MovieChat Forums > Free Guy (2021) Discussion > Chasing the code that was "bought and sh...

Chasing the code that was "bought and shelved"

posted 3 years ago by RogueDemonHunter (2684)
19 replies | jump to latest

Unless I've missed something, the paradise game source code containing the AI code was bought by Antwan and then shelved. Surely if Antwan owns the code he can do what he wants with it? Shelve it, integrate it into his own game, whatever. What right do Millie and Keys have rooting through the game looking for "their" code when they made the business decision to sell it? Sure, they might not have liked what happened to it after they sold it but that's their fault for selling it without having some type of end use contract.

Buying out and shelving of competing companies happens all the time...

[–] Randy (29) 3 years ago

He stole the code. Which also happens all the time, but is a lot more despicable.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

Nope. They had a conversation at Key's place and he says Antwan bought it and shelved it.

[–] sid71 (3) 3 years ago

yeah he did buy the code but then claimed that he did not use it which means he does not have to play royalties. But he did use the code and did not want to pay so he hid it instead. Simples.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

I'm confused. How can you own something but need to pay royalties for it? Surely if you're paying royalties, you don't own it? Who are you paying royalties to?

It's like buying a car but being told if you want to drive it, you need to pay the dealer. You don't own it, that's leasing...

[–] Randy (29) 3 years ago

Stars, writers, directors, etc. have deals in their contracts they get a cut from their video game, TV show, movie, etc. Yes they get paid a certain amount upfront, but they get paid more if its a success. Look at what happened to Scarlett Johansson. She sued Disney because she was supposed to get bonuses based on how well Black Widow did in theaters, without knowing its box office would end up being less because it was also on Disney+ as well as theaters. Disney took that advantage of that, so she sued and won. Pretty ironic since Free Guy is also a Disney film.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

Right, but I don't think you're analogy applies here.

What I'm getting at is royalties are payments that buy the right to use someone else's property. If you bought that property, it is no longer owned by the seller as you are the new owner. Why would royalties still be paid to a former owner?

If I made a game that used the Source 2, I imagine I would pay Valve a licensing fee. Now if I decided to buy Source 2 from Valve, I wouldn't pay royalties to to them as I would be the owner.

[–] Missemd (276) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Missemd (276) 3 years ago

Copyright law and licensing of intellectual property are crazy complex areas but I got the impression that Soonami had only purchased the publishing rights for Millie and Keys game. If Soonami had released the game, anytime the game was purchased/played by the public, then it would have earned automatic mechanical royalties. Of that particular mechanical royalty, 50% goes the publisher and 50% goes to the composer: depending on the actual licensing deal that they had made between one another.

If the game really had never been released/played, then Millie and Keys would never have seen another cent: they only would have earned the initial upfront money they were paid when they licensed their game to Soonami.

But Soonami did ‘technically’ release their game. They just hid all of their original source code inside another game, lied about it and therefore had falsely collected 100% of any royalties.

That was my take-away with the movie, anyway.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

I'm going to try and find out from a video game maker if there is a way this can make sense as to me, it still doesn't in the context of what was portrayed in the film.

[–] Missemd (276) 3 years ago

Not a bad idea!

TBH I am coming at it with my knowledge from working in the music industry, so I could very easily be way off the mark with my understanding
And then there’s also the fact that they could have simply have used a slight bit of a ‘McGuffin’ here for the ‘why’ part of the movie?

I wish you well!

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

I think RogueDemonHunter is getting hung up on the idea of "property" as a single thing.

In the case of intellectual property (the "IP" they keep mentioning in this movie), "property rights" can take different forms.

Game programming is one form of IP, but maybe a screenplay is more familiar to regulars on this board.

So suppose RogueDemonHunter writes a killer movie script about a video game character who gains self-awareness. It's a think-piece à la "Ex Machina."

20th Century agrees to buy RogueDemonHunter's script for $75K up front plus 1% of the worldwide earnings. Then they tell RogueDemonHunter they're shelving it.

RogueDemonHunter takes the $75K and thinks that's the end of it.

But then RogueDemonHunter sees "Free Guy" hit the screens, and 1% of its current box office would already be $3million.

How would you feel in RogueDemonHunter's shoes? They not only took the idea from the original screenplay, but exact words, situations, etc. They just "padded it out" with comedy and "real world drama" between Millie, Keys and Antwan. But underneath, it's still RogueDemonHunter's screenplay.

Is RogueDemonHunter entitled to the $3million (as of today)?

Anyways, that's the point we're trying to make. Antwan paid Millie and Keys for game code that was supposedly "shelved." But the code WASN'T shelved; it was turned into "Free City" and earned tons of cash for Antwan, without a cent of royalties to Millie and Keys.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

I suppose I'm hung up on royalties. As to my understanding, that applies to an owner that allows a third party to use something of theirs. Now if there was a contract where Millie and Keys get a % from the sales of any game sold using that code, I can absolutely see why they were pissed. I just don't recall hearing "contract" or "broken contract" once. Though I could be wrong.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

Ah! OK, yeah thing is with intellectual property like movies, novels, screenplays and complicated programming, you can collect royalties even after selling primary ownership. It's extremely common.

They didn't explain it in the film because, in all likelihood, the movies' writers and computer game consultants have been living that life for so long that they just assume everyone else will understand, hence no specific mention of contracts.

(That's their fault, not yours)

Gone are the days of just buying IP and owning ALL subsequent profits. The most infamous example, from which everyone else "learned their lesson," could be Tim Paterson who created QDOS, a “Quick and Dirty Operating System,” that Bill Gates bought in its entirety for $75 000. Then Gates resold it to IBM computer users as MSDOS and became a billionaire.

(that's an oversimplification but it makes the point)

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 3 years ago

I guess maybe I extrapolated my knowledge of how most screenplays are sold. I.e. say you sell a screenplay for $100K and have a deal where you also get 5% of net profit. The way the film industry works is, the accounting department finesse the figures and costs so not many films actually make a profit to pay anyone their contracted 5% net profit.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 3 years ago

you sell a screenplay for $100K and have a deal where you also get 5% of net profit

Exactly.

So what Antwan did in this film is pay $100K for a screenplay, slap a new title on it and add some additional dialogue.

Then he films it and denies you the 5% of net because "it's a different film"

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

I'll have to re-watch it but I think he bought some of their code but then modded their game engine (that he didn't buy) as his own?

[–] 123Guy (7323) 3 years ago

it's absolutely your right to be able to pick at plot holes or writing issues to your hearts desire, of course, there is nothing wrong with that.

with that said, movies are generally designed to be enjoyed as is, without needs for such nit picky inspection. inspections like that can reveal all the fictional aspects of artificial stories, rendering them null and unentertaining. this perspective is bad as it leads to the end of all fiction. fiction is fiction. that's why it is mostly fun, and why we must leave our inspection at the door.

the perceived plot fail here does, in no way, reduce the entertainment value of this film.
we don't know all the particulars of said purchase/share/license transaction that occurred on a deeply legal level, nor should we have to, to get the point of what happens in the movie.
should the movie have paused and let us sit and read a 30 page legal document they signed at the point of code sale for all the particulars of the transaction for us to fully understand what really was laid out .... just to enjoy a movie? no.

It's just a movie. enjoy it.

we all need to stop being so anal about everything. just kick back and enjoy the experience as fiction.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

That is the shit writer manifesto.

[–] Randy (29) 3 years ago

I agree. Its a major plot point, but its not that complicated. Antwan is a liar a cheater and a thief. You don’t need to be an expert of copyright law to understand that.