ewilen

Yes, the Supervision Army still exists as of 2009, but it seems that the Zentradi have them on the run. And yes, the reason Britai's fleet comes to the Solar System is to follow the fold signature of a Supervision Army ship (the ASS-1). See http://macross.anime.net/fallacies/errata/...aq/5/index.html and http://macross.anime.net/story/chronology/index.html The first link is corrections to a Robotech FAQ that's floating around the net. (Some newer versions of the RT FAQ incorporate the corrections already.)

Yup, I think there may have been a lot of supplies available. Plus, all the fish and shellfish that were flash-frozen after the fold. The big problem is the living space. People weren't just bunking up. They were living in houses, driving cars, eating in restaurants, going to the movies and video arcades. There was even a stadium.

Edit: This is about macronizing a Turkey. It looks kind of like they did in the episode where Kamujin kidnaps Minmay. He and his men are sitting around drinking giant bottles of wine and eating what look like enormous turkey legs. But if you squint, they could be cow hindquarters, or even mystery meat on a giant stick (kind of like eating a whole hunk of gyro meat on the spit).

HG might do this for a variety of reasons. Among them, I might speculate: a) BW/Bandai are finally bringing out the big guns and saying, "we're coming in, and if you sue us, you'll lose". They might also be threatening to sue HG for unfair trade practices (willfully misrepresenting their rights under the HG/TP contract to interfere with Bandai/BW's business) or even patent infringement (since the MPC's may infringe on the patented Matsushiro transformation method, which is probably owned by Bandai now). b) HG realizes they've just about exhausted their ability to exploit the Macross franchise, so they might as well use their remaining leverage to obtain a license for DYRL superposables. And yes, there have been some developments in the Japanese legal situation over the last few months. Take a look at the pinned thread. BW has run out of appeals in the SDF Macross copyright case, and Tatsunoko lost a trademark case against BW/Bandai. The clearer the rights situation becomes, the more both sides should be willing to deal. Put another way, once the courts have spoken definitively on all aspects of the situation, the protagonists have no choice but to negotiate any remaining conflicts.

Yes, some skepticism is justified. But there could be a reason for the delay...for example, take the scenario I suggested in another thread: BW/Bandai are letting HG have a license to release the superposables, in exchange for HG recognizing that their exclusive contract only covers SDF Macross, stopping with all the trademark shenanigans, and promising not to interfere with BW's licensing of further Macross products in the U.S. Why wouldn't HG announce this right away? Because it gives them time to sell their crappy superposables before people realize that there's much better stuff on the way. Why wouldn't BW announce this? Because they agreed to keep mum for a "decent interval" and let HG make a little money. Again, this is pure speculation. It's a possible scenario, but I have no evidence it's what's going on. I'm simply presenting it to show that there could be a good reason why HG isn't in a rush to give details on the licensing situation.

Okay, looks like a false alarm. Some of the posters at RT.com started alluding to an informal gathering they'd had with Tommy Yune in LA a short time ago, and this story came from sktchrtst2002: And then came So as far as this item is concerned, it doesn't look like HG is trying to use Macross Plus images. Also, Cyc is correct about the artist--it's Miyazawa, not Yune.

The most important point to remember is that rights can be modified through contracts. The only right that can't be transferred by contract is the author's moral right (a.k.a. "author's personal right"): the right to be identified as the author of a work, the right to control its release to the public, and the right to maintain the work's integrity. (Even then, in many cases, an author is considered to have given implied consent to the use of his work.) The rights to distribute a work and make derivatives based on it--which includes merchandise--are part of copyright. Copyright can be transferred or assigned. Also, in many legal systems (including the US) it can be broken up into almost infinitely small bits--if you have the copyright on Superduper Cosmic Battle Wars, you can sell company X an exclusive license to sell 1/170 scale plastic models in the US, and another exclusive license to make 1/100 scale diecast toys in Japan to company Y. Each company is then considered the copyright holder for that type of merchandise in that domain, but you retain copyright on everything else related to your work. So to see who has the right to make DYRL merchandise for sale in the US, you have to ask, first, who own(ed) the copyright to DYRL at the time it was created, and second, did that person or entity transfer the US merchandise copyright? 1) Because DYRL is a cinematic work, copyright would belong to the company which "[took] the initiative in, and the responsibility for" making it. (Article 2, item x here and Article 29 here.) Another requirement is that the actual creative author give his consent, but I doubt that's an issue here. In the SDF Macross animation case, the court interpreted this to mean that the company which was directly responsible for paying the bills, and which therefore undertook the economic risk, owns the copyright. But in DYRL, we have a consortium putting up the money and sharing the risk. At least, that's how the contract is structured. Even though the shares weren't equal, I think that the most likely interpretation would be that everyone in the consortium shares the copyright. 2) However, the contract I summarized shows that copyright was divided up among the various parties from the start. And it appears that Big West obtained authority over assigning licensees for merchandising. If I'm right, then TP has no right to license DYRL merchandise in Japan. And since all indications are that the October, 1982 memo between TP and BW only gave TP overseas merchandise rights for SDF Macross, it would seem that TP doesn't have merchandising rights to DYRL anywhere at all. Similarly, the video distribution rights for DYRL were assigned to Shogakukan by the contract. It doesn't matter if TP owns the original footage--they don't have the right to copy it, show it to the public, or broadcast it. Just as you don't gain the right to do those things when you buy a DVD. In short, I don't see TP owning any significant rights to DYRL other than a share of the revenues and, probably, the right to see their name on the screen. If they really are the custodians of the master print, they may also able to charge fees to access the print for copying purposes. Or they could probably sell it. Azrael, Correction: trademark infringement. I don't think so. See above. I think it's pretty clear that Shogakukan owned the exclusive distribution copyright, at least at one time. The license appears to have passed either directly or indirectly to Kiseki/Best Films for distribution of the English dub, at least in North America and Britain. Bandai, Pioneer, or Victor could conceivably now own parts of the distribution copyright in Japan, seeing as they've all been involved in video releases. I don't see any direct evidence that TP or HG own any of the distribution copyright--but HG could have bought it recently. Even so, that wouldn't matter for merchandising purposes. So as far as the Superposables are concerned, I'll just say again that my best guess is they're a sign of some kind of agreement between HG and Big West--however unlikely that may seem. This is supported by Tommy Yune recently saying "we finally got around to properly getting the license". But although HG may recognize that they need to license DYRL from BW, that doesn't mean that they've accepted BW's right to license or distribute Macross stuff outside Japan. I'd certainly like to see that, but it's still possible that HG's view of the Macross franchise will prevail in practice if not in a court of law. That is, HG could understand that it can't just "take" designs from Macross works outside the original TV series, but it could still block distribution and merchandising of those works (except in Japan).

