The End of Fighting is Magic in a Nutshell (Man of Steel Parody)

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

Pen drawn comic depicting Hasbro's C&D against Fighting is Magic. Depicted by parodying the launch scene from Man of Steel.

[ninjamon102938 222]

Pretty funny, at least we still get the game...just not in the way it was originally intended

[Guest]

It should read more like:

 

"We made a fighting game Hasbro, using your licensed product and we're going to offer it for free so that you do not many any money off of your own product, and if you try and stop us, we will get a bunch of fans to say how wrong you are for protecting your intellectual property and call you bad names."

 

Then have Hasbro not giving a damn.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

It should read more like:

 

"We made a fighting game Hasbro, using your licensed product and we're going to offer it for free so that you do not many any money off of your own product, and if you try and stop us, we will get a bunch of fans to say how wrong you are for protecting your intellectual property and call you bad names."

 

Then have Hasbro not giving a damn.

The dialogue I used follows Man of Steel's script more accurately.

If I used yours there would be no point to using the Man of Steel characters/dialogue.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Brony (MG11)

[Guest]

The dialogue I used follows Man of Steel's script more accurately.

If I used yours there would be no point to using the Man of Steel characters/dialogue.

My point was it would be more accurate that way, but okay.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

"What've you done?" = Hasbro's Awareness of the Game

 

Jor El's dialogue = Bronies and Mane 6's intention for the game

 

"Heresy!" = Hasbro realizing the unauthorized distribution of their intellectual property

 

"Destroy It!" = Hasbro Sending the C&D

 

*I assume that's pretty accurate, it's just not literal*

 

I also assume later that Zod (Hasbro) kills Jor El (Hasbro unphased by the Bronies) but then Lady Lara (Lauren Faust) allows the the capsule to take off (Hence representing Faust's involvement with Mane 6 and the new iteration of Fighting is Magic).

-Why didn't I draw this...Lady Lara. Lauren Faust. Haha!

Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Brony (MG11)

[Yellow Diamond 7,568]

Somehow this set up kept getting funnier each time I looked at it. Nice use of fantastically hammy dialogue (in the best sense of the term) in an otherwise mediocre film.

[Guest]

"What've you done?" = Hasbro's Awareness of the Game

 

Jor El's dialogue = Bronies and Mane 6's intention for the game

 

"Heresy!" = Hasbro realizing the unauthorized distribution of their intellectual property

 

"Destroy It!" = Hasbro Sending the C&D

 

*I assume that's pretty accurate, it's just not literal*

 

I also assume later that Zod (Hasbro) kills Jor El (Hasrbo unphased by the Bronies) but then Lady Lara (Lauren Faust) allows the the capsule to take off (Hence representing Faust's involvement with Mane 6 and the new iteration of Fighting is Magic).

-Why didn't I draw this...Lady Lara. Lauren Faust. Haha!

Yes, but in the film, Zod is the evil one who wants to destroy the Earth to build a new empire. Hasbro is not the villains here.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

Yes, but in the film, Zod is the evil one who wants to destroy the Earth to build a new empire. Hasbro is not the villains here.

Ah another who misinterprets the conflict.

Zod's not evil nor is he a villain in technical terms, in the conflict there is no wrong or right. It was a battle of conflicting interests. Zod is only doing his duty because he was bred to do his job, hence it is his life's only purpose. He isn't malicious, he's just doing his job. Just like Hasbro did.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Brony (MG11)

[Guest]

Ah another who misinterprets the conflict.

Zod's not a villain in technical terms, in the conflict there is no wrong or right. It was a battle of conflicting interests. Zod is only doing his duty because he was bred to do his job, hence it is his life's only purpose. He isn't malicious, he's just doing his job. Just like Hasbro did.

Oh no, I understand the conflict just fine. I loved the film, and I watched it a few times. However just because he is doing what he is obligated to do, does not make him NOT a villain. He is merely a villain by design.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

He's not a villain though. Sure he's an antagonist, but in no sense is he evil or malicious. He's doing it to protect his interests. As any leader, company, country, or organization would.

 

If you want a villain look at the original Zod. Hellbent on conquering the earth and all people.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Brony (MG11)

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Meh.  If I were the Fighting is Magic director, I would have ignored Hasbro's C&D letter.  I would complete the project and release it via Russian and Indonesian hosted web servers.  At the end of the day, Fighting is Magic does not cost them a dime in lost revenue. They know this, and they would not pursue international legal action; that would be very expensive, and would gain them nothing.  It's unfortunate the the developers were so easily cowed by some lawyers in California who have zero real leverage.

[Guest]

Meh.  If I were the Fighting is Magic director, I would have ignored Hasbro's C&D letter.  I would complete the project and release it via Russian and Indonesian hosted web servers.  At the end of the day, Fighting is Magic does not cost them a dime in lost revenue. They know this, and they would not pursue international legal action; that would be very expensive, and would gain them nothing.  It's unfortunate the the developers were so easily cowed by some lawyers in California who have zero real leverage.

That is not true at all. Hasbro has a game with Gameloft with paid options and ads. It is how they generate revenue. However if a game is released that is free and ad-free it's like offering a free alternative to people. They may be two different types of games, but free alternatives create a threat to their business. Not to mention MLP is their brand, it's their identity. Let's say Fighting is Magic was finished, and Mane6 decided for whatever reason to add cursing into the game. The game was mainstream enough to where many people could mistake it for an official work even with those disclaimers. It could create a negative image for Hasbro. When you let someone undertake a project that big which you have no control over, they could turn around and hurt your brand.

 

Also by your logic, art thieves are not all free to do as they please. Just because you are not profiting from it does not mean you are not hurting someone or stealing. If someone were to steal my art, I don't care if they make money or not, I want that art taken down because it's MINE.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

Meh.  If I were the Fighting is Magic director, I would have ignored Hasbro's C&D letter.  I would complete the project and release it via Russian and Indonesian hosted web servers.  At the end of the day, Fighting is Magic does not cost them a dime in lost revenue. They know this, and they would not pursue international legal action; that would be very expensive, and would gain them nothing.  It's unfortunate the the developers were so easily cowed by some lawyers in California who have zero real leverage.

I'm still mad at Shout Factory for abusing YouTube's copyright system over FiM episodes.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

That is not true at all. Hasbro has a game with Gameloft with paid options and ads. It is how they generate revenue. However if a game is released that is free and ad-free it's like offering a free alternative to people. They may be two different types of games, but free alternatives create a threat to their business. Not to mention MLP is their brand, it's their identity. Let's say Fighting is Magic was finished, and Mane6 decided for whatever reason to add cursing into the game. The game was mainstream enough to where many people could mistake it for an official work even with those disclaimers. It could create a negative image for Hasbro. When you let someone undertake a project that big which you have no control over, they could turn around and hurt your brand.

 

Also by your logic, art thieves are not all free to do as they please. Just because you are not profiting from it does not mean you are not hurting someone or stealing. If someone were to steal my art, I don't care if they make money or not, I want that art taken down because it's MINE.

 

It's a grey area in a financial standpoint, rather than a legal standpoint.  By that, I mean they would lose more money by fighting the unofficial product than they would if they ignored it.  They know this (which is why they ignore the thousands of unauthorized plushie sales), and only throw their weight around if/when they think they can intimidate the other party.

[Guest]

It's a grey area in a financial standpoint, rather than a legal standpoint.  By that, I mean they would lose more money by fighting the unofficial product than they would if they ignored it.  They know this (which is why they ignore the thousands of unauthorized plushie sales), and only throw their weight around if/when they think they can intimidate the other party.

So that makes stealing okay then? Because you can get away with it?

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

So that makes stealing okay then? Because you can get away with it?

 

Correct.  In the world of intellectual property law, the cold truth is that it's only worth fighting for if winning the fight is more profitable than ignoring it.  In many cases, it isn't.

[FractalMoon 378]

Pen drawn comic depicting Hasbro's C&D against Fighting is Magic. Depicted by parodying the launch scene from Man of Steel.

Kinda funny, but completely inaccurate. To be more accurate:

"We're making a game that will be free for everyone, and as such we're going to accept donations."

"Sorry, but if we don't shut you down we'll lose the rights to the show and Friendship is Magic will cease to exist."

"Alright."

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

That is not true at all. Hasbro has a game with Gameloft with paid options and ads. It is how they generate revenue. However if a game is released that is free and ad-free it's like offering a free alternative to people. They may be two different types of games, but free alternatives create a threat to their business. Not to mention MLP is their brand, it's their identity. Let's say Fighting is Magic was finished, and Mane6 decided for whatever reason to add cursing into the game. The game was mainstream enough to where many people could mistake it for an official work even with those disclaimers. It could create a negative image for Hasbro. When you let someone undertake a project that big which you have no control over, they could turn around and hurt your brand.

 

Also by your logic, art thieves are not all free to do as they please. Just because you are not profiting from it does not mean you are not hurting someone or stealing. If someone were to steal my art, I don't care if they make money or not, I want that art taken down because it's MINE.

Fighting is Magic doesn't draw away customers from the Gameloft App, it's crappy overpriced micro transactions and Parasprite invasions do.

A digital Celestia that does not benefit the game should not cost $90.

I could've bought a good full game for that money.

Kinda funny, but completely inaccurate. To be more accurate:

"We're making a game that will be free for everyone, and as such we're going to accept donations."

"Sorry, but if we don't shut you down we'll lose the rights to the show and Friendship is Magic will cease to exist."

"Alright."

*Facepalm*

I've already gone over this..

[Guest]

Fighting is Magic doesn't draw away customers from the Gameloft App, it's crappy overpriced micro transactions and Parasprite invasions do.

A digital Celestia that does not benefit the game should not cost $90.

I could've bought a good full game for that money.

None the less, whether you like it or not, ripping off their IP and using their trademarked characters which they paid for is still illegal and they have the right to defend their case.

 

 

Correct.  In the world of intellectual property law, the cold truth is that it's only worth fighting for if winning the fight is more profitable than ignoring it.  In many cases, it isn't.

So what you're saying is that I can rip off anything of yours and it's okay because to hold me accountable would be more than it's worth, so you should just bend over and take it. You're more or less advocating theft because you can get away with it, and that's the kind of attitude which makes me respect bronies less and less. This ridiculous notion of self-entitlement to an IP that they do not own. I mean I have seen trying to argue that they are not ripping off the IP, but this is the first I have ever seen anyone blatantly say that they are blatantly ripping it off and Hasbro should just accept it because they do not have the power to stop it unless they want to lose money.

 

You are literally saying that because it would cost Hasbro too much to benefit them to stop you from doing the wrong thing, that you are not at fault at all for doing the wrong thing, but Hasbro is for wanting people to not steal their trademarked characters which they paid for, licensed and created for you to enjoy. You repay them by ripping off their property and when asked to stop laugh in their face and tell them they can't stop you.

 

By your logic, I can pickpocket $50 out of your wallet and you should just accept it because it'll cost more than $50 to take me to court and get it back and prove I took it. You are advocating a world where stealing is okay so long as you are not taking enough to where it would justify taking someone to court.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

None the less, whether you like it or not, ripping off their IP and using their trademarked characters which they paid for is still illegal and they have the right to defend their case.

 

 

So what you're saying is that I can rip off anything of yours and it's okay because to hold me accountable would be more than it's worth, so you should just bend over and take it. You're more or less advocating theft because you can get away with it, and that's the kind of attitude which makes me respect bronies less and less. This ridiculous notion of self-entitlement to an IP that they do not own. I mean I have seen trying to argue that they are not ripping off the IP, but this is the first I have ever seen anyone blatantly say that they are blatantly ripping it off and Hasbro should just accept it because they do not have the power to stop it unless they want to lose money.

 

You are literally saying that because it would cost Hasbro too much to benefit them to stop you from doing the wrong thing, that you are not at fault at all for doing the wrong thing, but Hasbro is for wanting people to not steal their trademarked characters which they paid for, licensed and created for you to enjoy. You repay them by ripping off their property and when asked to stop laugh in their face and tell them they can't stop you.

 

By your logic, I can pickpocket $50 out of your wallet and you should just accept it because it'll cost more than $50 to take me to court and get it back and prove I took it. You are advocating a world where stealing is okay so long as you are not taking enough to where it would justify taking someone to court.

 

Nice slippery slope.  Anyways, overall, yes.  Reality and financial bottom lines mean that it's generally a waste of time for some multi-billion dollar corporation to chase down one or two nobodies over a potential loss of some relatively minor revenue stream.  Legally, they are entitled to do so, but financially they often won't (for the reasons you and I already described).

 

I'm not saying it's ethical or unethical, just that it's a viable approach for the people who are just trying to express their artistic appreciation for the product.

 

The wallet analogy is absurd for obvious reasons: the $50 in your wallet is real in your scenario, and Hasbro's $50 is imaginary or based on conjecture.

 

EDIT: for clarification, I never speak in terms of "right" and "wrong" (not in this thread, and not in any other thread)...I'm really only looking at the issue in terms of practicality from a business and legal standpoint.  And anyone with a background in legal standpoints can tell you that "right" and "wrong" seldom factor into that equation.

Edited January 18, 2014 by NLR Information Minister

[Guest]

Nice slippery slope.  Anyways, overall, yes.  Reality and financial bottom lines mean that it's generally a waste of time for some multi-billion dollar corporation to chase down one or two nobodies over a potential loss of some relatively minor revenue stream.  Legally, they are entitled to do so, but financially they often won't (for the reasons you and I already described).

 

I'm not saying it's ethical or unethical, just that it's a viable approach for the people who are just trying to express their artistic appreciation for the product.

 

The wallet analogy is absurd for obvious reasons: the $50 in your wallet is real in your scenario, and Hasbro's $50 is imaginary or based on conjecture.

That is not a slippery slope, it's what you said. It's okay to steal so long as it doesn't take enough to justify action. You are LITERALLY 100% saying that it's okay to steal "a little". It's not a slippery slope because you blatantly said that you advocated going against Hasbro's threat of a lawsuit to just make the game anyways. Taking someone IP without permission is stealing. Period. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

You are literally saying that we shouldn't be good people and not take that which is not ours because no one can stop us, even when asked not to. You already said up there that despite Hasbro telling them to stop that they should do it anyways because it would cost Hasbro more to stop them than its worth. You're advocating being disgusting human beings by taking advantage of the fact that the principle is worth less than the payoff.

 

It's not absurd, because it uses the same logic. However here's one that uses the same "imaginary" items.

 

You make a nice comic that you distribute for free. I take said comic and make modifications without permission. And when you tell me to stop, I tell you to shove it and take me to court. I'm not outing you any money right? I mean I am totally still ripping off your idea without permission, but that's okay because it will cost more to take me to court and get me to stop than it's worth right? Hell, I could make money off ripping off your comic, so long as I don't make enough to where suing me would exceed what it would cost for your lawyer and court expenses. What does a good lawyer run? Maybe a couple thousand dollars?

 

Hell even if I wasn't making money, I am still definitely being an asshole. That is what you are advocating: being an asshole and acting like you are entitled to something that you are 100% not entitled to and justifying it by saying "well no one can stop me."

Meh.  If I were the Fighting is Magic director, I would have ignored Hasbro's C&D letter.  I would complete the project and release it via Russian and Indonesian hosted web servers.  At the end of the day, Fighting is Magic does not cost them a dime in lost revenue. They know this, and they would not pursue international legal action; that would be very expensive, and would gain them nothing.  It's unfortunate the the developers were so easily cowed by some lawyers in California who have zero real leverage.

 

You already said this, you can't back pedal now. You clearly stated here that you advocated doing the wrong thing.

 

 

And anyone with a background in legal standpoints can tell you that "right" and "wrong" seldom factor into that equation.

 

 

Also I do love the "every schoolboy knows" fallacy.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

That is not a slippery slope, it's what you said. It's okay to steal so long as it doesn't take enough to justify action. You are LITERALLY 100% saying that it's okay to steal "a little". It's not a slippery slope because you blatantly said that you advocated going against Hasbro's threat of a lawsuit to just make the game anyways. Taking someone IP without permission is stealing. Period. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it.

 

You are literally saying that we shouldn't be good people and not take that which is not ours because no one can stop us, even when asked not to. You already said up there that despite Hasbro telling them to stop that they should do it anyways because it would cost Hasbro more to stop them than its worth. You're advocating being disgusting human beings by taking advantage of the fact that the principle is worth less than the payoff.

 

It's not absurd, because it uses the same logic. However here's one that uses the same "imaginary" items.

 

You make a nice comic that you distribute for free. I take said comic and make modifications without permission. And when you tell me to stop, I tell you to shove it and take me to court. I'm not outing you any money right? I mean I am totally still ripping off your idea without permission, but that's okay because it will cost more to take me to court and get me to stop than it's worth right? Hell, I could make money off ripping off your comic, so long as I don't make enough to where suing me would exceed what it would cost for your lawyer and court expenses. What does a good lawyer run? Maybe a couple thousand dollars?

 

Hell even if I wasn't making money, I am still definitely being an asshole. That is what you are advocating: being an asshole and acting like you are entitled to something that you are 100% not entitled to and justifying it by saying "well no one can stop me."

