No Doubt Sues Activision

Reply

Bobster823 replied on 11-06-2009 8:29 AM

rated by 0 users

This thread reminds of me of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where Mac eats a few contracts. It was a funny episode.

Reply

jamotto replied on 11-06-2009 9:57 AM

rated by 0 users

Solatso:

After reading the article it sounds more like an issue of people needing to read the contract that they sign.

I totally agree.

mrkekeru:

And to think they were founded in protest over EA's practices back in the day. Almost funny.

How do you figure that, when EA was founded after Activision by some 3 years? I think that Activision was formed from disgruntled Atari employees.

Reply

Nemesis360 replied on 11-06-2009 10:41 AM

rated by 0 users

Activision, can you at least pretend you have a soul?

Reply

Solatso replied on 11-06-2009 10:46 AM

rated by 0 users

Just out of curiosity, and because I feel like maybe I missed something at some point, what exactly did Activision do to make them public enemiy # 1 in the gaming world?  Ya know...besides the great games we all get to play?

Reply

igorponweed replied on 11-06-2009 11:06 AM

rated by 0 users

I'm a huge No Doubt fan, and I have to say I'm behind them for now. Activision seems to be withholding info from all of the artists they use, but only some of them really care. Withholding final judgement until I we all know what the contracts said.

Reply

Hexpane replied on 11-06-2009 11:24 AM

rated by 0 users

Solatso:

Just out of curiosity, and because I feel like maybe I missed something at some point, what exactly did Activision do to make them public enemiy # 1 in the gaming world?  Ya know...besides the great games we all get to play?

Google it, there is too much  to post here.  The CEO is particularly disdainful of gamers/consumers and see's them as easy marks.

As far as "well you signed the contract" that is exactly the basis we are talking about.  It's called negotiating in good faith.. like Harmonix did w/ Beatles legacy owners.  It was very clear that it was Beatles singing beatles songs.

Activision knows that most bands are just happy to be in a music game, they negotiate these contracts and then the artists are surprised when Kurt Cobain is singing flava flav toons etc..  When you negotiate in good faith there are no surprises.

Kind of like Alan Moore and DC w/ the Watchman.  DC got one over on him w/ the comic, Alan had no recourse because of the contract he signed, the trick was DC did not fully disclose their intent, Alan had negotiated in good faith ASSUMING DC would give him back the ownership.  DC won of course, but in the long run they lost, because one of the best writers in the history of comic books never worked w/ DC again.

That is the road activision is going down. Negotiating in bad faith in order to "get one over" on artists.  They will win most times, but eventually good artists will decline to work w/ ACtivision out of principle.

I'm also not sure what "Great games" activision makes... Infinity Ward makes COD and Blizzard makes WoW.  ACtivision does things like ruin guitar hero by putting a crap developer on the project, or hurting COD brand by non IW versions (COD3, COD WAW)

Reply

Renaissance 2K replied on 11-06-2009 11:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Regardless of how successful they are in court, this does accomplish one thing of significance: bands that are approached by Activision (or vice versa) are now going to be aware of how the publisher will abuse their licenses.

It's one thing when Courtney Love does it because she's crazy, but No Doubt - regardless of what you think of their music - have a long way to go before they jump off the Courtney Love cliff.

Reply

writinguy replied on 11-06-2009 1:04 PM

rated by 0 users

See, what I am getting more from this thread is something like this:

"Activision sucks, I hate them and I want to see them punished for their perceived and real slights against gamers. They wrecked a franchise that I really liked and thus they should receive retribution for those actions no matter what the charge is."

I neither love nor hate Activision. If this lawsuit was against any other company for the exact same thing, I would still say it is stupid. As simple as that.

The simple fact is, if your band's brand is hurt by a player having the ability to play as you on other artists' songs, then you don't have a very strong one to begin with.

