Spiderman, Sony vs Marvel

Over marketing, the movie will go on by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:27 · Score: 0

See aicn for more.

Sony? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-04-17 08:28 · Score: 2, Funny

What, that was the guy with the silver skin wasn't he?

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

as in it's probably bullshit, or at the very least exagerated..

Ie; "The loss of SPIDERMAN could affect all of SONY's future financial plans for its U.S. entertainment company"

Yeah, I'm sure sony has no other way of making money and will file chapter 7 because of a little spiderman tiff.

Re:EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT by SoftCoreHonesty · 2003-04-17 08:47 · Score: 1

Let's see - they made $400 Million on the first movie. Let's say they would make another $500 Million on the other two (conservative in case the sequels suck). That is a pretty big hit to any companies financial plans. He doesn't say that it will bankrupt them. After all they have the Charlie's Angels movie coming soon and Anger Management already out and they also inked a $1.7B output deal with Starz a while back.

If I take $10 out of your wallet right now would it bankrupt you. No but it might affect your future dinner plans.
Re:EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT by bomb_number_20 · 2003-04-17 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

don't be a fucktard.

Most of drudge's stories are just links to articles in other publications, most of whom get their news through AP or Reuters (their validity is an entirely separate argument). What you're complaining about is the focus he chooses to use for compiling his articles.

sensationalistic? yes. but that doesnt mean he's wrong. the bigger problem is the same one that plagues /., no one bothers to read the articles. they glance at the headlines and then act like they've read the whole thing.

--
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
Re:EXLUSIVE DRUDGE REPORT by AceM2 · 2003-04-17 10:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Freakin AC.. It said it *could affect* future financial plans.. Not that Drudge thought SONY would go under just because of a movie. I mean seriously.. If I see a new video card and decide I wanna buy it.. shelling out the $300 out of my checking account is going to *affect my future financial plans*.. As in.. I'm going to have to save more than I planned to buy some new games or whatever.. If you wanna come down on someone for bullshitting, at least have a good reason.

What a waste by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Seems silly to be arguing over MILLIONS

Stygg

Easy way out by fjordboy · 2003-04-17 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Stan lee just has to "discover" a couple of "unpublished" comic strips that involve Spiderman being gay and dying in some way. Sony and Marvel won't touch spiderman w/ a ten foot pole after that! The creative power is still in Lee's hands...he just needs to make use of it! Sony and Marvel will give up their claims...and Lee will get royalties galore! Easy solution.

--
The anti-salmon

Re:Easy way out by NineNine · 2003-04-17 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Even better. In the next issues, it comes out that Spiderman is a pedophile!! Sony would drop that faster than a hot potato. Then Stan Lee spins the plot (after Sony went away) so that it was all some evil plot to frame Spiderman. Everything's right in the world again.
Re:Easy way out by fjordboy · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Exactly! After making my initial post, I realized that Spiderman coming out of the closet wouldn't be all that shocking to begin with...I'm sure after watching the movie most people could have assumed that.

Why does *every* superhero have to wear skin-tight suits? Decreased wind resistent *can't* be the only reason...

--
The anti-salmon
Re:Easy way out by RLiegh · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 1

(after Sony went away)

Send in the clones, bring in the clones...
Re:Easy way out by NineNine · 2003-04-17 08:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually, there are gay superheroes already. Like Ben Affleck as Daredevil, for example! I don't believe that J-Lo thing for a second. It just screams "publicity stunt".
Re:Easy way out by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:48 · Score: 0

You'd have to be gay to turn down Kirsten Dunst lookin that hot. Time for love or not, at least have your way with with her a few times, they're both single. I mean damn, just look at that shit, she's all sorts of fine.
Re:Easy way out by calethix · 2003-04-17 08:55 · Score: 1, Funny

" Stan lee just has to "discover" a couple of "unpublished" comic strips that involve Spiderman being gay and dying in some way. Sony and Marvel won't touch spiderman w/ a ten foot pole after that! The creative power is still in Lee's hands...he just needs to make use of it! Sony and Marvel will give up their claims...and Lee will get royalties galore! Easy solution."

and then after Sony forgets about Spider-Man, we'll find out that he really got aids from the spider, not the rumored gay boyfriend.
Re:Easy way out by King_TJ · 2003-04-17 08:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Heh.... I hate to say it, but I think Stan Lee might be the LAST person on earth to even consider a remotely "risque" situation in one of his comic strips.

As much as I think Spiderman is a great superhero concept, the Sunday comic strip (which Stan Lee supposedly does himself) is *lame*!

I guess he's trying to make sure it's ok for younger kids to read and everything, but come on! The stilted conversations are almost unbearable. There's much more suspense and sense of believability in the dialog of "Brenda Starr", for crying out loud!
Re:Easy way out by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:58 · Score: 0

But is she a bitch? Mabe he knew that she was and turned her down because of that. Corse if i was spidey id of been like "Your dad commited suicide" and then if the kid tried to kill me i'd bring up a 9 in his dome and then have durst foevah never having to worry bout my former friend.
Re:Easy way out by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2003-04-17 09:15 · Score: 1

You mean like Ace and Gary, the Ambiguously Gay Duo?

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Easy way out by Saint+Nobody · 2003-04-17 09:20 · Score: 1

this gets a little more interesting with the context that, in j. michael straczynski's current run, spider-man is now a middle-school teacher.

--
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);} F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Re:Easy way out by NineNine · 2003-04-17 10:00 · Score: 1

That would be Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, without a doubt.
Re:Easy way out by outsider007 · 2003-04-17 10:02 · Score: 1

it comes out that Spiderman is a pedophile!! Sony would drop that faster than a hot potato

well, it didn't hurt batman and robin

--
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Re:Easy way out by martyn+s · 2003-04-17 10:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Or The Rawhide Kid
Re:Easy way out by Steven+Blanchley · 2003-04-17 10:18 · Score: 1

It's not only a Sunday comic strip, it's made on weekdays as well. The Sunday versions just sum up the events of all the weekday strips, which seem to be slightly less lame.
Re:Easy way out by ddimas · 2003-04-17 10:21 · Score: 1

Wow! They still print Brenda Starr!
Re:Easy way out by steveg · 2003-04-17 10:40 · Score: 1

That might be interesting if John Varley were writing it...

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Re:Easy way out by Mr+Fodder · 2003-04-17 11:03 · Score: 1

Stan produces nothing but wholesome, quality entertainment!

*cough*
Re:Easy way out by MendicantMonkey · 2003-04-17 15:10 · Score: 1

Actually, they used to do these mini-comics where Spidey/Peter Parker would deliver a "moral" or safety tip. Usually these were "drugs are bad" or "don't talk to strangers."
One in particular had Peter convincing a child to go to the authorities about a sexual abuser. He told the story of how he was molested by a babysitter as a child. The point he was trying to make was that it wasn't the child's fault that he was molested, and there was no shame in coming forward.
I realize those mini-comics were about as canonical as the Hostess ads, but I always bring this up when comic book discussions turn to how well-adjusted Spidey is compared to Batman. I mean, for crap's sake, Batman just had his parents killed and he's all tortured and broody. Spidey lost his parents, his uncle, his first love, his best friend, his baby, and his own identity with the clone stuff... it goes on and on. The spider bite must have provided him with natural anti-depressants or surely he would have hung himself from a web by now.
Re:Easy way out by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 22:45 · Score: 1

Or Shrinking "I've the tastes of a man" Violet & another heroine from the short lived reboot of Legion of Superheroes (30th century DC, they were 30-somethings) about 10 years ago. (After some suit decided failure, they restored original continuity by "discovering" the teenage members in stasis and the 30-somethings turned out to be clones. Or something. At that point, stopped reading it. Most outrageous slap in the face since Marvel decided Galactus & friends "let" the Beyonder kick their asses.)

Then there was the classic X-Men issue where a group of cyborg bad guys had the dirtiest scene ever, by far, in any mainstream comic book. These bad guys had various levels of cyborghood, from a hand or leg or something, up to a complete body with only the head being biological. The evil leader takes off the head of the guy who's only a head (head continues to live and talk, it's quite modular!) He then places it at hip level and hints at some kind of punishment. Let's not go there. Head has look of horror.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Easy way out by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 22:55 · Score: 1

> Spidey lost his parents, his uncle, his first
> love, his best friend, his baby, and his own
> identity with the clone stuff...

Yeah, but with his super strength and speed, he can jerk off at about 4000 Hz and his body is tough enough to take it. Don't cry for me, Argentina, know what I'm sayin'?

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Easy way out by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 22:58 · Score: 1

> " Stan lee just has to "discover" a couple
> of "unpublished" comic strips that involve
> Spiderman being gay

Just wait until you see the hidden story about how The Hulk soddomizes Thor and Juggernaut. Now that'll blow the lid off Stan!

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Easy way out by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 23:01 · Score: 1

He said AMBIGOUSLY gay, fool.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Easy way out by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-18 05:20 · Score: 0

In the next issues, it comes out that Spiderman is a pedophile!! ... Then ... it was all some evil plot to frame Spiderman.
Spidey is sounding an awful lot like Micheal Jackson.

I'm confused... by Xerithane · 2003-04-17 08:29 · Score: 5, Informative

I see Marvel has a point with the merchandising, that they are supposed to do most of it with the joint agreement. I'm not sure how Sony is violating Marvel's rights on the Spiderman franchise because as far as I can tell, they're making movies.

This is a really horrible report, so Google News comes to the rescue and I found a fanboy site with a lot more information.

Hope it helps, because the Drudge report was just confusing.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Re:I'm confused... by Dr+Caleb · 2003-04-17 08:43 · Score: 4, Informative

From reading the article, I glean that Sony is advertising Spidey in such a way as to not include Marvel in any way.
"Spiderman" by Sony Entertainment. No mention of Marvel anywhere. At least, that is what I get from "MARVEL is accusing SONY of doing everything it can to disassociate SPIDERMAN and MARVEL in the minds of retailers."

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:I'm confused... by ad0gg · 2003-04-17 08:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I think sony was abusing the license for movie spiderman. Prime example is the game "Spiderman the move", Notice how there is no mention of marvel. Sony got the royalities since it was "based" on the movie. Also blockbuster used spiderman to advertise their products and same goes with bestbuy with spiderman in their commerical. These royalities were paid to sony not marvel.