 

You already said this, you can't back pedal now. You clearly stated here that you advocated doing the wrong thing.

 

Step off your high horse, bro.  What you are describing is exactly what Hasbro does on a daily basis.  They arbitrarily pick and choose which unauthorized creations they will go after.  Some people call their bluff, and others don't.  If you really do see the business of online tributes/parodies as being as black and white as what you're describing, then I feel sorry for you.

[Captain Brony (MG11) 218]

None the less, whether you like it or not, ripping off their IP and using their trademarked characters which they paid for is still illegal and they have the right to defend their case.

 

 

 

So what you're saying is that I can rip off anything of yours and it's okay because to hold me accountable would be more than it's worth, so you should just bend over and take it. You're more or less advocating theft because you can get away with it, and that's the kind of attitude which makes me respect bronies less and less. This ridiculous notion of self-entitlement to an IP that they do not own. I mean I have seen trying to argue that they are not ripping off the IP, but this is the first I have ever seen anyone blatantly say that they are blatantly ripping it off and Hasbro should just accept it because they do not have the power to stop it unless they want to lose money.

 

You are literally saying that because it would cost Hasbro too much to benefit them to stop you from doing the wrong thing, that you are not at fault at all for doing the wrong thing, but Hasbro is for wanting people to not steal their trademarked characters which they paid for, licensed and created for you to enjoy. You repay them by ripping off their property and when asked to stop laugh in their face and tell them they can't stop you.

 

By your logic, I can pickpocket $50 out of your wallet and you should just accept it because it'll cost more than $50 to take me to court and get it back and prove I took it. You are advocating a world where stealing is okay so long as you are not taking enough to where it would justify taking someone to court.

Whoa Bud you need to slow the heck down.

First off at no point whatsoever did I say they were not justified so stop acting like I did say that. All I wanted to do was create an over-dramatization of a situation that inconvenienced thousands of Internet-goers to express my empathy with them through comedy while also parodying a movie I like.

 

Second you're blowing his point WAY out of proportion. He's only trying to expose the reality of the relationship between fan work and trademark property. If it wasn't like this, then the company would lose tremendous amounts of money suing thousands of worldwide fan-artists, fan-fiction writers, fan-animators/Film artists, and any other individual with productive/artistic skill. The thought of ever doing that is improbable in a business sense.

And I have to agree your wallet analogy was a little out there.

 

I might just lock this if no relevant comments arise.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Brony (MG11)

[Guest]

Step off your high horse, bro.  What you are describing is exactly what Hasbro does on a daily basis.  They arbitrarily pick and choose which unauthorized creations they will go after.  Some people call their bluff, and others don't.  If you really do see the business of online tributes/parodies as being as black and white as what you're describing, then I feel sorry for you.

Ummmm no, you have it all wrong.

 

Legally speaking if you use their licensed product, they can ask you to shut it down. It's a little thing called respect. You're more or less saying that we don't need to be respectful unless we are forced to. If someone owns something you're using and asks you not to use it, and you just spit in their face and tell them to try and stop you, you're a prick. Plain and simple. I know that the parody laws are quite grey, but it's a matter of are you REALLY paying tribute to Hasbro if you would so easily spit in their face when they told you not to use their product without their permission? Are you really honoring them? I am sure Hasbro was flattered that the game was being made, but for whatever reason they saw it as a threat to their IP (since neither you or I are Hasbro, we can not safely determine why) and asked it to stop. If you turn around and say "nope", you're an asshole. Simple as that.

Whoa Bud you need to slow the heck down.

First off at no point whatsoever did I say they were not justified so stop acting like I did say that. All I wanted to do was create an over-dramatization of a situation that inconvenienced thousands of Internet-goers to express my empathy with them through comedy while also parodying a movie I like.

 

Second you're blowing his point WAY out of proportion. He's only trying to expose the reality of the relationship between fan work and trademark property. If it wasn't like this, then the company would lose tremendous amounts of money suing thousands of worldwide fan-artists, fan-fiction writers, fan-animators/Film artists, and any other individual with productive/artistic skill. The thought of ever doing that is improbable in a business sense.

And I have to agree your wallet analogy was a little out there.

 

I might just lock this if no relevant comments arise.

I apologize, it's just annoying to me, because this is the same logic and argument people use to justify art theft, which happens constantly. It more or less is just going "don't do the right thing unless you're forced to."