ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

December 9, 2009 -

Activision has filed a countersuit against rockers No Doubt, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The move comes in response to No Doubt’s suit of Activision over the ability of gamers to use No Doubt on-screen avatars to perform other band’s music in the game Band Hero. No Doubt claimed that such an implementation relegated them to a “virtual karaoke act.”

Activision’s counterclaim was filed December 3 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. As part of the complaint (full PDF available here), Activision attached a copy of a Professional Services and Character License Agreement between the parties, dated May 21, 2009. Activision wrote that the contract “speaks for itself,” and denied allegations of wrong doing.

In response to No Doubt’s main complaint, Activision wrote:

Activision admits that although it is possible to program a videogame whereby particular in-game characters can only be selected when certain songs are played, Plaintiff first requested this only after the "Band Hero" programming was finalized, had been submitted to all of the U.S. console manufacturers for approval and had been approved for manufacture by most console manufacturers…

Activision is seeking judgment in its favor, unspecified damages and interest, a return from No Doubt of all benefits and payments, an order for No Doubt to pay the “full cost of this action” and “reasonable” attorney fees, along with further awards and relief that the Court “deems just and proper.”


|Via
The Hollywood Reporter|


Comments

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

Or you could be making wild guesses that have no bearing on the actual complaint. In this case they are piling on everything they can and seeing what sticks.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

Did you not see the part in the complaint where they were saying that No Doubt didn't fulfill the duties of the contract?  By not promoting the game?  

Yeah, glad to see you've come back to drown us in your stupidity again.

Hey, check this out:

From the complaint:

"No Doubt also agreed to provide services, including marketing services, to promote the "Band Hero" videogame. Even though Activision fully paid No Doubt under the parties' contract, No Doubt failed and refused to perform the services No Doubt had agreed to provide and otherwise breached its agreement with Activision, including by refusing to perform promotional services. No Doubt furthermore has been unjustly enriched by its wrongful conduct against Activision, including by retaining money paid to the band for services it then refused to provide."

Huh.  Looks like it's relevant to me.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

Bands who are featured in these games tend to have an increase in record sales as well as increased awareness in the public eye.


Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

When any band or group ends up in the press there is also an increase in sales of their records. So there is not much of a difference. And also Activision would have to sue every other band featured in the game as well. It doesn't make sense.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

To reply to you and DarkSaber, it's "unjust" because they were announced to be in-game, and AFTER that announcement, which spiked their record sales, they try to back out on the agreement by suing Activision.  At least, that's most likely what the argument will be.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

All that has very little to do with a bona fide claim of unjust enrichment. I've advised you time and time again that, if you're going to voice opinions on legal matters with such confidence, you should at least make some attempt to familiarize yourself with the law beforehand. Instead of making up the law in your own head. The law is the law is the law. There's no fooling people who are actually familiar with the law by stating some law you fabricated and which isn't the actual law. The law is the law is the law.

If you actually knew half as much about the law as you apparently only think you do, you'd know that among the many possible circumstances in which a claim for unjust enrichment can arise, is the circumstance where one party has been pre-paid to deliver a service by another party and then fails to deliver that service. The party who failed to deliver the service is said to have been "unjustly enriched" because they would then have the other party's payment yet given them nothing of value in return for that payment. So, in this case, the legal argument is nothing more complicated than Activison's claim that they paid No Doubt in advance to perform promotional services, No Doubt still has Activision's payment but hasn't delivered those promotional services to Activision, and therefore No Doubt has been unjustly enriched. Plain and simple.    

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

And I've told you time and time again to stop being a douchebag.  I didn't know about the promotional services clause of the contract, I was replying based on the particular thread above.  Either way, an unjust enrichment claim is valid in this particular case.  Granted, the one I outline is more of a stretch, but not by a whole lot.

Dick.

---

He was dead when I got here.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

I wouldn't be forced to be a douchebag if you'd quit offering baseless legal opinions. Maybe next time you can manage to actually click on the link and read the complaint before you start to analyze the complaint. Doing so may help the quality of your analysis.

Your theory doesn't even satisfy the elements of an unjust enrichment claim, which require that one party be enriched as a direct result of another party being improverished (e.g., Party A is unjustly $20 richer because he's taken Party B's $20 and given Party B nothing in return). Benefits which a party indirectly recieves, such as the "increased record sales" to which you point, don't even qualify. Your theory is pure dog shit. Plain and simple. It's not, as you think, a "stretch." It's a legal non-starter.

No-law-knowing-no-complaint-reading-dumb-ass-Bo-no-bo-monkey.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

If I'm a bonoboo monkey, you suck dicks for quarters.  YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER.  I'm surprised you're not saying that Activision is at fault again, like you did in the last article about this same controversy, and you do any time a corporation is getting sued by some individual or group of people.  Also, if you're going to comment to me on not reading the complaint, how about you say the same shit to everyone else who commented above me, as that was the whole comment line.  Oh, wait, that would require you to not be a douchebag, which you're incapable of doing.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

You can scream YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER all you want but the fact that I am a lawyer will still remain. Just like the fact that you are a complete idiot when it comes to matters legal in nature will still remain, regardless of what I scream. And if you think I'm a "douchebag" because, once again, you've run your mouth off on a matter about which you are absolutely without a clue and I've called you out for doing so, then I guess that makes me a "douchebag" in your eyes. But, unfortunately, I'm not gonna stop calling you out for being a complete idiot and talking shit about that which you know nothing. So, I guess I will remain a "douchebag" in your eyes. My sincere apologies in advance. 

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

Well, I'll still call you out for not being a lawyer, for sucking dicks for quarters and for being a douchebag.  You know how I know you're not a lawyer?  Because you can't be posting responses when you do if you are.  You'd have to be doing it on your firm's equipment, on a client's time, and I doubt either would be very appreciative of the things you say online to people you've never met.

---

You KILL Vampires. You don't DATE them.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

Have you not considered the possibility that I'm a solo practitioner and, therefore, can do with my own time and resources whatever I please do to with them? Who said, other than you, that I'm currently associated with anybody's law firm? Law firms don't have a complete monopoly on the practice of law and the provision of legal services. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd know that.

Or have you not considered the possibility that I'm filthy, stinking rich and, while I maintain a current bar admission, don't need to actively practice law to make a living and can, instead and if I so choose, spend all day chatting with fucking idiots like yourself on a GamePolitics thread? 

Your conclusion that I'm not a attorney in no way necessarily follows from the facts to which you point. Which isn't really surprising. You have a well-established history here for arguing logical disconnects. 

Re: ATVI Returns Fire on No Doubt

That's not really unjust though, after all the games have increased sales because of the bands being in the game.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
NeenekoI keep forgetting we even have forums.10/02/2014 - 11:48am
ZippyDSMleeA shame we can't have good convos in the forums, seems to me its time to nuke and restart fresh on them.10/02/2014 - 11:45am
Papa MidnightOh, no problem! Just wanted to let you know that it's what we're discussing. By all means, join in!10/02/2014 - 11:36am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, No problem. In juicy conversations, key points of discussion get pushed off quickly.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoA rather scary censorship. I have known too many people and small companies destroyed by such pressure, so this unnerves me at a pretty personal level.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoMy bad, I always have trouble working out what is going on in shoutbox10/02/2014 - 11:34am
Papa MidnightTo a point stated earlier, it very much is a form of indirect censorship. Rather than engage in rhetoric and debate, one side has instead chosen to cut-off opposing viewpoints at the knees and silence them via destroying their means of income.10/02/2014 - 11:28am
Papa MidnightNeeneko: the topic of Intel's dropping of Gamasutra is indeed part of this very ongoing conversation.10/02/2014 - 11:26am
NeenekoThis can't be good... http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/10/02/1558213/intel-drops-gamasutra-sponsorship-over-controversial-editorials10/02/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenAnd there's also the consideration that the fact that a former IGN editor was one of the people who worked on the game's localization may be unknown (although in this specific case, probably not. Drakes been very visible at events IGN covers).10/02/2014 - 11:24am
Papa MidnightAlso, let's face it: people seem to believe that a conflict of interest can yield only positive coverage. Who is to say that Audrey Drake did not leave on bad terms with IGN (with several bridges burned in their wake)? That could yield negative coverage.10/02/2014 - 11:23am
Papa MidnightThat's a fair question, and it's where things get difficult. While Jose Otero may not have any cause to show favor, Jose's editor may, as may the senior editor (and anyone else involved in the process before it reaches publication).10/02/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenWould such disclosure still be required if Fantasy Life were reviewed by Jose Otero, who wasn't hired by IGN until sometime after Drake left?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
Papa MidnightIn that case, a disclosure might be in order. The problem, of course, is applying it on a case-by-case basis; As EZK said, what's the cut-off?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
E. Zachary KnightAndrew, a disclosure would probably be in order as she likely still has a strong relationship with IGN staff. My follow up question would be "What is the statute of limitations on such a requirement?"10/02/2014 - 11:09am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, my hyperbole was intended to illustrate the difference and similarity between direct censorship and indirect censorship.10/02/2014 - 11:07am
Andrew EisenOpen Question: Former IGN Nintendo editor Audrey Drake now works in the Nintendo Treehouse. Do you think it's important for IGN to disclose this fact in the review of Fantasy Life, a game she worked on? Should IGN recuse itself from reviewing the game?10/02/2014 - 11:07am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My thoughts on disclosure: http://gamepolitics.com/2014/09/25/what-your-gamergate-wish-list#comment-29598710/02/2014 - 11:02am
Sleaker@EZK - using hyperbole is a bit silly. I'm asking a serious question. Where's the line on disclosure as relates to journalistic involvement in the culture they report on?10/02/2014 - 10:59am
E. Zachary KnightSo a journalist reporting on general gaming news mentions a specific developer and their game involved in said news, and it is suddenly some nefarious conspiracy to hide a conflict of interest. I think someone is reaching for validation.10/02/2014 - 10:53am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician