Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?p=143453#post143453

Long story short:

Army Builder is a trademarked name and Lone Wolf Development doesn't like it being used as a generic term for army list generating software. They demand that Privateer Press enforces LWD's policy on PP's forum, or else.

Always classy, PP responds by wordfiltering all references to Army Builder from their forum


In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Anyone ever hear of Free Advertising heheh

Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Flachzange wrote:

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Actually, yes, I do think a lot of GW's C&D claims would stand up in court. That doesn't mean I agree with it but there you are. However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

I'm almost certain PP's overreaction was done on purpose and is delightfully spiteful.

lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the issue of LoneWolf's c&d I believe it is valid. The Army Builder name I believe is a registered trademark. P&P's use is legally equivalent to them making a game called Warhammer 40,000. I think this is an honest mistake on their part and the action taken by P&P is appropriate to protecting them from legal repercussions.

aka_mythos wrote: Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement.

Ha ha ha. How many EULAs do you know of that have stood up in court. I'd be willing to bet that at least half the people using Army Builder never even read the EULA. (Just like with every other EULA out there.)

Actually, EULA's stand up in court all the time. If you chose to click the "ok" button when you haven't read the EULA, it's just like signing loan documents without reading them. (Electronic "signatures" have held up in court, too.)

While no court has rendered a decision in regard to ALL such "click here" type EUL Agreements, there have been many that have, in fact, held up in court. One of the precedents stated that, since the buyer had to "agree" to the EULA before installation of the software was complete, then it was binding. I don't know if Army Builder requires EULA acceptance prior to installation or not.

Anyway, you can do a pretty quick internet search for the enforceability of EULAs. It depends on the nature of the specific EULA and the court that has heard it.

filbert wrote:

Flachzange wrote:

filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

Well, do you think every G-Dub C&D letter would stand up in court? Did they do it anyways? Yes they did.

Actually, yes, I do think a lot of GW's C&D claims would stand up in court. That doesn't mean I agree with it but there you are. However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

It wasn't a generic term until they created their program. Army builder has been a trademark for at least a decade. It's similar to Coca Cola trademarking the term "coke". Everyone might use the phrase coke to refer to cola drinks, but Pepsi and the others aren't allowed to advertise their drinkl as a coke.

Love the PP response. No problem we'll make sure no one ever discusses your product accidentally (or intentionally) on our boards again. That will come along with posting your entire C&D letter. Thank you for your threats to sue us and have a nice day.

Essentially an appropriately worded EULA protects the supplier, not the consumer.

EULA's hold up extremely well. Too well actually. There is actually a growing movement among law makers to reform them because they work so well to the benefit of the EULA's creator that many see them to be inherently anti-consumer.

I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

Agree, mythos.

Mostly, where EULA's have been found against in court has been in cases where someone, like a distributor, purchases bulk copies of software bundles, and then resells them "unbundled" as discreet parts.

In some areas, courts have found in the favor of the distributor using the "first sale" concept that allows the original buyer of a copyrighted piece of material to later sell that item without having to deal with the original copyright holder.

As I don't play any of their games, I've never bothered to join their forums.

Anyone care to paste the attachments here for those of us who aren't members?

Thanks in advance!

Eric

No its not a virus. (lol).


Attached is the C&D

I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

EDIT: I was refering to the letter sent to ForwardKommander, not PP. Oops. The one to PP is significantly different, and is slightly more heavy-handed, as it's a bit much to expect that kind of control on a forum board. TBH, I think PP went overboard too, as something along the lines of a sticky and doing some copy-paste might have been enough. Dunno.

Wow, that letter makes PP kind of look like asshats over the whole thing.

Gornall wrote:I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

AB actually send a letter saying "Hey people not affiliated with your organization but participating on your public forums are using our registered trademark, so make them stop or we'll sue you in 72 hours."

Moz wrote:

Gornall wrote:I'm not really sure what the fuss is about. AB sent a letter saying "Hey, we don't appreciate you using our registered trademark, so knock it off and we'll call it good."

Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

AB actually send a letter saying "Hey people not affiliated with your organization but participating on your public forums are using our registered trademark, so make them stop or we'll sue you in 72 hours."

Yeah... I had read the letter to ForwardKommander and assumed it was the same type of letter. And everyone one knows what assuming does. The PP letter is a little more out there, as it basically amounts to telling people they can't refer to non-Coca Cola products as Cokes. If you've ever been to the south, everything is a "Coke".

aka_mythos wrote:EULA's hold up extremely well. Too well actually. There is actually a growing movement among law makers to reform them because they work so well to the benefit of the EULA's creator that many see them to be inherently anti-consumer.

I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

I guess you're not like most people. Judging simply from reading posts on this forum, more people don't own every codex that they use AB for than do.

You're right, this does protect the EULA creator, but I think it's a little ironic for a company that is clearly profiting from the abuse of other people's IP (even if their EULA states otherwise) to go whining about their trademark.

I wonder how far PP could get if they pursued the opposite strategy, of forcing Wolflair not to support their copyrighted material. Only the fans would suffer in the end, I suppose.

...

*facepalm*

Once again, this goes over the head of the general masses:

This isn't to prevent you from saying "Army Builder" as many times as you want.

This seems to be an attempt, just like the Blood Bowl fiasco, to keep other companies from using a specific title in a role that they shouldn't.

You can use "Army Builder" when referring to the product itself, but you can't use "army builder" in a generic sense.

Boy, I sure enjoy software that builds armies. Building armies using predefined data files is fun, quick and easy. I usually digitally build my armies, experimenting with different unit/model configurations before I purchase the models. Sometimes, while waiting for primer/base coat to dry, I turn to my computer and digitally build armies.

That letter is ridiculous. I doubt I'll be buying a new subscription for a program that digitally builds armies.

I'm more of the opinion that it's you can, say for example:

Forward Kommander: Warmachines & Hordes Army Building Utility

and not:
Forward Kommander: Army Builder for Warmachines & Hordes.

The second phrasing makes it seem like it's Lone Wolf's product being licensed out, rather than a separate entity.

It's easy for Forward Kommander to fix that though. It's something else entirely to have to police your forums for those "misuses".

Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

Interesting.

Problem is to read the fething announcement I have to register for Privateer's forums, and I don't have enough interest to.