--
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Re:I'm confused... by Milkyman · 2003-04-17 09:09 · Score: 0, Troll

according to this, they're shooting spider-man in chinatown tonight at 7pm. I guess the super villain in Spidey 2 is SARS.
Re:I'm confused... by dbrown · 2003-04-17 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is absolutely true. Have you gone into Best Buy, Circuit City, or other consumer electronics stores? The Sony marketing department has made sure that Spider-Man film loops are prominantly displayed on all Sony TV's, especially the high-end flat plasma displays. Its even worse at the Sony Metreon. All the Sony computers had Spider-Man themes, all the TV's were showing Spider-Man film loops, Spider-Man "the making of", etc., etc.

When I think of Spider-Man, I now think of $10,000 Sony Plasma displays, not Marvel Comics. Given this, I can certainly understand why Marvel is pissed off.
Re:I'm confused... by chrispl · 2003-04-17 09:29 · Score: 3

I have seen tons of Sony/Spider-Man tie-ins since the movie came out. If I was Marvel I might be worried that people will start seeing Spider-Man as a Sony "mascot" in the same way Sonic the hedgehog was all over Sega.

Since Spider-Man is arguably Marvel's hottest property, and that Spider-Man has appeared alongside the Marvel logo on and off for years they are probably getting nervous that their ace is getting played by another company and its mostly Sony seeing the profits.

Then again the powers that be at Marvel may just be nuts but who knows?

--
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
Re:I'm confused... by WatertonMan · 2003-04-17 10:22 · Score: 2, Informative

This doesn't sound right as much of the video game involved characters not in the movie. (Although perhaps licensed) If they did do what you say though then clearly Marvel has a point.
On the other hand Harry Knowles says this is nothing. (Not that his track record is that great, mind you) Ain't It Cool News
Re:I'm confused... by squiggleslash · 2003-04-17 11:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh great. So now we're going to see people buying $10,000 Sony TVs... leaving them in the boxes so they can sell them in "mint condition" in 10 years "in its original packaging".
This is just sad... ;-)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:I'm confused... by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 23:05 · Score: 1

> Since Spider-Man is arguably Marvel's hottest property

Spider Man, X-Men. Little men lifting little weights. Give me a good old Fantastic Four or Hulk story any day. (Actually, haven't bought one in years. Picked up one at bookstore last week. No fights. Very little of main chars. Did same a few months ago. Sorry, and Marvel wonders why no one buys comics anymore? FF might get away with this for a little bit, but The Hulk?!?!? Month after month of little fighting?)

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart

Sony vs Marvel by mrgrey · 2003-04-17 08:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Sony vs Marvel

Sony's next big console game....

--
-Tolerate my intolerance

Re:Sony vs Marvel by unicron · 2003-04-17 09:05 · Score: 1

EVERYONE thought that when they saw it, I'm sure. I was racking my brain thinking "what the fuck is a Sony character?"

--
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Re:Sony vs Marvel by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:14 · Score: 0

Sorry, that's Capcom's next big game. To be followed by Sony vs. Marvel vs. Capcom. To be followed by Eldridge vs. Ashcroft vs. Sony vs. Marvel vs. Capcom.
Re:Sony vs Marvel by smcn · 2003-04-17 10:05 · Score: 1

Tough choice... Do I buy that, or Capcom vs. Fucking Everything?
Re:Sony vs Marvel by DragonMagic · 2003-04-17 11:25 · Score: 1

In related news...

Capcom, Inc., sues Sony, claiming its newest game, Sony vs. Marvel, violates its trademarks and dilutes its market share. The game, featuring Sony character "Spider-Man" and other properties tag-team fighting members of Marvel's legal teams, was first developed by Capcom. Since then, Sony has "relatively taken over the game, branded it as theirs, removed all ties to Capcom and used the characters to market other Sony products," an insider at Capcom claimed.

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield

I remember the day... by NineNine · 2003-04-17 08:29 · Score: 4, Informative

... when Spiderman wasn't a corporate trademark to be argued over, but just a cool comic book that I'd pick up and read. So nice to have the corporate legal eagles shit all over it.

Re:I remember the day... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:43 · Score: 0

But, without the trademark/copyright I could put out a comic book with Spiderman as the main character (granted it would be utter trite) and the original creator would not be able to prevent me from doing this...

So yes, trademark/copyright/lawyers may be bad, but it is much better than the alternative..

Just my 2 cents...
Re:I remember the day... by SoftCoreHonesty · 2003-04-17 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

You must be pretty old because I remember owning Spiderman underoos about 30 years ago. Spiderman became an over-commercialized corporate trademark long before Sony came along. Spiderman, Batman, Hulk, and Superman were all sell outs. Now give me Ghost Rider anyday.
Re:I remember the day... by frodo+from+middle+ea · 2003-04-17 08:52 · Score: 0

Spider-man is now cought in the web of ugly copyright infringements, trademark violations.
how ironic !

--
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Re:I remember the day... by Mandoric · 2003-04-17 08:58 · Score: 1

That's funny, I don't recall doujinshi (fan-published works, many of which use copyrighted/trademarked characters and situations without permission) having much of a negative impact on the Japanese comic market...
Re:I remember the day... by Cruciform · 2003-04-17 10:18 · Score: 1

Soon you'll be able to buy the Nicholas Cage / Johnny Blaze action figure at a Wal-mart near you.

Wasn't there Ghost Rider merchandising in the 70s? I could swear that I had a G.R. Lunchbox at one time. Though he was never the type to be hyped in every home :) If there was something that the media wanted to blame violent kids on, a flaming demon skull on a biker fit the bill :)
Re:I remember the day... by LMariachi · 2003-04-17 10:30 · Score: 4, Funny

You asked for it.
Re:I remember the day... by SoftCoreHonesty · 2003-04-17 12:25 · Score: 1

That's awesome. Any clue who's in it?
Re:I remember the day... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 13:56 · Score: 0

Spiderman is still not their trademark, today. Their trademark is on Spider-Man, so as not to make it too "generic" ...
Re:I remember the day... by xaaronx · 2003-04-17 18:40 · Score: 0

Ghost Rider rocked. I still have the multipart poster from the big crossover in ~1992 with Morbius and Blade (I think) and a bunch of others I forget. It was weird seeing Johnny and Ghost Rider next to each other though.

--
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
Re:I remember the day... by CAIMLAS · 2003-04-17 18:51 · Score: 1

Who else - David Hastlehoff :P If he can prance about in baywatch, why not his own movie? :P

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Sony Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:29 · Score: 0

Sony merges with Stan Lee to become a crime fighting duo - Sony Lee. (airs 9PM EST on WGN Wedsdays)

Additional info by Psychic+Burrito · 2003-04-17 08:30 · Score: 1

Here's a bit more info: Don't Worry about THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

Re:Additional info by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:04 · Score: 0

AICN; now THERE'S a fucking bastion of journalistic ethics and integrity.

Sony has a plan. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:30 · Score: 0

It's all an evil plot by Sony to take over the world. First, they nab a superhero and put them under their clutches. Then, if they get more, who will be able to save us from Sony? I'm sure the Daredevil, Fantastic Four, or maybe even Captain America will come to his rescue. But then Sony will use their superlawyers to conquer them if they're not careful. The superheros must band together!

Today must be a really slow news day by JJAnon · 2003-04-17 08:31 · Score: 1, Informative

First off, we have a story from the Weekly World news, and then now we have one from the Drurge report.

What is this? Yellow journalism day?

Re:Today must be a really slow news day by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:39 · Score: 0

You must not know your news reports because drudge is one of the best out there. I would be very careful about talking about sites you don't visit.
Re:Today must be a really slow news day by C.+Mattix · 2003-04-17 09:07 · Score: 1

Its not Slashdot, its Fark!
Re:Today must be a really slow news day by Andy_R · 2003-04-17 09:53 · Score: 1

No, it's a slow day when we get DUPES of stories from the Weekly World news and the Druge report!

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

Hmm by AvantLegion · 2003-04-17 08:31 · Score: 4, Funny

I guess Spiderman himself wasn't available for comment...

Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 10:31 · Score: 0

--- Mod me up, or I'll throw my Xbox at you.
I wish i had the points to mod you down, it's a beautiful thing every time an X-Box gets detroyed.

New fighting game? by vosbert · 2003-04-17 08:31 · Score: 1

I'd like to see the game Marvel versus Sony.

Re:New fighting game? by NineNine · 2003-04-17 08:37 · Score: 1

I'd like to see the game Marvel versus Sony.

What do you think that'd be like? The X-Men vs. a bunch of Japanese lawyers with legal pads, and really big pens? Would the Sony guys hurl affidavits and contracts? Could you stop them with some well-placed sushi? Would the have cell-phones with massive amounts of radiation?

I'd rather see by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:31 · Score: 0

Spiderman, Sony and Marvel vs Batman,Yamaha and DC.

3 on 3, the way fighting should be.

The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Is for me to show Kirsten Dunst my organic web-shooter.

Re:The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:42 · Score: 1, Funny

But how do we fill all the time until she stops laughing?
Re:The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:00 · Score: 0

More importantly... how long will she poke through the rolls of fat before she gives up trying to find it?
Re:The only way to resolve this... by RLiegh · 2003-04-17 09:29 · Score: 1

But how do we fill all the time until she stops laughing?

You know, that wouldn't be a problem if it was a statue of her..petrified, so to speak...

got hot grits?
Re:The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 10:18 · Score: 0

I guess it depends on how fat the cock is?
Re:The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 19:13 · Score: 0

My experience is that fat men usually don't have particularly large cocks. They're average like anyone else - just it looks smaller in comparison with the rest of their body.

This has been a public service announcement. And yes, i am a chick.
Re:The only way to resolve this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 23:16 · Score: 0

They also put on fat on their loins, like any other body part. An extra inch of fat for the dick to stick thru means 1" less external protruberance. For practical copulation, they've got less sticking out, and have to manipulate said shorter stick in a context of their own fat belly getting in the way as well as the (usually) extra jumbo ass of their partners.

F Sorny by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:33 · Score: 0

Next time I'm getting a Magnetbox!

Marvel's next superhero by Infonaut · 2003-04-17 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny

should be "LawyerMan". Armed with the Pen of Destruction and the Briefcase of Neverending Legal Briefs, he wages war in the shadowy world of corporate dealings.

And he never loses. Well, maybe he loses every so often to make things interesting, but he always wins on appeal ;-)

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:Marvel's next superhero by Jack+Comics · 2003-04-17 08:55 · Score: 1, Informative

Ironically enough, Marvel already has this... the super-hero's name is DareDevil. Lawyer at day, avenging super-hero at night. The "twist" is the character is blind, supposedly from an accident in his childhood, but I don't buy that. He really went blind from an internship at a law firm on hire by Microsoft. Reading all that legal mumbo-jumbo and helping Microsoft prevail against the Department of Justice would make anybody blind.