Reply

Solatso replied on 11-06-2009 1:05 PM

rated by 0 users

Hexpane:

Solatso:

Just out of curiosity, and because I feel like maybe I missed something at some point, what exactly did Activision do to make them public enemiy # 1 in the gaming world?  Ya know...besides the great games we all get to play?

Google it, there is too much  to post here.  The CEO is particularly disdainful of gamers/consumers and see's them as easy marks.

As far as "well you signed the contract" that is exactly the basis we are talking about.  It's called negotiating in good faith.. like Harmonix did w/ Beatles legacy owners.  It was very clear that it was Beatles singing beatles songs.

Activision knows that most bands are just happy to be in a music game, they negotiate these contracts and then the artists are surprised when Kurt Cobain is singing flava flav toons etc..  When you negotiate in good faith there are no surprises.

Kind of like Alan Moore and DC w/ the Watchman.  DC got one over on him w/ the comic, Alan had no recourse because of the contract he signed, the trick was DC did not fully disclose their intent, Alan had negotiated in good faith ASSUMING DC would give him back the ownership.  DC won of course, but in the long run they lost, because one of the best writers in the history of comic books never worked w/ DC again.

That is the road activision is going down. Negotiating in bad faith in order to "get one over" on artists.  They will win most times, but eventually good artists will decline to work w/ ACtivision out of principle.

I'm also not sure what "Great games" activision makes... Infinity Ward makes COD and Blizzard makes WoW.  ACtivision does things like ruin guitar hero by putting a crap developer on the project, or hurting COD brand by non IW versions (COD3, COD WAW)

Eh....maybe I've just been playing games for too long to care anymore.  If it's not "this company" then it's "that company" doing "horrible things to screw the consumer"  blah blah blah.  Same dog and pony show except with different participants.  It's like when you stop trying to learn the names of certain people at work because for whatever reason that position changes employees so fast that it's just not worth the effort anymore.

Everyone hated EA because of blah, blah and blah and now everyone can jump on the hate Activision train until someone else comes along and does something worse.  I guess I'm just too tired to keep up with who it's "cool to hate" this month.

Reply

mrkekeru replied on 11-06-2009 1:12 PM

rated by 0 users

jamotto:

mrkekeru:

And to think they were founded in protest over EA's practices back in the day. Almost funny.

How do you figure that, when EA was founded after Activision by some 3 years? I think that Activision was formed from disgruntled Atari employees.

Reply

Hexpane replied on 11-06-2009 1:13 PM

rated by 0 users

writinguy:

See, what I am getting more from this thread is something like this:

"Activision sucks, I hate them and I want to see them punished for their perceived and real slights against gamers. They wrecked a franchise that I really liked and thus they should receive retribution for those actions no matter what the charge is."

I neither love nor hate Activision. If this lawsuit was against any other company for the exact same thing, I would still say it is stupid. As simple as that.

The simple fact is, if your band's brand is hurt by a player having the ability to play as you on other artists' songs, then you don't have a very strong one to begin with.

Why ignore history?  Of course it matter which company it is, I don't understand this idea what we should ignore the history of a corporation's business practices?

Reply

writinguy replied on 11-06-2009 1:42 PM

rated by 0 users

History does not merit make. That's my entire point. If the case was No Doubt vs. say Take Two or Sony  or Atlus with the same facts and accusations, you would appraise the situation in an entirely different light and you have admitted that in so many words.

Reply

cheeznrice replied on 11-06-2009 1:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Do you watch Law & Order writinguy?

Reply

Solatso replied on 11-06-2009 1:50 PM

rated by 0 users

cheeznrice:

Do you watch Law & Order writinguy?

Something tells me Hexpane does

Reply

mrkekeru replied on 11-06-2009 1:53 PM

rated by 0 users

I don't like No Doubt either. They can't expect anyone to take them seriously when they're appearing in a video game in the first place. A polygonal representation singing someone else's songs isn't going to harm their 'artistic credibility' any further. Maybe there was some misconduct on Activision's behalf, maybe this whole lawsuit is frivolous. Nobody can tell without reading the contracts.