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.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/40K-Radio/147396461962884

Not really many details so far, apart from

Daniel Wosley: What naughty mischief have you been up to?!

40K Radio: Informing people about Space Marine and Sentinels of Terra. And saying good things about their game and product. We sure got what we deserved!

EDIT no 2: Removed misleading talk of this having something to do with Battlefoam.

Fun times.

Considering they pretty much copy/pasted the new SM Codex this couldn't have come as a big shock to anyone. But will be interresting to see how this turns out.

Ye. Sometimes GW can go too far, but I can't help thinking 40k radio crossed the line a little with this one. They just gave out too much information and got a letter telling them they crossed the line. No biggie for me on either side. The problem comes that they are arguing law like a poorly written FAQ.

I'm sorry, the responses so far seem to lean heavily towards 'well 40k radio broke the rules, what did they expect'.

Can someone please explain to me what they did wrong?

I know GW likes to think it can stop people talking about points costs unless it's in a roundabout manner (X costs 30 skaven slaves/a powerfist/etc) and that they think because they put a tm on the back of the book anything in it is trademarked but presumably 40k radio acquired it in a legal manner, then spoke about it in a news/commentary show that they do right?
As far as I can see they haven't done anything wrong on their part, GW have just slipped up in allowing them to get their hands on the codex and are now trying to blame anyone but themselves.

They basically sat and read out the points costs of allot of the units in the SM codex as far as I understand and from what people have told me. GW are treating it just the same as publishing the points anywhere else and 40k radio think that because they are saying it and someone would have to transcribe it that it is somehow different to publishing it in a print format.

As far as I can tell GW seem to be getting at commercial enterprises allot more than fan sites. Hence anyone linked to a shop is getting C&D's, probably because they are considered to be profiting off that, where as fan sites are getting much more leeway. Not immune, but not being struck as hard.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I know GW likes to think it can stop people talking about points costs unless it's in a roundabout manner (X costs 30 skaven slaves/a powerfist/etc) and that they think because they put a tm on the back of the book anything in it is trademarked but presumably 40k radio acquired it in a legal manner, then spoke about it in a news/commentary show that they do right?

I have to concur. I think for purposes of review they can go into as much minutiae as they like. JK Rowling may not like people posting about how Snape killed Dumbledore, but she can't sue over it either. Not that they have, since it's just a C&D.

No, but if you read out whole sections of the book she/her publishing company would. It is a question of where the line is.

also important is I seem to remember that this happened pre-release which is much more of a no-no here in the UK than it seems to be in some other countries

 Ouze wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I know GW likes to think it can stop people talking about points costs unless it's in a roundabout manner (X costs 30 skaven slaves/a powerfist/etc) and that they think because they put a tm on the back of the book anything in it is trademarked but presumably 40k radio acquired it in a legal manner, then spoke about it in a news/commentary show that they do right?

I have to concur. I think for purposes of review they can go into as much minutiae as they like. JK Rowling may not like people posting about how Snape killed Dumbledore, but she can't sue over it either. Not that they have, since it's just a C&D.

Not at all. Criticism and review is quite specific in the UK, as is the US law.

You could discuss the points cost when specifically reviewing the work, discussing the implications, and whether it's a well-written codex etc etc. But simply reading out the points cost isn't criticism and review. Fair dealing also covers whether you affect the commercial value of an item, and its' pretty obvious that, if you tell everyone what points costs are, that might save someone being forced to buy the book.

Got to admit I haven't listened to the 40k broadcast, but given that permitted usage is pretty specific, it sounds to me as if what's described falls well outside of that.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I know GW likes to think it can stop people talking about points costs unless it's in a roundabout manner (X costs 30 skaven slaves/a powerfist/etc) and that they think because they put a tm on the back of the book anything in it is trademarked but presumably 40k radio acquired it in a legal manner, then spoke about it in a news/commentary show that they do right?

I have to concur. I think for purposes of review they can go into as much minutiae as they like. JK Rowling may not like people posting about how Snape killed Dumbledore, but she can't sue over it either. Not that they have, since it's just a C&D.

Not at all. Criticism and review is quite specific in the UK, as is the US law.

You could discuss the points cost when specifically reviewing the work, discussing the implications, and whether it's a well-written codex etc etc. But simply reading out the points cost isn't criticism and review. Fair dealing also covers whether you affect the commercial value of an item, and its' pretty obvious that, if you tell everyone what points costs are, that might save someone being forced to buy the book.

Got to admit I haven't listened to the 40k broadcast, but given that permitted usage is pretty specific, it sounds to me as if what's described falls well outside of that.

That's not a bad point and based on that I could almost see GW having a legitimate case here. The problem is I also thought they had a legitimate case against chapterhouse and after what that turned into GWs legal department have no right to the benefit of the doubt.

So why would 40K Radio care at all what GW thinks? It's not like they are selling any GW products so they have no reason to fear getting blocked from selling GW products etc.

As far as 40K Radio is concerned GW has no legal ground to stand on unless you would count reading something that hasn't been released yet as corporate espionage?

Hmm, now that I think about it I have no idea what the law says about reviewing something that hasn't been released yet.
Thousands of people do it every day but that's usually for stuff they have received preview copies of.

 jonolikespie wrote:


That's not a bad point and based on that I could almost see GW having a legitimate case here. The problem is I also thought they had a legitimate case against chapterhouse and after what that turned into GWs legal department have no right to the benefit of the doubt.

Equally 40k radio seem to be saying nothing more than "We got a C&D" and making fun of it. The fact that they are not saying WHY they have it makes me think that they did something GW have a point about and are hoping just to ride on the back of GW hate.

I don't think either side should get the benefit of the doubt TBH. Knowing GW's lawyers it COULD be over something stupid the use of the name 40k, but given that 40k radio are not saying exactly what it is about makes me doubt they are in the right.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Hence anyone linked to a shop is getting C&D's, probably because they are considered to be profiting off that, where as fan sites are getting much more leeway. Not immune, but not being struck as hard.

Actually, I see it like this. Rumor mills linked to shops are easier to take on because the shop is dependent on sales of GW product. This is what gives GW some leverage against them. There is a similar thread about Beasts of War and Wayland(?).

Independent fan sites are harder to go after because there isn't a hell of a lot GW can do beyond send C&Ds. They can sue, I guess, but I think they may still be sore from the whole Spots/CH stuff.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

As far as 40K Radio is concerned GW has no legal ground to stand on unless you would count reading something that hasn't been released yet as corporate espionage?

Regardless if it was released or not... I cannot go and buy all 7 Harry potter books and narrate the entire thing on youtube. I can go buy all 7 harry potter books and do a series of reviews of it with reading limited excerpts as an integral part off the review.

Basically narrating the entire codex and statlines for the sake of just getting the information out there is reproducing copyrighted work and if it is the work in its entirety with little to no actual news story or review, they are just copyright infringement. Hence a court case. If they want to claim 'fair use' they need to prove it, or take it down.

I don't think any pro bono work will support what they were doing as legitimate 'fair use' as if there is a hazy line, it is pretty clear they are over it.

nkelsch wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

As far as 40K Radio is concerned GW has no legal ground to stand on unless you would count reading something that hasn't been released yet as corporate espionage?

Regardless if it was released or not... I cannot go and buy all 7 Harry potter books and narrate the entire thing on youtube. I can go buy all 7 harry potter books and do a series of reviews of it with reading limited excerpts as an integral part off the review.

Basically narrating the entire codex and statlines for the sake of just getting the information out there is reproducing copyrighted work and if it is the work in its entirety with little to no actual news story or review, they are just copyright infringement. Hence a court case. If they want to claim 'fair use' they need to prove it, or take it down.

I don't think any pro bono work will support what they were doing as legitimate 'fair use' as if there is a hazy line, it is pretty clear they are over it.

Except it wasn't the whole codex was it?

Sure, it was the most relevant parts, but then, if you were reviewing something, wouldn't you concentrate on the parts that were most relevant to your expected audience?

For the record, I think this, superficially, seems like one of the less spurious legal actions GW's have shat out over recent times, but as I'm unfamiliar with the law, and only know what 40K Radio did by virtue of that which was reposted here, I don't really feel informed enough to argue either way.

nkelsch wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

As far as 40K Radio is concerned GW has no legal ground to stand on unless you would count reading something that hasn't been released yet as corporate espionage?

Regardless if it was released or not... I cannot go and buy all 7 Harry potter books and narrate the entire thing on youtube. I can go buy all 7 harry potter books and do a series of reviews of it with reading limited excerpts as an integral part off the review.