Nope, just because TP helped make DYRL doesn't give them merchandising rights for it. HG's claims about producing the Superposables under a legitimate license remain murky. Let me see if I can summarize the information on the contracts associated with the DYRL project: The main contract was between BW, TP, Mainichi, and Shogakukan. A separate contract was concluded with Toho (the "Toho contract") for distribution and performance in cinemas. MBS got domestic television broadcasting rights. Shogakukan got video publishing rights. BW, TP, MBS, and Shogakukan negotiated the value of these rights. If I understand correctly, MBS and Shogakukan put this value into a "pot" managed by BW. The money from the Toho contract also went into the pot. Income generated through merchandising was added to the pot, but BW first deducted a 10% commission. Finally, BW distributed the pot to the "equity participants". I assume this means that the pot was divvied up based on the share of the initial investment. In other words, TP got a share of the total income generated by DYRL, in proportion to its investment. The findings of fact show that out of total production costs of 200,020,000 yen, BW paid 100 million yen while the other three investors each paid 1/3 of the remainder. So TP owns a 16.67% stake. Also, I must correct myself about TP "manufacturing" DYRL. What the findings actually say is that TP made the animation. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that means that TP was assigned ownership or management of the original footage. However, some rather murky language seems to say that BW and TP made arrangements regarding other production aspects (story, character, voice actors, etc.) and the copyrights thereto.So the "maker" of DYRL for copyright purposes isn't clear, and in any case the copyright could be assigned by contract.

I haven't yet turned up the February, 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court, but I did come across another interesting legal development that hasn't been reported yet. On November 11, 2003, the Tokyo District Court issued a (provisional?) judgment on a suit brought by Tatsunoko against Bandai and Big West. From my reading of the akamai-based machine translation at excite.co.jp, it appears that TP was claiming trademark infringement against Bandai and BW because of their release of Macros Zero. TP sought an injunction against Bandai/BW distributing DVDs and videos with the word "Macross" on the cover, or using "Macross" in advertisements, etc. Tatsunoko lost the case completely--their claims were dismissed and they were assigned all of the court costs. Some interesting points: 1) Tatsunoko claimed that it was the maker not only of SDF Macross, but of DYRL. And in fact, the court's finding of facts recognizes that the official announcement credits TP as the manufacturer of DYRL. However, the findings also show that there was a contract between BW, TP, Mainichi Broadcasting System, and Shogakukan, by which various rights were assigned in relation to the movie. According to this contract, BW was assigned "management of merchandising rights", while MBS and Shogakukan got the broadcast and video rights. 2) The findings of fact in this case have perhaps the most detailed description of the October, 2002 memorandum between BW and TP. But the summary of the memorandum still doesn't explicitly address rights to sequels. (However, see the next item.) 3) While the case is mainly over trademark and unfair competition, it touches tangentially on the various sequels' copyright status. The findings note that for all announcements concerning Macross II, M+, and M7, Big West was displayed as copyright owner, and there was no display of Tatsunoko. This goes against TP's trademark claims. 4) As far as I can tell, TP lost the trademark case because the word "Macross" has not been associated specifically with works created by TP, but instead with a variety of goods created by a consortium including TP, Studio Nue, BW, etc. The Japanese text of the judgment can be found at Translan here. It should also be available at courts.go.jp, but I've only been able to locate a Google cache of it there. Here's a link to the cache. Edit: the cache link doesn't work anymore, but here's another site which has the text of the judgment.

Looks like there has been a minor development on the legal front in Japan: http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20040214-00002076-mai-soci http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20040213...00181-kyodo-ent The first reads: Translation via excite.co.jpg: The second reads: Translation: What I believe this means is that Studio Nue appealed the judgment over the SDF Macross animation, which was originally decided in Tokyo District Court in favor of Tatsunoko Productions and subsequently upheld by the Tokyo High Court. The "2nd petit bench" of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, however. I have a hunch the appeal may have been related to "problems with the judgment" raised in IP/Cyberlaw Watch. In any case, it's unlikely that the appeal affects ownership of the Macross franchise as a whole. I'm going to see if I can find the actual text from the Supreme Court. If I do, I'll post a link.

Boys, boys--play nice! Regardless of what Keith may have said on other topics, in this case he clearly labelled his opinion as a guess: It's a theory, a hypothesis. It can be proved or disproved based on further evidence, if evidence is ever forthcoming. (In fact, I'd say it was disproved later in the thread.)

I liked SC better than NG when I watched them in their RT incarnations. But I have to agree with Agent ONE--if it didn't catch on when it was originally made, it would be foolish to spend resources on it when there's more popular stuff available to be exploited. It would be tempting to blame it all on the English voice acting and/or the more severe editing that SC underwent--but if those are the reasons, why was SC a dud in Japan, too?

All right in what sense? They're bootlegs. If you have concerns about that, don't buy them. Otherwise, get them from this guy, or from Valkyrie Exchange, or from lots of other places.

Estacado06479, legally, you may have a point with your little tu quoque. But not entirely, since copying DVD's is flat out piracy; importing stuff outside of its licensed area isn't. The US legal code does distinguish between the two in certain ways. And morally, you're plain wrong. When people buy bootlegs or download copies, the original creators of the work get no compensation. Importing Yamato toys bears absolutely no resemblence in that respect.

But they did sue FASA into the ground a decade ago. Playmates was also on board, though, so I don't know who paid most of the bills.

That would be clearer as "HG leaves the small import shops alone because of HG's weak legal standing." Which is probably true. HG tried to scare the import shops off with emails and cease and desist letters, but they never followed up with any lawsuits.

No no no. Take a look at Jeleinen's caveats. The defend it or lose it system only applies to trademark, not copyright.

Ali Sama, importing stuff for personal use is not copyright infringement. I recently posted about this over in the license debate thread, complete with links to the relevant US Code.

My main concern is that MW not be exposed to any kind of liability for "facilitating" illegal activities. Apparently there's a legal concept of "contributory liability". Here's one discussion. The article provides a hypothetical case in which a Web site contains links to another site containing materials which infringe on someone's copyright. While the article notes that "there is not yet any caselaw directly addressing the issue of a Web site operator's liability for contributory...copyright infringement", and while other discussions I've found raise the point that there are strong countervailing freedom of speech issues, we all know that litigation is often won by default simply because one side has the money and the other doesn't.

I agree--basically, I have no trouble with the fansubber "code" as long it isn't used speciously to suggest that fansubs are technically more legal than other bootlegs. Stamen0083--we actually have had people mention where to get the HK DVDs of M7 & M0, and discussions of the quality of this or that version. I've even seen listings in the forsale/wanted forums. You do know that the only way to watch M7 in English, or on a non-R2 player, is on an HK (bootleg) DVD or a downloaded fansub, don't you? And the same is true of M0, at least for the time being. I was under the impression that stuff like that is fair game. That's why I'd like to know what the rules are.

You can find a lot of info on this by searching Google and Google groups. The lawsuits date from around 1994/5 and actually began with a suit by FASA against Playmates. IIRC FASA had wanted to make some toys based on Battletech and showed the idea to Playmates; Playmates didn't bite but later made Exosquad, which FASA considered a ripoff of their idea. The incorporation of Robotech toys into Exosquad only occurred later and seems to have been related to HG/Playmates countersuing FASA. Playmates barely avoided losing the suit brought by FASA; the countersuit resulted in a settlement well before it could be brought to judgment.

All this historical discussion is off-topic. If you want to discuss the decision to drop The Bomb, please take it somewhere else. (You also might want to do some reading of educated arguments on both sides.)

Hang on a sec. I realize that there's a lot of legal, ethical, and moral doublespeak surrounding these issues, but I want to make clear that when there's a legitimate R1 release of a product, I wouldn't encourage anyone to seek a downloadable fansub or HK-type bootleg of it--except possibly to supplement the translation. I'd also prefer to keep talk of doing so out of MW.

Is the ban written out in black and white? I don't see it in the forum rules, so I'm not even sure what's being discussed here. I see a lot of topics about HK bootlegs and downloadable fansubs; and they don't seem to run into any real trouble. Every once in a while somebody solicits info or help copying something that's licensed in the US (like the RT or Animeigo Macross DVD's), and they're generally greeted with a deafening silence. Which is as it should be in my opinion. Is there a grey area in between that I'm unaware of?

Well, I emailed Manga pointing out that the image was the same as on the cover of their M+ OAV DVD vol. 2 and asking if they were aware of what's going on. So maybe that will help set the wheels in motion.