--
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Re:Marvel's next superhero by smcn · 2003-04-17 08:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Meet Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law. (flash required) Not by Marvel, but great all the same.
Re:Marvel's next superhero by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 10:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Lawyerman?! Now I must sue you...
The New Adventures of LawyerMan
(Originally published in UVA's "Cavalier Daily," 1999)
Iced Ink Comics
Re:Marvel's next superhero by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 14:01 · Score: 0

But then Lawyer-Man would sue your ass for 'trademark dilution' or somesuch since LawyerMan is too generic & incorrect :P
Re:Marvel's next superhero by swv3752 · 2003-04-17 15:16 · Score: 1

There is also She-Hulk. Brainy, Brauny, Green Broad that is the cousin to Bruce Banner and and a lawyer.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

Relax, fight is only over merchandise by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:33 · Score: 0

Relax, fight is only over merchandise according to Avi Arad via Ain't It Cool News

Literally kidnapped? by sssmashy · 2003-04-17 08:33 · Score: 5, Funny

MARVEL accuses SONY of literally kidnapping Spidey.

SONY literally kidnapped Spiderman? What, a bunch of Sony exectuves have Spidey chained up in the basement of their corporate HQ? This sounds like a good plot for the next comic book... sure, Spidey can defeat the Green Goblin, but does he stand a chance against capitalism run amok?

Re:Literally kidnapped? by Cro+Magnon · 2003-04-17 09:23 · Score: 1

They probably paid Doc Ock to do it.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Literally kidnapped? by sik0fewl · 2003-04-17 10:03 · Score: 3, Funny

SONY literally kidnapped Spiderman? What, a bunch of Sony exectuves have Spidey chained up in the basement of their corporate HQ? This sounds like a good plot for the next comic book... sure, Spidey can defeat the Green Goblin, but does he stand a chance against capitalism run amok?

I think he was speaking figuratively when he said Sony literally kidnapped Spiderman.

--
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Re:Literally kidnapped? by paranoos · 2003-04-17 10:03 · Score: 1

i was going to say "amok" repeated several times, but the damn lameness filter caught me. ahh, i hate that crazy witch movie with sarah jessica parker. amok amok...
Re:Literally kidnapped? by Fryboy · 2003-04-17 14:58 · Score: 2, Funny

Or they kidnapped the _literature_ of spiderman?
Or is that taking 'literally' too literally.

Fry
Re:Literally kidnapped? by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-04-17 23:21 · Score: 1

Doc Ock! Now there's a guy who should be tearing the head off Thor. Yet, because of poor imagination, he's has an ETT (Eternal Tough Time) with Spiderman.

He's a genius, he's got a set of metal arms that should be well in excess of Iron Man's strength, what's the problem? Poor imaginative writing.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Literally kidnapped? by Glyndwr · 2003-04-17 23:46 · Score: 1

Fucking lol

--
You win again, gravity!
Re:Literally kidnapped? by mink · 2003-04-22 07:20 · Score: 1

He is a genius as you say, not a homacidal maniac.
Maybe somewhere inside he cant let himself go that far.
I think he just wants his red swingline back.

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sony's every bit as evil as you guys thing Microsoft is. I don't know why they're not on Slashdot's radar.

The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product. Though I don't have any opinion as to whether they're guilty here or not as I don't have enough info to base an opinion on, I do know that Sony's been complained about before. Anybody remember when they were developing the Super NES CD that never arrived? It fell through because Sony wanted this to be a Sony branded machine. They basically wanted to take over Nintendo's well developed market. Fortunately, Nintendo had the balls to stand up to them. That's indirectly how Sony came around with the Playstation.

Slashdot really should be eyeballing Sony. Sometimes you guys pay too much attention to Microsoft.

--
"Derp de derp."

Re:I've said it before.. by mojowantshappy · 2003-04-17 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mostly because Sony is the big competition for the X-Box, so a lot of anti-microsoft people like to rally behind them (me included).

Also, Sony is quite broken up compared to most companies. They have their movie division, their music division, their computer division, their video games division, etc. So though I really hate Sony's music and movie division, I still like their video game division.

Also, offering linux for PS2 can't hurt.

--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Re:I've said it before.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:45 · Score: 0

It's a THURSDAY you idiot!. Today's MS hating day.
Re:I've said it before.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:48 · Score: 0

Mostly because Sony is the big competition for the X-Box, so a lot of anti-microsoft people like to rally behind them (me included).
What a way to stand up for your values and REALLY make a difference in the world! So you take the self-denial of a I'll-work-for-free-because-I-think-my-software-wil l-rock-Microsoft to the extreme by buying a Playstation instead of an X-Box. Way to go - rally your support behind one mega corporation because you don't like another mega corporation.
So do you drink Coke or Pepsi?
Re:I've said it before.. by mojowantshappy · 2003-04-17 08:59 · Score: 1

Coke, because they have worse slave labor conditions then Pepsi.

--
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
Re:I've said it before.. by DJProtoss · 2003-04-17 09:01 · Score: 1

So if Marvel stands up to them then sony will come up with a kick-ass superhero? cool.

--
"Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
Re:I've said it before.. by chrisseaton · 2003-04-17 09:05 · Score: 1

I drink tea.
Re:I've said it before.. by JordanH · 2003-04-17 09:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
- Also, offering linux for PS2 can't hurt.
Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here.
Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way.
Their laptops are cool (but pricey) and run Linux pretty well.
They just seem to "get it". They may be bare knuckled when dealing with competitors and collaborators, but they make/sell and support things that people want, without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of.
Sony also faught MS on the provisions in Windows licenses sold to PC Manufacturers that would limit their ability to sue MS over patent infringement. On the other hand, Sony did make a side deal with MS so that provision of the Windows' licenses didn't apply to them, which could be viewed as a way to attack other PC makers.
Re:I've said it before.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:25 · Score: 0

Is sony trying to control every aspect of my life and wishing them to be the gatekeeper? no. Sony (media division) is evil, as are all big labels, but they certainly don't affect much more than the movies I buy or the CD's I listen to. And without those two, I'll live. MS wants to control everything, which directly affects me as a sys admin. And even if they didn't affect my job, what about how everyone from the DOT to my bank being forced using MS software which may be insecure. MS is more like some sort of government anymore, while Sony is more like a bully in a neighborhood that you can avoid by just not going there.
Re:I've said it before.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:32 · Score: 0

Slave labor? Where, in the sugar mines?
Re:I've said it before.. by ztwilight · 2003-04-17 09:36 · Score: 1

The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product.
Yeah, I can see it now. Buy the Sony Spiderman laptop. It's a super lightweight laptop with a special built-in spider sense which reacts beforehand when it sees Windows is about to crash. If anyone tries to steal it, it covers them in spiderwebs. It even suspends itself from the ceiling for convenient usage in places with no desks.

--
Who moved my sig?
Re:I've said it before.. by Cyno · 2003-04-17 09:46 · Score: 1

If it weren't for the playstation 2 and all those countless hours of enjoyment I recieve from it every night I might suspect Sony of being an Evil Media Company.
Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 10:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

"Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here. "

You mean the $200 Linux kit that doesn't allow you to burn your apps to disc for others to play with? I guess I can give them credit for kissing Slashdot's ass. It's not so interesting when you read the FAQ and realize it's not near as interesting as it could be. Sega had it right with their Dreamcast.

"Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way. "

CD and DVD products were made by so many companies that Sony really had no choice but to compete. The market wouldn't support their mischief. However, their MP3 players are evil. Not only do they only take Memory Stick or Minidisc, but they also are pushing a proprietary copy protection format known as MagicGate.

"... without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of. "

Oh really? Okay, find me a Sony brand Digital Camera that supports anything besides Memory Stick. Find me an MP3 player that uses Compact Flash or Smart Media. I could probably keep poking around here, but the reason that you don't percieve their lock-in scheme is that they compete in areas that have a little too much competition. Sony can't make a Sony-only DVD-R because nobody'd buy it.

You can turn a blind eye to it if ya like, but sooner or later you're going to buy a Sony product and figure out just how proprietary they are, especially when they're the only one providing a product like that.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:I've said it before.. by SarekOfVulcan · 2003-04-17 10:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

The basic gist of the complaint is that they are attempting to rebrand Spiderman as a Sony product

This is hardly a surprise. My HP2 desk calendar mentions Quidditch(tm), Hogwarts(tm), Hagrid(tm), and others, with fine print at the bottom stating that "characters...are trademarks of and (c) Warner Bros."

Wonder what JKR thinks of all this...
Re:I've said it before.. by truenoir · 2003-04-17 10:33 · Score: 1

Didn't SNES CD also fall through because Sony wanted profits from CD games whereas Nintendo got Cart based games? I dunno that it was branding of the machine so much. Most of these big companies have made some pretty big (and stupid) mistakes along the way. Plus they're basically all greed fueled corporations. Agreed though, MS seems to take abuse that other companies more than deserve as well. Console wars aside.
Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 10:35 · Score: 1

"So if Marvel stands up to them then sony will come up with a kick-ass superhero? cool. "

He'll seem like a superhero, but before long DC will come up with a superhero that has more depth and fewer weakenesses. So Sony will fight back by flooding the market with tons of rushed derivitive stories about their superhero.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:I've said it before.. by rgmoore · 2003-04-17 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Okay, find me a Sony brand Digital Camera that supports anything besides Memory Stick.

You mean like the CD Mavica that writes directly to 8cm CD-R disks? Or were you thinking of the FD Mavica that writes directly to floppies?
Actually, I agree with your general point that Sony likes using technology that doesn't always interoperate well, going back at least to the days of VHS vs. Beta. I'm not sure, though, that it's necessarily an issue of trying to lock users in. Sony just doesn't seem to get the idea that standardization can be more important than technical sophistication. They do seem to accept the idea of letting others use their technology. CDs are a great case in point; Sony and Philips developed the basic standards and let others make them too. But when there's not a universally accepted standard, Sony seems to be tenacious at sticking to their version of the technology over an emerging de facto standard than most manufacturers.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:I've said it before.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:13 · Score: 0

Sony was also shipping Star Office 5 on their low-end consumer machines (i.e. the now discontinued J-series) in the recent past rather than including Word or MS Office.
Re:I've said it before.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2003-04-17 11:20 · Score: 1

Sony _is_ on the slashdot radar because of DRM flak and other things.

Sony v. Nintendo is a case of evil v. evil. No real love lost either way.

I knew that Sony made Playstation as a result of the Nintendo CD game system deal falling apart. Because it is almost a cheap romance novel gone amok (i.e. he said, she said), I've never found any clear corroboration as to _why_, just speculation, and I've seen a few theories.
Re:I've said it before.. by JordanH · 2003-04-17 11:34 · Score: 1
- However, their MP3 players are evil. Not only do they only take Memory Stick or Minidisc.
Not true, I own a Sony MP3 CD player.
- You can turn a blind eye to it if ya like, but sooner or later you're going to buy a Sony product and figure out just how proprietary they are,
I see absolutely nothing proprietary about my Sony MP3 CD player.
- especially when they're the only one providing a product like that.
Uh, yeah, if they're the only one providing a product, then it's necessarily proprietary.
Look, all you're demonstrating is that they are out to make money. That's nothing like Microsoft, who are out to make money by making sure that the consumer has no choice in markets they dominate.
Show me a lock-in deal where they've worked with other companies to make sure that only Sony products are sold in combination with their own. Show me examples of where they bought and buried technologies. Show me examples of absurd licensing practices.
I just don't see where you can say Sony is like Microsoft.
Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 11:59 · Score: 1

"I see absolutely nothing proprietary about my Sony MP3 CD player. "

Your one CD player. Go do a little more research.

"I see absolutely nothing proprietary about my Sony MP3 CD player. "

Yes, you're right. You'll find other Sony products that couldn't get away with it either. That does not negate my point. Sony couldn't make any money if they tried to enter a highly competitive market with proprietary garabe. Go do a search for "MagicGate" and you'll start to see what I'm talking about.

"Look, all you're demonstrating is that they are out to make money. That's nothing like Microsoft, who are out to make money by making sure that the consumer has no choice in markets they dominate. "

Really? So let me make sure I understand this, Sony's out to make money, but Microsoft's only out to maintain a monopoly? I think it's funny that you bring that up considering that every move that MS makes has Slashdot readers crying monopoly. "Oh, they made the XBOX, they're going to take over the Video Game market now." Wait a minute, that's not even in danger of happening. Could it be that, gasp, they don't have the monopolistic power to do that? Gee. Could Microsoft's evilness be overrated? Man, that'd be strange. Sony can do it, but Microsoft can't. Yeah, nobody's biased here. *eyeroll*

"Show me a lock-in deal where they've worked with other companies to make sure that only Sony products are sold in combination with their own."

Super NES CD?

" Show me examples of where they bought and buried technologies."

Clie?

"Show me examples of absurd licensing practices. "

With a hardware vendor? That's a trick quesrtion and you know it.

"I just don't see where you can say Sony is like Microsoft. "

That's because you're arguing with me instead of trying to see my point. I think I see what's really happening here. Sony makes stuff you like, so you don't mind buying Sony branded stuff. But Microsoft makes stuff you don't like, and when you have to buy MS branded stuff you get irritated because you don't want to give them money. Only then the word monopoly makes an appearance.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 12:01 · Score: 1

"Is sony trying to control every aspect of my life and wishing them to be the gatekeeper? no."

I take it you didn't buy the Spiderman soundtrack that you couldn't put into your computer without using a Sharpie?

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:I've said it before.. by rgmoore · 2003-04-17 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sony makes stuff you like, so you don't mind buying Sony branded stuff. But Microsoft makes stuff you don't like, and when you have to buy MS branded stuff you get irritated because you don't want to give them money. Only then the word monopoly makes an appearance.

You miss the point. If I like Sony stuff, I'm free to buy it. If I don't like it (and I don't) I'm free to buy somebody else's. If it turns out that most people don't like paying extra to buy Sony's stuff that doesn't play nicely with other manufacturers' products, then Sony will lose market share and either change their strategy or leave the market. That's the way markets are supposed to work.
If I like Microsoft's products, I'm also free to buy them. If I don't like Microsoft's products, though, I don't necessarily have much choice not to buy them. It's all-but impossible to find a decent PC laptop that comes without Windows, so I may be stuck paying for a Microsoft product whether I want it or not. That's not the way markets are supposed to work, which is why you'll hear people complaining about Microsoft's monopoly.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:I've said it before.. by fastdecade · 2003-04-17 15:39 · Score: 1

Sony's every bit as evil as you guys thing Mic rosoft is. I don't know why they're not on Slashdot's radar.

Yes they're both the wickedest of evil empires, but Sony produces awesome cameras, games, movies, laptops, pdas, phones, mp3 players....

MS make windows and office which some people have to use for reasons of compatibility

Spot the difference?
Re:I've said it before.. by Hawkins · 2003-04-17 23:57 · Score: 1

So though I really hate Sony's music and movie division, I still like their video game division.

Watching them systematically drive Sega out of the console hardware market was more than enough to give me a severe distate for that particular division. Not that Sega was a paragon of free thought and good management, mind you. It's just pretty damned anti-competitive to threaten retailers with pulling your entire line of products (TVs, VCRs, etc. ..) if they so much as stock your competition's video game console.
Re:I've said it before.. by JordanH · 2003-04-18 02:05 · Score: 1
- If I like Microsoft's products, I'm also free to buy them. If I don't like Microsoft's products, though, I don't necessarily have much choice not to buy them. It's all-but impossible to find a decent PC laptop that comes without Windows, so I may be stuck paying for a Microsoft product whether I want it or not. That's not the way markets are supposed to work, which is why you'll hear people complaining about Microsoft's monopoly.
It's funny, I never mentioned monopoly in my comments. Then this guy comes along saying that the word monopoly always comes out when MS is mentioned.
But, you do make the point here that this guy is missing. Yeah, I like Sony's products. I don't like MS products, but I have to buy them. Why would I buy something that I didn't like unless I had no choice?
Being a monopoly and protecting it with predatory practices is evil. Sony has some practices that you might call predatory, but that's just competition.
Re:I've said it before.. by JordanH · 2003-04-18 02:13 · Score: 1
- Your one CD player. Go do a little more research.
Are you saying that Sony sells only one model of MP3/CD player? Not true. Are you saying they don't sell multi-changers that do MP3? Also, not true. It seems you need to do research.
As to the rest of your comments, I think you just don't get what it means to be a monopolist and how that changes the rules of doing business.
Here's a clue. It's legal for me to contract with someone to only carry my brand of anything. It's not legal for a monopolist to do the same, if this keeps others from entering the market.
If you don't like anti-trust laws, well, come out and say it, but that's the way it works today.
Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-18 07:02 · Score: 1

" I think you just don't get what it means to be a monopolist and how that changes the rules of doing business. "

I didn't say monopolist, I said they're every bit as evil as MS and that Slashdot should pay more attention to them.

--
"Derp de derp."

more info by ih8apple · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

More info that Drudge doesn't mention...

--

Why do I h8 apple?

Mods! Read this guys past stories by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 0

This guy is a poor troll. Read his past comments!

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by stratjakt · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Your take on the Nintendo/Sony thing is wrong. Nintendo made a deal to let Sony develop the "PlayStation" CD addon for the SNES. Then they dropped them for Phillips. Then they dropped Phillips after Sony threatened to release their own SNES compatible CD playing "PlayStation". Then Nintendo gave up altogether, after watching TG16 and Sega CD fail miserably. Then Sony took the project and made it into Playstation X, which we all know and love (PSX).

Or something like that.

Anyways, dont get to riled up over a Drudge report story. The guy has a habit of taking minor day-to-day corporate memos and blowing them up into the "scoop of the century".

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by Tebriel · 2003-04-17 08:34 · Score: 1

Fortunately, Sony made the Playstation out of said technology.

And gaming goodness ensued.

--
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979

Knowles Knows by Malicious · 2003-04-17 08:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Harry Knowles has explained the scenario pretty well already.

--
01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110

Lots of accusations but no proof. by gpinzone · 2003-04-17 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

What a waste. I actually read the article first before posting this time. I've learned my lesson.

Dance with the devil... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2003-04-17 08:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Look, everyone here at Slashdot should realize Sony is a big evil megacorp akin to (or worse than) Microsoft. Sony goes through some really big lawsuits all the time, some of them for doing some really fucked up shit.

It's not news. It's Sony. So, while I hope Marvel comes out ahead through all this (either by gaining more money, correcting the situation, or taking Spiderman from Sony altogether) I still can't help but wonder what exactly Marvel expected from Sony?

Contracts? In the hands of an evil entity like Sony, contracts don't mean anything that money can't change.

Ethics? There is no ethics in business.

Plain old common sense? HAHAHAHAH

You know what they say about dancing with the devil....

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.

Re:Dance with the devil... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-04-17 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative

How is Sony more evil than Microsoft? At least when Sony tries to corner a market all to themselves, their product is quality. No rational person will argue that VHS was actually superior to Beta. Are Microsoft operating systems quality? Wait, I don't think I have to wait for an answer to that since we are all on Slashdot. Was IE superior to Netscape prior to the infamous bundling? Nope. As for Sony slapping Nintendo around, Nintendo deserved it. Nintendo was a monopolist that stole Atari's intellectual property and tried to lock every company up making third party software, which Atari never did when it was the monopoly power in the videogame industry. But with all that said, the Playstation2 is inferior to the Xbox... Granted, the game that gets the most play on my Xbox is "Gauntlet Legends" but I'm pretty old school in my videogame passions... Hence my screenname, err, handle... :)

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:Dance with the devil... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:56 · Score: 0

No, no, no... That whole "dance with the devil" thing is BATMAN, not SPIDERMAN!
Re:Dance with the devil... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2003-04-17 15:47 · Score: 1

Heh, I wasn't even thinking about that scene...

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:Dance with the devil... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2003-04-17 16:07 · Score: 1

How is Sony more evil than Microsoft?

For starters, they have a wider range of markets that they like to kick around. That automatically gives the, more potential to do harm, but I won't stop there.

First off, Sony likes to strong-arm the competition in almost EVERY area they are involved in. Will I deny that they make some great products? No. But making a good product doesn't mean that you are justified in killing off competition one way or another.

Some of the things they do (such as price fixing) I have no problems with. When you are as big as Sony you can afford to take some losses and of coures you should be allowed to.

But then they turn around and do things such as use their dollars to pull weight in dealing with large groups (of which they are members) and they do things that even their own hardware operations doesn't like.

I really wish I had the time to post all of the links to everything that makes Sony evil, but if you're really interested you can do the web-searches and find plenty to satisfy yourself.

One good example though is a reminder that Sony IS a Member of both RIAA and the MPAA, and that TWICE now they've been ordered by the courts to stop strong-arming the market into artificially inflating the cost of CDs and BOTH times they responded by forcing the prices up even higher (the complete opposite of the court's decisions). There's no shortage of references. Visit Google.

Oh, and yes, Sony does -TRY- to strong-arm third parties in much the same way Nintendo used to. Only there are more third parties and it's harder to get away with. Still, there is some strength in market dominance. Dispite the fact that there are a lot of developers very unhappy with Sony right now they kind of have to support the PS2.

(One counter point -- As far as I'm aware, Nintendo did not infringe on ANY of Atari's IP. Sega did lose a lawsuit for doing that very thing, are you sure you do not have your facts skewed?)

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:Dance with the devil... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 19:17 · Score: 0

Look, everyone here at Slashdot should realize Sony is a big evil megacorp akin to (or worse than) Microsoft. Sony goes through some really big lawsuits all the time, some of them for doing some really fucked up shit.

I agree with your comments, but i disagree with the theory that Microsoft is a "megacorp". It absolutely is not - not up there with the Unilevers and the Sonys and the General Electrics of the world. By comparison, Microsoft has a pitifully niche market, and its attempts at branching out into video games or hardware or media or this or that are really quite laughable compared to these huge companies. Really, Microsoft gets WAY too much flak for a company that arguably doesn't have all that much power in the greater scheme of things.
Re:Dance with the devil... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-04-18 04:48 · Score: 1

Nintendo settled out of court with Atari for $150 million. Atari had patents like "device used to control moving objects on screen." Atari also sued Sega for patent infringement as well, and they settled out of court with a licensing agreement. Strangely, Atari never sued Sony...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Spiderman should be in the public domain by now by asscroft · 2003-04-17 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

All this copyright crap is backfiring on these corporations. It's ridiculous. By now Spiderman is so commonly known that it would be terribly hard to "damage" the image of Spiderman, even if it was "hijacked" by modern day story tellers. I mean the "proper rights owners" killed superman and none of us bought that bullshit, did we? If copyright lasted only the 12 years or whatever it was supposed to last this wouldn't be a problem. Whoever told the best Spiderman story would be king of the box office, not whoever won the court battle.

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre

Re:Spiderman should be in the public domain by now by iamblades · 2003-04-17 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, all that's fine and good, but this is about trademarks, not copyright.

Trademark doesnt expire, it gets diluted, and this is probably one of the driving reasons behind this lawsuit.

--
Shit adds up at the bottom...
Re:Spiderman should be in the public domain by now by asscroft · 2003-04-17 16:14 · Score: 1

yeah, I didn't read the article. thanx

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre

in my next life... by mario · 2003-04-17 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

..I'll study law and specialize in copyright issues - I think the chances *not* to have a well-paid job are very low, if I look at the numerous stories about problems, that some companies seem to have in this area :)

This sounds familiar.. by xRelisH · 2003-04-17 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Why does this remind me of two young kids in the playground, with one whining:

"It was mine first, give it back!"
"Nuh uh, you gave it to me!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"
...

Re:This sounds familiar.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 19:20 · Score: 0

The difference is one of these kids is actually over 50 years old and honestly DID have the toy first.

Pulp fiction by mabu · 2003-04-17 08:37 · Score: 1

I want to know how come Peter Parker didn't see this coming with his tingling spider sense?

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:37 · Score: 0

Damn, that is a whack troll, bitch. You're a faggot, and most likely a loser as well.

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:38 · Score: 0

Somehow I find it difficult to believe a gaandu like you is in charge of anything...
By the way theren behen choad!

By The Steps: by SmartGamer · 2003-04-17 08:38 · Score: 1

1. Sony purchases Spiderman rights from Marvel.
2. Sony makes a buttload of money.
3. Sony tries to advertise that they did everything they did with the more recent "Spiderman" stuff.
4. Marvel gets jealous, attempts to revoke license.

Am I missing something here? Does Marvel have a case?

--
Warning: Poster of this comment is a nerd. Just like everybody else here.

Re:By The Steps: by ebbomega · 2003-04-17 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

By the looks of it, yes. Seemingly, Marvel had a license with Sony about the Merchandise, but now it looks like Sony has broken the terms of that license and now Marvel is asking to have it chucked out. The report has got to be one of the worst written articles I've ever seen and it doesn't explain much, most importantly it seems we have ZERO clue what the main clauses are that are going to be used since it seems that the license may not be publically available until the case itself.

I think it's quite possible that Marvel has a case. Pretty probable too... big companies tend not to go up against bigger better companies that could buy their ass out unless they happen to be faltering *coughSCOcough*.

Marvel's doing better than ever. Movie exposure is enticing more and more people to read superhero comics and it seems to have moved once again away from the stereotypical fanboy and more into the traditional playgrounds of childhood fantasy.

Marvel wouldn't cut the rug out from underneath them by ending a contract with SONY without good reason. Obviously there's tension between the two companies and Marvel wants out of the contract so they can build a better relationship with a different company.

Fine. No real harsh damage done to anything really except that Sony doesn't get a third Spidey movie. I don't even know if Sam Raimi's going to want to touch a third Spidey movie, and most likely there's going to be lots of FUD around a third movie any ways, cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet.

--
Karma: Non-Heinous
Re:By The Steps: by smart.id · 2003-04-17 09:06 · Score: 1

Actually, you are missing something.

5. ???
6. Profit!

--
blog & fiction: jd87
Re:By The Steps: by lambadomy · 2003-04-17 11:24 · Score: 1

I think the FUD about a third movie would only exist IF Sam Raimi and/or Tobey Maguire don't participate. One of the things that really sunk those Batman Movies was no Michael Keaton and no Tim Burton. If the story is good, and the same team is there, there is no reason a third or fourth or fifth movie cannot be good.

Not that that ever really happens, but hey, a man can dream.
Re:By The Steps: by xaaronx · 2003-04-17 19:28 · Score: 0

"cuz frankly I don't know if people have forgotten about Batman Forever and Batman and Robin yet."

I had until you brought it up. Thanks.

--
It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein

more careful reading by GunFodder · 2003-04-17 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe this quote is referring to Sony Pictures, the movie producing subsidiary of Sony. It is quite possible that the only profits Sony Pictures made last year were from Spiderman, so the economic impact of a loss of license would be huge.

Re:more careful reading by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:45 · Score: 0

I thought that we learned from the Stan Lee story that the Spider-man movie made no profits at all.
Re:more careful reading by dragoncortez · 2003-04-17 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, after a quick search to verify facts, it's quite clear that Sony Pictures would have made a sizable profit even without Spiderman last year. This article shows Sony with two other movies in the top ten from last year. So, I don't think there's any doubt the story is a bunch of bull.

--
Making stupid comments so you don't have to.

With great power... by Chocolate+Teapot · 2003-04-17 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

...comes a great army of lawyers.

--
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare

IN CAPITALIST JAPAN by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:40 · Score: 0

SONY OWNS YOU!!!

I know how this will turn out... by Queelix · 2003-04-17 08:41 · Score: 1

I am from the future...I trade stocks...

Sir Walter Scott was right by Alien+Being · 2003-04-17 08:41 · Score: 1

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Re:Sir Walter Scott was right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:29 · Score: 0

Ummm... that was Shakespeare (MacBeth)

Nintendo troll by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:41 · Score: 0

Ah yes, the Nintendo troll is back. This guy claims to be a VP at Nintendo and speaks on their behalf often at Slashdot. Check out his prior posts: pure garbage.

Great post... by Dave21212 · 2003-04-17 08:41 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link... at least Harry bothered to talk to a real person before conclusion jumping (which should be an Olympic sport these days)

Spiderman is dead, Long Live Spidey !

--
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin

OK, i'll bite by mcc · 2003-04-17 08:42 · Score: 1

Fortunately, at Nintendo, all our franchises are developed in house, so we've no real risk of such publically embarassing spats.

So what's up with HAL (the Smash Brothers / Earthbound people?) are they an owned subsidiary of Nintendo or what? Or does nintendo just have an unlimited license to use their IP?

Also, what's up with the Rare IP? Microsoft owns Rare now, or whatever, but Smash Brothers Melee, a current product, still contains characters and situations from StarFox. Who owns the StarFox characters? And i assume nintendo still owns all the donkey kong IP, even though SSBM clearly uses lots of the Rare DK Country character models?

Also, i could have sworn that Ice Climber was originally made by someone other than Nintendo, but now everywhere says Nintendo owns the copyright on it. Did i just hallucinate that? And how do you unlock Ice Climber in Animal Crossing short of buying an Action Replay, dammit?

What's up with all that?

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Re:OK, i'll bite by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:49 · Score: 0

yhbt. yhl. hand.
Re:OK, i'll bite by Slashdot+Insider · 2003-04-17 08:56 · Score: 1

HAL is a part of Nintendo. As for Rare, they never had any ownership over Star Fox or DK. Those were created by Nintendo and Rare made a few of those games because Nintendo asked them to.
Re:OK, i'll bite by mcc · 2003-04-17 09:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, i know.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Re:OK, i'll bite by yerricde · 2003-04-17 09:16 · Score: 1

So what's up with HAL (the Smash Brothers / Earthbound people?) are they an owned subsidiary of Nintendo or what? Or does nintendo just have an unlimited license to use their IP?

According to Nintendo's May 2002 financial report, HAL Laboratory Inc. is a Nintendo subsidiary. HAL Laboratory's biggest threat is probably Precious Moments Inc., who may threaten a lawsuit based on the appearance of the "Ness" character in SSB Melee.

Who owns the StarFox characters?

Nintendo does. Star Fox for Super NES (aka Starwing) and Star Fox 64 for Nintendo 64 (aka Lylat Wars) were made completely without Rare. The fact that Rare did Star Fox Adventures was a response to the fact that Rare was developing a game with character races similar to those from the Star Fox series, and Nintendo just licensed the characters to Rare.

And i assume nintendo still owns all the donkey kong IP, even though SSBM clearly uses lots of the Rare DK Country character models?

Nintendo could probably find modelers to make its own DK meshes in the next Super Smash Bros. game, which is rumored to be cel-shaded like The Wind Waker was.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

This had interesting parallels by Torinaga-Sama · 2003-04-17 08:43 · Score: 4, Funny

So which one is Apple and which one is Microsoft?

Mr.Lee is very obviously Xerox.

--
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9

Re:This had interesting parallels by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 12:11 · Score: 0

jack kirby is Xerox
Re:This had interesting parallels by BigNumber · 2003-04-18 00:58 · Score: 1

Okay...here it goes.

Marvel is Apple and Sony is Microsoft. Jack Kirby is Xerox and Stan Lee is Steve Jobs. Kirby created a lot of stuff and got shafted and ended up with nothing. Lee (Jobs) took Kirby's stuff and established a semi-successful company called Marvel (Apple). Now Sony (MS) comes along and takes the thing that makes Marvel who they are and tries to co-opt it for their own use.

Sound about right?

I strongly object by burgburgburg · 2003-04-17 08:44 · Score: 5, Funny

to your use of the modifier "probably" in your comments!

Drudge has worked very hard to ensure that everything he reports is a great big load, and your comments cast aspersions on his efforts.

Shame. SHAME!

Re:I strongly object by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:56 · Score: 0

Slashdot users object...
Developing...

The short(s) of it by molrak · 2003-04-17 08:45 · Score: 1

'Spiderman 2' will not be affected by this, the film will be out next May. Merchandising will be affected, and most probably, a lot of those crappy commercials/ads with Spidey in them (cough, verizon) won't appear next year. Marvel will have problems that Sony hasn't paid them fully for merchandising--that part of the case, I believe, will closely mirror the people who used to own Winnie the Poo's suit against Disney (which Disney won).

To put it briefly, buy your movie-themed Spidey Underoos and Spidey faceplate for your cell phone now, because they won't be around for long. Spidey 2 will be out next year, released by Sony. Look for Spidey 3, should it happen, to possibly be financed by another studio.

--
You're only as smart as your brain.

Skin-tight? It's fairly obvious by burgburgburg · 2003-04-17 08:46 · Score: 2, Funny

They're proud of their super packages, and want to share them with the world.

In some cases, literally.

Settle this out of court... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:48 · Score: 0

... just have the CEOs of Sony and Marvel dress up in spandex costums and duke it out on the streets of NY. Best way to handle this situation.

Come to think of it, maybe all litigation should be handled this way.
Hmmmm..............

No lie, Sony's a bunch of jerks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:49 · Score: 0

It's impossible to get parts or service manuals for their products. They treat their employees like felons (I had the misfortune to work at their US product returns warehouse one summer). They try to push their crappy proprietary stuff (Minidisk, memory stick) down everyone's throats. The company is incredibilly arrogant.

I've been boycotting them for years.

Tom the Dancing Bug [Re: Literally Kidnapped] by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 08:51 · Score: 0

Hey.. it happens.

ok ENOUGH! by Dutchmaan · 2003-04-17 08:51 · Score: 0

I'll settle this once and for all...

**I own spiderman!**

So there!

Excuse me? by loteck · 2003-04-17 08:55 · Score: 1

umm.. does anyone but me notice that this article randomly links off to many small sections of what appear to be the soon-to-be-released Xmen 2 movie? i'm not saying they are trailers. i'm saying they are actual clips from the movie in .mov format. Has X2 been leaked?

Well... by Jerk+City+Troll · 2003-04-17 08:57 · Score: 1

Stan lee just has to "discover" a couple of "unpublished" comic strips that involve Spiderman being gay

He did turn down that really hot chick...

--
Join Tor today!

Re:Sad news :( Robert Atkins, diet doctor, dead at by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:00 · Score: 0

WTF?

Marvel to employ Iraqi Information Manager ... by binaryDigit · 2003-04-17 09:02 · Score: 4, Funny

As new Minister of Marketing.

"Those infidels at Sony don't even have the rights to the character at all. If they think they do, it's all in their minds"

"I feel safe from Sony, so should you"

"They are going to surrender or burn inside their little rice burners"

"Sony has never made a Spiderman film! This I tell you!"

"We will welcome them, with lawyers and taunts!"

"they are nowhere near completion on the sequel ..they are lost in the Australian desert...they can not read a compass...they are retarded."

Re:Marvel to employ Iraqi Information Manager ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:29 · Score: 0

"Their stomachs are roasting in Hell, at the hands of the Green Goblin."

"You have now strayed too far from comic book reality."

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by exick · 2003-04-17 09:03 · Score: 1

Yes! I love Nintendo Guy!

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by The+Lynxpro · 2003-04-17 09:04 · Score: 1

Nintendo also "has a nasty habit of exploiting other people's IP." I think that was the basis for Atari Corp. suing them many years ago after failing to win the antitrust case.... If memory serves me correctly, Nintendo paid up $150 million or so...which wasn't bad in early 1990s dollars...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*

Who cares about SPIDERMAN? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:05 · Score: 0

As long as they don't fight over SPIDER-MAN (which is the proper way to write it, according to Mr. Lee himself).

Who cares? by gpinzone · 2003-04-17 09:06 · Score: 1

One megacorporation sues a mega-megacorporation. Boo hoo. In other news, the new Hulk trailer is coming out May 2nd! Now that's some real news!

Its all about the money. by DJProtoss · 2003-04-17 09:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whether Sony has been trying to take the brand over (either intentionally or not), Marvel's plan probably goes more like this: 1.licence brand out to movie studio 2.big movie made, everyone makes lots of money, more films started. 3.Movie studio invests lots of money to make next movies 4. threaten to attempt to revoke licence (we are here) 5. Movie studio sees investment threatened, gives marvel big wads of cash. 6 (sorry, had to put it) profit!!!

--
"Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"

Re:Its all about the money. by (H)elix1 · 2003-04-17 10:07 · Score: 1

4. threaten to attempt to revoke licence (we are here)

It is about revenge... Last time they got a % of net - which the $400M gross netted $0 after accounting. Whoops! Bet they want % of gross this time...

--
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU

Why are we worried? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:07 · Score: 0

Spiderman != Spider-Man :)

Drudge Report reported as news?! by Yakasha · 2003-04-17 09:07 · Score: 1

Wow. bg Slashdot accepting a Drudge Report article as news. If one of his 'inside sources' said the sky was falling, he'd report it. Drudge is nearly as bad as a tabloid.

Check the sources when posting news :/

Re:Drudge Report reported as news?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:55 · Score: 0

Well, maybe we should wait for the truth to come out on CNN :) Hmmm, given recent events maybe /. should think twice before linking to them as well.
Yes, Drudge is raw, but I don't know of any cases where he has suppressed news for personal gain. On the surface, it appears several media outlets have spiked stories for personal or political gain. Of course, this does not suprise me, but it is rather sad.
Re:Drudge Report reported as news?! by night_flyer · 2003-04-17 10:34 · Score: 1

all I gotta say is he scooped the blue dress incident

--

Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...

Sorry for the AC post, but. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

Sorry, but for obvious reasons I'm posting in a cowardly, anonymous way.

I have a company that works with Marvel, and I can unequivocally say that they are the craziest, most irrational, rudest, least business-like people we have ever dealt with. I'm not saying that Sony smells like roses here, just that the business side of Marvel is like an asylum with the inmates in charge.

So personally, no matter what the facts are, I find myself in the odd position of rooting for Sony. Somebody has to teach those idiots a lesson.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Actually... by sczimme · 2003-04-17 09:10 · Score: 1

he just changed clothes and put his glasses back on and instantly became unrecognizable.

Oh, wait...

--
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.

So now we trust the Drudge Report? by WillASeattle · 2003-04-17 09:10 · Score: 1

That's the link source. The main question is how broad is such a suit, if it exists - is it in terms of use for games, for use in comics, for use in music, or as a graphical image?

--
> --- All Of The Above --- >

Hyphen by Phroggy · 2003-04-17 09:11 · Score: 1

It's actually "Spider-Man", not "Spiderman".

Somebody who used to work at Marvel said (on a previous Slashdot article) that they take the hyphen very seriously - for an employee to call it "Spiderman" is a terminable offense. Dilution of trademark.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:Hyphen by Strandman · 2003-04-17 12:38 · Score: 1

in the early days of Marvel he was called Mar-Vel.
it wasn't until the kids at school (those insensitive little brats) made him write his name Marvel that this trauma became very real.

Now anyone calling one of his "kids" names without hyphen will of course be traumatic.

Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:13 · Score: 0

Movie studios often release a few small sections (at 60 seconds each) of the movie for publicity purposes. In the same way that they often release photographs for magazines and newspapers to run alongside articles about the movie, playing a small clip of the movie on a TV show is a great way to introduce a segment about the movie, or an interview with an actor.

Studios have been doing this for years, it's just that most media outlets don't publish the raw clips in the way that AICN seems to have done. I'm sure they'd get shut down (and they damn well deserve to) if this was some sort of leak.

Losing Money Over Spiderman?!?!? by MisterMook · 2003-04-17 09:13 · Score: 2, Funny

HEY! I thought Sony was on the verge of destruction thanks to the 47 billion dollars worth of illegal file trading my 11 year old engaged in last week! Now that I know it's just Spiderman I feel much better.

We should ask Peter Parker to investigate this by WillASeattle · 2003-04-17 09:14 · Score: 1

I'll bet he could bring back some photos that would show Spiderman being kidnapped by Sony ... ... where is he, by the way?

--
> --- All Of The Above --- >

Oh yeah... by M.C.+Hampster · 2003-04-17 09:16 · Score: 2, Funny

... As opposed to Slashdot, which gets all of the stories right.

--
Forget the whales - save the babies.

Harry knows real people? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:16 · Score: 0

Wow. I thought they were all sock puppets

Root of the problem by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-04-17 09:17 · Score: 1

I can't find a link at the moment, but last year when this (or a previous) tiff was heating up, Marvel made the case that Sony wasn't paying them for Spidey. The gist of the story was that Sony had agreed to share box office profits with Marvel at some percentage. Then Sony went and declared Spidey a profit-less movie with $400M of revenue, but, with 'creative accounting', no revenue.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Rare IP.. by AltaMannen · 2003-04-17 09:18 · Score: 1

Rare still seemingly has the Conker & Perfect dark properties which may or may not surface on xbox at E3. StarFox was first developed by Argonaut but seemingly fully belongs to Nintendo.

ALL YOUR PENDANTRY ARE BELONG TO US by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:27 · Score: 0

Re:No lie, Sony's a bunch of jerks by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 09:32 · Score: 1

"It's impossible to get parts or service manuals for their products. They treat their employees like felons (I had the misfortune to work at their US product returns warehouse one summer). They try to push their crappy proprietary stuff (Minidisk, memory stick) down everyone's throats. The company is incredibilly arrogant."

