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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenInfophile - Your comment is on the second page. Scroll to the bottom and click "Previous Entries."10/01/2014 - 9:55am
MaskedPixelantehttps://time.com/3450854/amc-netflix-imax-crouching-tiger-hidden-dragon-boycott/ Theatres refuse to show the new Crouching Tiger movie because... well, I'm sure they've got a good PR spin reason, pick one.10/01/2014 - 9:06am
IanCForza Horrizon 2 isn't even out yet, but theres already a 31 car DLC pack, along with a season pass....10/01/2014 - 8:42am
quiknkoldstarting my Halloween Spooktacular Stream today. Every day from 7-11, I'm going to be streaming Spooky games on Twitch.10/01/2014 - 8:37am
MaskedPixelanteSteam is going to start charging us Canadians in CAD. This is bad news... for people who don't use key sellers like GMG and GamersGate.10/01/2014 - 7:23am
InfophileSomething weird was going on with that comment. As soon as I posted it, it looked like it had replies from the past. And now I can't even find it. Ah well, it was getting off-topic for that thread anyway.10/01/2014 - 4:29am
Sleaker@CraigR been using Win8.1 for a while, I don't really see any usability difference between it and 7 (Work uses 7)10/01/2014 - 2:16am
Craig R.Ok, my internal debate was short-lived. If Win10 is still a year out, I'm not waiting that long for an SSD, so on Win7 I will remain.09/30/2014 - 7:52pm
Matthew Wilsonits called windows 10, and I am happy to get the start menu back.09/30/2014 - 7:18pm
Jessy HartIs this stuff about Windows 10 legit? Is it actually called Windows 10 or is it just some stupid joke?09/30/2014 - 6:57pm
ZippyDSMleeSo I been trying to play Bioshock Infinite I got all the DLC,ect but do not want the extras to make your charatcer over powered from the start.....they force you to take them which is quite annoying......09/30/2014 - 6:45pm
Craig R.I need to upgrade to an SSD, still seriously debating moving to Win8.1 from 7 at the same time09/30/2014 - 6:07pm
Craig R.Win10 is probably Win8.1 with more cleanup and the Start button back.09/30/2014 - 6:06pm
Sora-ChanAhh, it's just weird seeing someone's post all of a sudden have replies from days prior before it was posted due to that.09/30/2014 - 5:49pm
MechaTama31sora: I broke the ordering intentionally, as AE's and my conversation had squeezed the text boxes down to be quite slim. I replied to an earlier post of his instead of the one I was actually replying to.09/30/2014 - 5:46pm
MechaTama31So, 9 would have been the good one, but they are skipping it to do two crap ones in a row?09/30/2014 - 5:41pm
Sora-ChanSo, judging from the poll post for #gamergate, it looks like too many thread replies breaks the ordering of posts, as seen with the recent post from Infophile.09/30/2014 - 5:31pm
Andrew EisenOr no! It wasn't Y3K compliant. Microsoft thought it best to super future proof its OS and skipped straight to 10 which is Y3K compliant!09/30/2014 - 5:01pm
Andrew EisenJust tell them it wasn't Y2K compliant.09/30/2014 - 5:00pm
Craig R.Looking forward to having to explain to coworkers down the road what ever happened to 9 *sigh*09/30/2014 - 4:57pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician