What is their annual capacity for new construction of the various types that they can build? I think I've listed a number of clear advantages aside from numbers. But you're correct of course that the USAF wouldn't send its entire complement. I just couldn't find numbers for how many were committed to other recent contingencies such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II. However, I didn't count up the USN.

Well, here we get into a problem with defining the scenario. If you're talking about a strike against Iran right now, probably as part of the current crisis over nuclear enrichment, then we have to work with what's available. But my original goal in asking for a scenario was to evaluate the need for the F/A-22 and/or the need for additional F/A-22's beyond the minimal buy currently proposed by the Pentagon. At the moment, the F/A-22 isn't expected to be combat-ready until the end of 2005 at the earliest, so we're really comparing a nonexistent F/A-22 capability to a depleted--but readily replenishable--cruise missile capability. If we look to the future--perhaps a scenario where Iran, with or without nukes, tries to use military force to attack American allies and interests in the region, we have to consider the cost of building more F/A-22's vs other options. Among these: additional cruise missiles, UCAVs (attack versions, if not air superiority), F-35. I'm putting the F-35 on the list since the Air Force has suggested cutting it instead of the F/A-22. Let's leave UCAVs out of the picture at least for the moment, since they're speculative in the near term. Both the Navy's Tomahawk and the Air Force's AGM-86C cost less than $1 million each and have ranges in excess of 600 nm (700 nm for Tomahawk D, 900 nm for Tomahawk C/E). Without tanker support, the F-14 would need to be operating well outside friendly airspace, and close to its maximum mission radius in order to intercept/attack B-52s before the latter launched their cruise missiles, and would be useless against Tomahawks. So for the cost of one F/A-22 (no bombs, no fuel), you can have at least 115, probably more like 150-250 cruise missiles with which we'd be able to strike virtually with impunity. Furthermore, the ongoing maintenance and training costs of 100+ cruise missiles are undoubtedly far lower than an F/A-22 and its pilots. Or if you prefer a manned aircraft, there's the F-35. If it comes off as planned, it's stealthy, you can buy 2-4 of them for the cost of one F/A-22, it has better sensors, better targeting, and it can carry bigger bombs.

Yes, as I recall and understand it, US case law defines making a backup as "fair use". I doubt the DMCA explicitly recognizes the right to make a backup, because as JB0 says, it is designed to thwart that right. It does so by making it illegal to circumvent copy protection. So the current intent of the law is that you can only backup non-copy-protected materials. Way more than you probably want to know about the issue: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/

The group of countries that are "in" the JSF program are: Netherlands Turkey Australia United Kingdom Italy Denmark Canada Norway Singapore Israel. (The latter two are involved at a lower level than the others.) I suspect that Japan might sign up at some point, or at least end up purchasing the aircraft. South Korea is also being marketed to. I haven't read anything about German interest. It appears that Germany will go with the EF2000; the UK will buy EF2000 alongside the JSF with the latter intended for the Royal Navy. (There's no naval EF2000.) I don't know if there are reports that any of the export versions will be dumbed down at all. I see the several reasons/benefits of seeking foreign partners; among them: (1) Spread development costs over as many units as possible, and achieve manufacturing economies of scale. (2) Maintain linkages and dependencies between those countries' defense establishments and ours. (3) As far as possible, kill off sales of EF2000, Rafale, Gripen, and Russian designs, thus driving up their costs--see (1) above. This makes the latter more expensive for those countries which we'd rather not see owning any advanced fighters at all. (4) Obviously--get the good stuff to those countries which are viewed as strategic allies/assets. Note that there is a strong overlap between the JSF partners and the "Coalition of the Willing". Whatever one may think of the war in Iraq, the fact that a given country has provided diplomatic and military contributions to the US-led effort is a good indication of how well its worldview coincides with that of the US and how greatly that nation values its relationship with America. In the overlap, I count: Netherlands, UK, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Singapore. Korea and Japan are also "Coalition" members. The outlyers are Turkey, Canada, and Israel. Israel of course is very close to the US but can't participate directly in Iraq because of regional political sensibilities. Canada has taken principled stands at odds with some of Bush's diplomatic/military initiatives (not only Iraq but also missiles defense); however, it is hard to imagine a closer ally otherwise. Turkey is a bit troubling. It's a secular democracy and has good relations with Israel as well as a strong defense relationship with the US. Entry to the EU is looking good. At the same time, I get the impression that not everything is nailed down--there have been incidents of jihadist terrorism, the Cyprus question is basically just being papered over, EU membership isn't assured, and the economy has historically been subject to crisis. But I think the ultimate guarantee is the Turkish military, which has demonstrated in the past that it will not allow Turkey to be radicalized or destabilized.

Too heavy. But that's been dealt with through a combination of weight reduction, increased engine thrust, and creative redefinition of how it will operate some missions. I'm pretty sure I posted about it in this thread but I can't find my post. Here's one quick link via a Google search: http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/199.html

That's right. Cooper's a voice crying in the wilderness. Maybe he's right and all the other experts are wrong (or lying in order to protect secrets). On the other hand, maybe not. In any case I recall Nied estimating 20-30 F-14s and 60 Mig-29s in the Iranian Air Force, plus sundry other aircrft. The USAF has the Iranian inventory as including 40 F-4D/E Phantom, 45 F-5E/F Tiger, 30 F-14 Tomcat, 24 Shenyang F-7 (Mig 21), 48 Mig-29 Fulcrum. But the estimate also states that "probably more than 40% of the aircraft are not operational." So the ceiling for operational aircraft is perhaps 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 24 Tomcats, 15 F-7s, 29 Mig-29s. Globalsecurity.org also has some estimates. Taking the "mission capable" rates into account, the numbers of air-air (fighters, fighter-bombers, and interceptors) come to about 16 Phantoms, 15 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s (Mig-21 equivalent), 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s. Taking the highest number for each type, we get: 24 Phantoms, 27 F-5s, 30 Tomcats, 20 F-7s, 32 Mig-29s, 18 Mirage F-1s, 12 Mig-23s. I have not found support for a higher number of Mig-29s, but if anyone can supply a source or expert opinion that there are more Fulcrums in the IRIAF, I would be grateful. So: 30 Tomcats, 32 Fulcrums, and about 100 sundry 2nd-rate or worse fighters. Against which the USAF alone (including reserves but not including the North American Air Defense Force) has over 200 Eages, about 100 F-15Es, about 600 F-16s. (Source) The IRIAF would be worn down and pinned down by continuous American operations combined with satellite and AWACS intelligence. Add in the advantages of stealth and cruise missiles (and the Navy and Marines), and it's hard to see how an intelligently run American air offensive would run into any serious trouble.

THat's all well and good except. A) the Iranians have thier own AWACs birds to catch us before we enter thier airspace and B) They have longer ranged weapons and thus can hit our planes before we hit them. Ironicaly I think the best counter for Iranian F-14s might be the Super Hornet, it's stealthy enough that it might be able to cut down the range at which a Tomcat could get a lock on it to within range of an AMRAAM. I still think you are getting caught up on the idea of destroying planes in the air. Tom Cooper has a similar viewpoint--even though, in the thread cited here (or was in the Japanese stealth thread?), he begins by admitting that Iran really couldn't do anything to defend itself against a coordinated B-2 + cruise missile attack: But then Cooper goes on to fret over the fact that Iran could put up a good fight if the US employs other types of aircraft and weapons.(Here's the link.) Well...so what? You fight to your strength and the enemy's weakness. Cooper might as well worry about the lack of well-trained poison-dart blowgunners in the US Army, should we decide to invade the Amazon. In a war with Iran, the US would of course begin the fight by using cruise missiles and B-2's to destroy the most urgent targets (in the current circumstances, that would be whatever Iranian nuclear facilities we could identify) as well as neutralize Iranian air defense assets. As the latter are degraded, non-stealth aircraft could be brought increasingly into the mix. Iranian Tomcats aren't going to be a threat in the air if their runways are holed, their fuel and weapons stores destroyed, and the aircraft themselves wrecked on the ground. (And that's even assuming we take all of Cooper's claims about Iran's airforce at face value.)

My wife and I watched Devdas the other night. An interesting mixture of melodrama and stunning musical/dance scenes, often in counterpoint with very upbeat musical pieces followed by shattering personal disasters. It some ways it felt like a 19th century opera--La Bohème or Carmen perhaps. I get the impression that this movie is not entirely loved by people who are already familiar with Indian culture/literature, since it takes some liberties with the source material, a novel which had already been translated into film several times. In some ways, this may be the Indian equivalent of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon--a film which at heart may not equal others of the genre, but whose enormous budget has enabled it to storm the international mainstream. Nevertheless, we were overwhelmed by the sets, costuming, singing and choreography. Solscud007's description of typical song & dance numbers, while undoubtedly accurate for many films, doesn't apply here--there was nothing cliched or repetitive. Stars Aishwarya Rai, Madhuri Dixit (who is fantastic--she even dances with her eyebrows), and Shahrukh Khan, with notable supporting roles by Kiron Kher and Jackie Shroff.

Why? I don't see a need for a liev action Kiki as it will be kind alike Sabrina the teenage Witch the way things are produced here int he US. Who knows? It's Disney. But I have read that the original books are fairly different from Miyazaki's movie, so at least in theory a live-action version could be worthwhile. I'm not holding my breath, though. I plan on giving the free DVD to a friend or relative.

I don't know, but that's a nice cover. (Has Kawamori's signature at lower right.)

Where did you find them? (I've seen some of them before, just not sure where.) The one quoted above has some Japanese text showing through from the scan. Someone who's good enough with Japanese might be able to flip it, play around with the contrast/brightness/levels, and read some of the text.

US AWACS staying out of Iranian airspace do have the benefit of the IRIAF having to fight on USAF and USN terms. Indeed. The point is, if the Iranians operate completely defensively, they get targeted from a distance and they lose as their airfields, support systems, SAM sites, and radar are decimated. If they try to take the battle outside their territory by attacking US AWACS, air bases, and carriers, they lose even faster. A quick web search turns up a range of 200 miles (320 km) for the radar on the E-3 AWACS. There are probably small portions of central Iran which are more than 200 miles from the country's borders, but most of the airbases are located near the border. http://www.scramble.nl/ir.htm If necessary, those could be neutralized before attacking the deeper bases such as Esfahan.

I guess that depends on the range of the AWACS' radar. In theory, could US AWACS fly outside of any danger and provide a complete view of Iran?

The Fox Family Totoro is fine for little kids, but it doesn't have a Japanese soundtrack and it's in 4:3 (non-widescreen). Also, while the script and voice direction aren't bad, the woman who does Satsuki's voice doesn't sound like a little girl. According to Nausicaa.net, the reason for the Totoro delay is because of technical problems with the transfer. I don't see anything about interference by Fox Family. Other news from Nausicaa.net says that Disney is planning a live-action Kiki's Delivery Service. Er, whatever. When are they going to do a live action Steamboat Willy? Actually, it sounds like the new work will be based off the books by Eiko Kadano; hopefully it won't be a straight port of the cartoon to live action. Also noted: if you buy all three of Nausicaa, PR, and The Cat Returns, you can mail in for a free copy of Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service, or Castle in the Sky.