Posted on 01/31/2005 7:41:53 AM PST by pabianice
January 31, 2005: For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands.
This move grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize "intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business.
Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers.
Do you have the link to the original article?
It never ends!!
Zing! You get the last word.
You're special.
Thanks for noticing. It's the first thing you have gotten correct on all the threads I have seen you post to so far.
ping
This has been happening for some time. It is not something that is unexpectedly new. I collected model airplanes in the late 1950's to late 1960's. Many of the 1/72nd scale WWI and WWII fighters cost 49 cents. Midsized bombers cost 98 cents. Larger bombers were never over $2. Of course, the 1/48 scale were more. I could afford them on a weekly newspaper delivery boys salary.
When my kids were in their early teens, I wanted to introduce them to plastic models. I found that they were more expensive than what you would expect from inflation alone. That has been 10 years ago, but they basically priced themselves out of business. My kids were not interested.
I know that new moulds cost a lot more now, but most of what is being made is being made from the same moulds that were made 40 years ago. They should be paid for by now.
Take it back to DU.
> Your tendencies are all liberal.
Hogwash. Only a troll would try to put over the notion that having to pay to use the *image* of public domain designs is a good, Conservative value.
And, for that very reason, Boeing, et al will go to the mat -- if that's what it takes -- willfully engaging in a legal strategy of attrition, until they drive the last kit-maker out of business.
The biggest litigation budget will win the argument. Under those circumstances, the kit-makers really can't afford to "stand and fight".
My guess is that in most of these cases, an out of court settlement will be reached involving a limited use, non-transferrable, royalty free license.
I just don't see the big aerospace and defence companies wanting to take this all the way to jury since they have so much to loose in the event kit-makers/game-makers/others pool legal resources in a joint defense or, that some third party financing be provided to the kitmakers for purposes of their legal defence.
Who did that newbie?
Buy one of them two-handled kites....this spring. Your jedi's will have a blast with it...You and your other half will probably like it too.
Be well, be good.
Best FRegards,
> Who did that newbie?
That would be YOU, since that's what's under discussion, and you are the one taking the opposing side to those of us who recognize that public domain = public domain.
Despite what some ignorant people have implied, the market may well not *legally* work around this minor "problem." No American model manufacturer, from the guys like me doing it as a hobby to the "giants" like Monogram, have the time or resources to fight this sort of nonsense. Packing it in and doing something else is a valid response when the cost of doing business becomes too high.
And how much did the taxpayer pay in development cost? Our intellecutal property laws need reform.
Cite the post or crawl back to AOL son.
ping
> I just don't see the big aerospace and defence companies wanting to take this all the way to jury since they have so much to loose in the event kit-makers/game-makers/others pool legal resources in a joint defense
*What* do they have to lose? They've got lawyers on payroll. The kit-makers/game-makers/others have no legal resources to pool. I know I sure as hell don't. If I sell those Boeing X-20 Dyna Soar models and Boeing sends a lawyer after me, I simply have no way to fight them.
Packing it in is what happens. That's called the free market. Liberals like you don't like the free market.
Copy rights don't equal public domain kid.
> I never addressed anything that was in the public domain.
Ye gods. THIS WHOLE THREAD is about designs in the public domain. "The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands."
Or are you admitting that you couldn't actually be bothered to read anything, and you're just here to stir up trouble? That *does* seem to match what you're up to.
Now, be a good troll and go report back to DU about all the progress you've made...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.