I've had some not-so-pleasant experiences with them myself. I used to be a video game salesman. My first xmas was spent selling their defective Playstations. We had like 1 in 4 machines that went bad after a month or two of use. Instead of admitting that they made a faulty product, they instead placed the blame of the customers. "Well, they must be using it wrong." In reality, what happened was that the speed of the drives would change as they burned in. As a result, sometimes they dipped below the minimum spec needed to keep the data flowing when playing FMV.

The fix was pretty simple, they just needed to turn a screw to make the disc spin a little faster. As a matter of fact, they offered this service to people for $80 + a 2 week wait time. Ruthless. Since then, they fixed the machines and pretended like nothing ever happened.

A friend of mine was a manager at an Electronics Boutique. He told me a story about Sony that really bothered me. This was about year 2 of the Playstation. Anybody remember the trick where you can trick an original Playstation into playing import games? Sony fought that by releasing a new unit with that exploit fixed. A woman bought one of these new units for her son. She brought it back because she bought one of the original PS games (Toshinden? Not sure..) and it wouldn't play. He said that he tried it there in the store, and she was right, it just didn't work. He replaced the unit with another new one, same problem.

He called a Sony rep and asked them if maybe a bug was introduced when they fixed the exploit. The response he got was shocking. Not only did they deny that the Playstation had changed (never mind that magically the later machines couldn't be tricked into playing import games), but the rep actually got hostile with this guy on the phone and accused him of lying and a bunch of other nasty stuff.

I'm not a big fan of Sony. I don't think they have customer interests in mind. I also don't think that they should be allowed to slip under Slashdot's radar.

--
"Derp de derp."

Stracyznki, et al, kind of did that.. by zipwow · 2003-04-17 09:32 · Score: 1

In one of the more recent issues (read: not more than a year ago), Aunt May finds out about Peter being Spiderman. Peter asks how she's doing, and she says that she's somewhat releived. Relieved, he says? Then she says something like

"Well, we knew there was something you were keeping from us, and you were always so clumsy around girls. There was obviously something in the closet, I didn't know it was spandex rather than taffeta.."

She's clear that she's not extremely opposed to it (something like "we'd still love you the same"). She does mention taffeta, though, which is the part that cracked me up.

If someone can correct the quote, feel free...

-Zipwow

--
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.

Spiderman? by kwiqsilver · 2003-04-17 09:36 · Score: 1

Who cares about 'Spiderman', I'm a much bigger fan of Spider-Man?

Lawyerman! by DAPence · 2003-04-17 09:36 · Score: 1

Lawyerman! Faster than a speeding ambulance, more powerful then a freighter full of briefs, able to leap the bounds of logic in a single thought. Lawyerman! Who, as Allen Dirtforbrains, a mild-mannered office clerk in a small downtown legal firm, wages a never ending battle against the truth, justice, and the American way.

Slightly Offtopic: Lee and Marvel by Faizdog · 2003-04-17 09:37 · Score: 1

This may be kinda offtopic, but I figured it's a good place to ask. What exactly is the (present) relationship between Stan Lee and Marvel? I mean Stan Lee is understood to be they guy who created most, if not all of Marvel's famous universe. I always thought he was the head honcho at Marvel then retired. But now, I hear there used to be people who were on top of him in the Marvel hierarchy. And what is his relationship now, is he totally disconnected? Is he still involved? If so, why did he sue Marvel? Thanks.

--
-"Those who fought today will die tommorow."-

The 80's TV series was better than the MOVIE by zymano · 2003-04-17 09:39 · Score: 1

I hated the movie . It was awful. Tobey Mcguire was miscast. He doesn't look anything like a superhero. He can't save himself !

GARBAGE!

love story was stupid by zymano · 2003-04-17 09:42 · Score: 1

They threw that in there because they wanted to sell it to teen girls.

What kind of superhero movie was this? It wasn't . Another movie created by demographic polling.

Why bash Drudge? by Reverend+Raven · 2003-04-17 09:47 · Score: 1

What is with these attacks again Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report? He doesn't write the stories most of the time, he just links to other people's unpublished content. And times like these, which aren't awfully common, he reports on something because he gets it first. If someone (Newsweek) sits on a story and hold it, and Drudge already has wind of it he'll publish it. That's how he broke the story of Monica Lewinski, in additions to other exclusives he's got.

This blind attacks against Drudge is mindnumbing. Let's be good brainwashed little masses and only get our news from CNN and NPR!

--

--Reverend Raven
Desperate days demand dire deeds.

I remember when trademarks weren't legal. by Syncdata · 2003-04-17 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide.
This takes money, and if Marvel doesn't recieve the fat royalties that come from having a lucrative franchise (are people allowed to have those anymore on /.?)then there will be no more cool comics.
I remember when someone could be protective of their own intellectual property, and not be sanctimoniously lectured about it.
This is not a troll, though it will likely be modded as such.

--
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean

Re:I remember when trademarks weren't legal. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:04 · Score: 0

Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide.

What do you mean _a_ cool comic? There were like five SpiderMan comics at one point, presumably because the emphasis was on increased profits rather than telling a coherent story (non-corporate, eh?)
Re:I remember when trademarks weren't legal. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:24 · Score: 0

Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide.

It was cool because of the writers and artists, not because of the corporation. As for who ultimately paid those writers and artists, the purchasers of the comic books (the people you are so quick to bash) did. It was the money of the readers that fed the writers and the artists and the comic shops AND the managers and lawyers, too.
Re:I remember when trademarks weren't legal. by PCM2 · 2003-04-17 11:26 · Score: 1

Spiderman was a cool comic book because Marvel, not sony, not you, and not some amorphous, non corporate comic machine in the sky, paid cool artists, and cool writers, to produce a cool comic, which had to be printed on a cool press, and distributed nationwide.
Ah, but one could argue that this all happened in a different age, before Marvel became a publicly traded corporation, before corporate raider Ron Perelman decided to ream the company out for quick profits, dragging it into bankruptcy. Only after all this happened did Marvel become the intellectual property factory we know and love today. Before that, they made cool comics.
Today's Marvel is so scandalous they'll even screw Stan Lee himself, the very same "cool writer" who invented half of the characters Marvel shareholders stand to profit from today. So, please -- before you start getting on your soapbox about people being too sanctimonious, make sure you know which company you're talking about first.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:I remember when trademarks weren't legal. by gosand · 2003-04-18 01:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember when someone could be protective of their own intellectual property, and not be sanctimoniously lectured about it.
I do too. It was back when it wasn't called intellectual property.
I feel a rant coming on....
The problem is, Sony didn't make a Spiderman movie, make some money, and that's that. They are trying to establish the Spiderman Franchise. Nothing is "normal" anymore, everything has to be pushed way too far. You can't just get something good and then appreciate it for that - you have to have it repeatedly crammed down your throat until you are so sick of it you'll embrace anything that is just SOMETHING ELSE.
Everything has to be capitalized on, to squeeze every frigging drop of life out of it. Everything is to the extreme, hardcore, in your face, number one, top selling, smash hit. Every week I see a commercial about the "number one movie in America", or the "new hit series" that has only aired two episodes. It is why a simple book like "Chicken Soup for the Soul" had every imaginable bastardization of it hit the market. That book may be pretty good, but I'll never read it because I am so SICK of seeing variations of that title. It's why the TV show The Osbournes was ruined after the first season. The first season was original, and genuinely funny. Now it is all engineered.
It can all be summed up by the geniuses behind The Simpsons. Last night they aired the episode of Poochie the Dog. Spiderman is becoming Poochie, just like Batman did, just like Star Wars did, just like 99% of all movies and music are today. We live in a world of Poochies.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

ILLegal, I meant to say ILLegal by Syncdata · 2003-04-17 09:53 · Score: 1

I even hit preview a couple of times before submitting. Shame on me.

--
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean

Literally a dumbass? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:58 · Score: 0

People that misuse the world literally shouldn't be allowed to publish, even on the internet. It's not like you're fucking ultimate and penultimate. You're using the word for the exact opposite of its meaning. What a bunch of fucktards.

Re:About what I would expect from Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 09:59 · Score: 0

And Atari itself was founded by exploiting someone elses IP, as Nolan Bushnell blatantly stole Pong from Magnavox (the original Odyssee).

The video game market has always been one giant game of IP grab-ass.

And who cares? I'll tell you who: not me.

Re:The 80's TV series was better than the MOVIE by nempo · 2003-04-17 10:05 · Score: 1

Let's have Arnold play the super-hero leaping form building to building in a spider costume. Not to think of how wierd it would be to see Arnold going to school, 50+ and still in school ??

--
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.

giant screw up by BigBir3d · 2003-04-17 10:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This entire thing has been f'ed up since the beginning. Stan Lee gave away something he shouldn't have. So did Marvel. IMO, both of 'em are getting what they deserved. Bunch of money hungry, no foresight, whiney bitches.

Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.

Ditto for Marvel (with Stan's agreement intact).

Re:giant screw up by Zathrus · 2003-04-17 14:10 · Score: 1

Stan Lee gave away something he shouldn't have.

Which is what, exactly?

So did Marvel. IMO

Nice opinion. Again... what, exactly, did they give up?

Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.

Wow... which is more or less what he did say. Stan's contract (as I understand it) specified a 10% cut of the profits. Yeah... one tenth of the profits. Wow. That's some deal.

Except that Stan, apparantly, has lost his business sense (and I have to presume he had one given Marvel's success). You never, ever, ask for a cut of the profits, because profits are easy to hide. Spiderman has grossed over $400M worldwide. But there are no profits. None. Zilch. It's amazing just how much you can write off as expenses on the budget when you never close the books on a project. In fact, Hollywood does its best to ensure no movie ever makes a profit on the books. That's been true for decades. Any decent agent knows this and ensures you word the contract right.

Stan should've asked for a cut of the take... he wouldn't have gotten more than 2-3%, but that's a boatload more than he's going to get now. I'd guess that either he used a contract lawyer that's unfamiliar with Hollywood SOP or he got greedy and thought a cut of the profits would be better than a cut of the take (and, to be fair, I bet Sony estimated huge amounts of profits). Painful lesson. I bet future deals will specify a cut of the take. And they won't be with Sony Pictures (painful lesson for Sony there too).

As for Marvel -- they entered into an agreement with Sony with limited joint merchandising. Sony is selling product without (allegedly) mentioning Marvel whatsoever -- which doesn't sound very joint to me. My bet is that Sony crossed the line on the contract and they're going to get hit for it, and hit hard. In this case it's not a question of profits -- it's a question of intellectual property. And I doubt that Sony has a leg to stand on, regardless of what the contract was -- Spidey is pretty clearly Marvel's IP.

Of course, it's a lot easier just to say "they all suck, they're all greedy, fuck them all" than to bother learning some of the actual background.
Re:giant screw up by BigBir3d · 2003-04-17 14:15 · Score: 1

Wow... which is more or less what he did say. Stan's contract (as I understand it) specified a 10% cut of the profits. Yeah... one tenth of the profits. Wow. That's some deal.

Did you read what I wrote? Did I mention percentage of profits? No. Profit is a word of many definitions. As you said so well yourself.

Whoa, /. gonna get sued next by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2003-04-17 10:09 · Score: 1

It is "Spider-Man". Calling it anything other than "Spider-Man", i.e. Spiderman or Spider Man (please Marvel don't sue me) is considered dilution of their trademark. They will rigorously attack anyone misusing their trademark - like the makers of "Kleen-ex" failed to do.

I do believe this dispute started during the early trailers for the movie "Spider-Man". For awhile there the Sony movie website was spiderman.sony.com ... Marvel quickly told them about dilution of trademark and forced them to change the URL to sony.com/Spider-Man/ ... you can see this is you look at the pre-9/11 trailers (the old URL is at the bottom of the screen), and then the later trailers had the newer URL.

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable

Anybody noticed... by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 10:17 · Score: 1

...that the 'Sony Clie' tries really hard to make you forget that it's a Palm device?

Sony's got a track record for this, no?

--
"Derp de derp."

Studio Math 101 by John+Leeming · 2003-04-17 10:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not "creative accounting"...it's called "Studio Math".

Studios arbitrarily state that a movie must make 3xCost to make a profit; if a movie costs $10million, it must make $30million to break even.

The expenses are the cost of the production, the cost of advertising/promotion, and the cost of distribution.

What the public does _not_ know is that promotion is an arbitrary figure, and distribution is a set amount established each year when the NATO Group (National Association of Theatre Owners) say how many theatres are willing to open a film a year in advance of release!

Realistically, post-production expenses are less than a _third_ of production cost...that $10million movie only costs $3.5million to hype and ship.

So where does the rest of the "expense" come in?

First, it's to pay for any frill or perks the stars may expense the studio, like Eddie Murphy's requirement for a custom-designed home where he films, or Julia Roberts' wanting hand-shaved virgin duck testicles melted in aged Tibetan yak butter, or any other ludicrous item or device.

Second, it's used to cover studio expenses even _marginally_ related to a film. Jack Valenti says that he can hear the sound stage buzzer in Studio 8 when the doors are open on Studio 3 a mile away...so Valenti orders multi-million dollar soundproofing or weatherproofing or smearing the walls with lamb's blood, and charges it to HOWARD THE DUCK's post-production expenses.

Read the trial transcripts and summaries for the lawsuit Art Buchwald filed on Eddie Murphy and the production of COMING TO AMERICA, which is the best explanation of "Studio Math"

You too can learn how TITANIC is considered a _loss_ by the two studios who paid for it, and guess how much of a tax write-off they got for it (140% of expenses is the last rumor).

20th Century Fox declared STAR WARS a money maker only _after_ it was pointed out that there was no possible way a $10million film making over $500million could be a "loss".

--
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming

Spider-man, not Spiderman. by dwheeler · 2003-04-17 10:29 · Score: 2, Funny

It's "Spider-man", not "Spiderman". There's a hyphen in the name. If you're going to fight over $millions, at least get the name right.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Re:Spider-man, not Spiderman. by m1chael · 2003-04-17 15:16 · Score: 0

was it spiderman or spider-man in the contract? eh? now that would be funny for sony now wouldnt it?

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Hmmmm...... by FaasNat · 2003-04-17 10:32 · Score: 2, Funny

This looks like a job for Superman!

--
There's never enough when you have too little

is that why they paired with Verant? by Stalcair · 2003-04-17 10:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

back during the Ultima Online beta many expressed distaste of EA's customer support. Many places detail the treatment of testers then customers (or rather just the way that known bugs were ignored in favor of "enhancements" and extensions). EQ came along and many jumped ship (or Captained both... must live on that planet with 36 hour days and only 4 hours of sleep). After the honeymoon was over however, many reported that the customer service showed signs it was flat out sick of dealing with its customers.
I feel sympothy for them but they should be professional. I and my wife decided we would like to get back into the game of MMOG so I did a bit of research at that time on the various MMOG's out then. What I came across was a varied array of horror stories dealing all with customer service. I read about how players had their accounts suspended and then terminated often when they were actually the victim of hacking attacks. (it was hard to filter through the BS, but some presented their cases very well to include providing what evidence they had and Verant/SOE responses.

I was warned by some that in the unlikely event that my account was somehow compromised through no fault or negligence of my own then by reporting it there was a high probability that my account would be permanently deleted. I thought that was odd and so decided to verify the policy with Sony.

Looking online at their site, I did multiple searches through the knowledge available and perused everything from the FAQ's and posted legal mumbo jumbo. However, it appeared that all that was ever mentioned was, "We are not responsible for securing your computer or network." OK, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all. However, past experience also knew that this could easily be just an ambigious coverall attempt to justify stupid decisions upon their part. I needed hard facts so why not ask their friendly customer service reps (that was before the trend to call it "customer care" appeared I believe).

What happened next seemed at first to be sadly just another fine example of dealing with customer service and tech support today. I first stated my question. Then stated after that more specifics about it, including what I was NOT asking. I also pointed out clearly at the beginning that I had read as much info as I could find on their site and included the relevant FAQ portions that I felt did not fully answer my question. First response back? Noise. It appeared that an automated system went through and mined my question with the customer rep only reading the scripts output. He responded that I look at the FAQ and restated what I myself had quoted in my email regarding their "responsibility." (BTW, my questions were basically "If I take precautions of firewall, anti virus, spyware checking, yadda yadda yadda, what would happen if someone somehow managed to crack my account?" and also "In such a case as this, would Verant and SOE's policy allow banning of the victim's (me) account?")

I responded with a generic statement up front of "please read this email in its entirety as the original query was not addressed" and proceeded to then quote my original question. I really could not think of another way to post it.

This time it seems he read a bit more. He then proceeded to quote from the FAQ how each banning case goes through a review process... yet did not say that it was possible. Time for response numero dos.

This time he addressed the portion of my query about the compromised account review policy... but still did not give a concrete answer as to whether their policy allowed them to ban the victims account. (I had explicitly asked this every time). Well I guess I will fire up another response.

This time I apparently had worn him down a bit (and I refrained from calling him a turdstain or anything else like that) and he testily responded that the security of the accounts was solely the responsibility of the user. He then seemed to use his own words to paraphrase the parts of the FAQ about, "don't give yo

--

I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

OT, response to your sig by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 10:51 · Score: 0

"Then eMpTyVee came along, and gave me the attention span of a ferret, and I didn't care any more." - Wil Wheaton

Mr. Wheaton should not ever think the attention span of a ferrit can be reduced enough. I have seen how driven and dedicated those little bastards are at destruction and mahem. Thing is I get really pissed but yet I have to sometimes sit back and admire the carnage those little things can reap.

Not upset by Nodatadj · 2003-04-17 11:07 · Score: 1

"MARVEL is not upset about the way SONY made the movies"

They bloody well should be.
Spiderman was an awful film, full of wooden acting, poor special effects, cheesy dialog, and the green goblin looked like a cast off from Power Rangers.

Its up with American Pie 2 as the only movies I wish I had walked out of and done something better with my time.

Re:Goatseman,Goatseman by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:20 · Score: 0

Goatseman. With the power to shove large items up his ass. That's a pretty worthless power, don't you think?

On a side note, why did you link to slashdot.org with the goatse text? Trying to fake people out or something?

Shakespear (w/green toughts) by poorbastard · 2003-04-17 11:39 · Score: 1

To paraphrase our mentor of terror in English "...h ang all the liars /lawyers" (one of them is a mispelling).

Besides, isn't rope recyclable and enviromental friendly???

--
"Sleep deprivation is no substitute for caffeine." Untold Lessons in Life

Pedantatic, not Pendantic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 11:51 · Score: 0

It's "pedantic", not "pendantic". If you are going to make an ass of yourself on slashdot.. make sure to do it correctly.

Re:Pedantatic, not Pendantic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 14:27 · Score: 0

".." is never acceptable punctuation in the English language smarty pants. Either "." or ".." would have been a'ight.
Re:Pedantatic, not Pendantic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 17:07 · Score: 0

They're called ellipses, and you did them wrong... it's "..." and not ".."

I'm in Shock and Awe! by Bones3D_mac · 2003-04-17 11:59 · Score: 1

'nuff said. ;-P

--

8==8 Bones 8==8

You spelled Spider-Man wrong, you cocksmokers. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 12:50 · Score: 0

I don't care what Google says. Fuck, this place is a cesspool.

Money and Property by Vegan+Pagan · 2003-04-17 12:50 · Score: 1

MARVEL accuses SONY of literally kidnapping Spidey.

Unfortunately, in the public's eyes, Spider Man might be a Sony character. I'm guessing, but the movie probably made more money than the last 10 years of Spider Man comic books. Technically, Spider Man belongs to Marvel, but if courtrooms are won by whoever buys the most lawers, then Sony could win this.

Re:The 80's TV series was better than the MOVIE by g0hare · 2003-04-17 12:51 · Score: 1

SPiderman was supposed to be the antihero, not looking all muscledbound etc. SO Toby is great. Look it up.

--
Vote Quimby!

Re:The 80's TV series was better than the MOVIE by zymano · 2003-04-17 13:08 · Score: 1

do you read the comic ?

Batman and spiderman are equal in muscles. So why is spiderman a wimpy looking brat?

The batman movies were excellent. And the early 80's spiderman ruled. Peter Parker =David letterman

spider? man? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-04-17 14:37 · Score: 0

Marvel, yup.

hope they make it dark like Blade by Scudsucker · 2003-04-17 15:36 · Score: 1

as opposed to the lighter style used for the other films. Ghost Rider is what got me into comics in the first place....then Marvel (under Ron "we don't need to spend money on talent, the books will sell themselves" Perelman) got a new, cheaper, less talented author and I stopped reading it withing 3 issues.

249 comments