Basically narrating the entire codex and statlines for the sake of just getting the information out there is reproducing copyrighted work and if it is the work in its entirety with little to no actual news story or review, they are just copyright infringement. Hence a court case. If they want to claim 'fair use' they need to prove it, or take it down.

I don't think any pro bono work will support what they were doing as legitimate 'fair use' as if there is a hazy line, it is pretty clear they are over it.

This is pretty much spot on.

Yea, I'm not seeing any details and much mocking. FOr all we know this has nothing to do with the C:SM show.

This might get to be epic. Known hot head Romeo vs known stumbling giant GW..... Yea this could get fun....

Sounds a bit harsh to me, its not like they are taking business from them or harming it in any way.

I am shocked! Really, they've been leaking pretty hardcore and it was only a matter of time.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Yea, I'm not seeing any details and much mocking. FOr all we know this has nothing to do with the C:SM show.

Apparently it does. I just updated the first post accordingly.

 Allod wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Yea, I'm not seeing any details and much mocking. FOr all we know this has nothing to do with the C:SM show.

Apparently it does. I just updated the first post accordingly.

I just found it also. Still no details, but I would have to say word for word reading of a codex is not valid "fair use" or "fair dealings".

The general rule (has not been legally challenged yet) in the US for books is one chapter or 10% limit depending on the length of the work. The format reproduced does not matter.

My understanding for the UK, is that if the work has not been released the owner has final say as to when/how release happens. After release, I believe the rules are more restrictive.

 Rayvon wrote:
Sounds a bit harsh to me, its not like they are taking business from them or harming it in any way.

Its free advertising really and attacking voices in the community is not good for your business.

Having said that, after I had a conversation with my buddy who owns a LGS brought up an interesting point; People are still buying the stuff regardless of all the negative actions, GW is looking at a short term loss by crapping on everyone but for once they are looking in the long term and they will have utter and total control of their product and who can say what about it. Most of the evidence points to that, from finecast, to embargos, to attacks on fan sites, GW is looking at setting up their doom fortress.

azreal13 wrote:

Except it wasn't the whole codex was it?

Sure, it was the most relevant parts, but then, if you were reviewing something, wouldn't you concentrate on the parts that were most relevant to your expected audience?

For the record, I think this, superficially, seems like one of the less spurious legal actions GW's have shat out over recent times, but as I'm unfamiliar with the law, and only know what 40K Radio did by virtue of that which was reposted here, I don't really feel informed enough to argue either way.

As far as I know you can mention as much as you like as long as the audience isn't able to play the game without actually having the book. I haven't listened to the episode so I dont know how much they said.
Did they list all rules, what the rules do, all the points costs of units and any and all wargear options they can take and how much those cost in points?

You review a game by playing it and pointing out the good and the bad parts, you review a codex by going over the changes from the last book and comparing costs, stats etc to the old one. Isn't this what they did?

I can agree though that 40K Radio has been leaking ALLOT of stuff, but is that their fault or GWs fault? I'm not sure what the law says about that. Don't we see similar things in all other forms of media all the time? Leaks on new computer hardware, cars and other material things like these? Then again I guess the comparison would be that if someone leaked the info on a graphics card the audience would be able to build their own using the information given?

40K Radio may be in the wrong but I'm not going to complain because GW (imo) dont know anything about good marketing or how to build hype so someone else has to do it for them through rumours and leaks about upcoming changes.

One thing worth mentioning is that, regardless of the legitimacy of GW's position, this is still the arse about face way of doing things.

Thanks to the anonymity of the Internet, even if they succeed in shutting down every legitimate, established wargaming site from posting rumours ahead of time, they will still have an issue with stuff being leaked on message boards, blogs or whatever.

If they want to stop information being spread about ahead of time, they get their own house in order, identify and stop the leak. Nothing else will work to the degree they appear to want to enforce.

Given their reputation as legal bullies and with what has happened with CHS, any legal action is going to do their reputation no good whatsoever.

MadCowCrazy Those are my words dude, not nkelsch's, not sure who you meant to respond to.

That's what Im getting at. Lets go big picture here. What is GWs goal with all of this?

 Ravenous D wrote:
That's what Im getting at. Lets go big picture here. What is GWs goal with all of this?

The same thing that it has always been. Protect their IP. Whether they are doing that in the right way or not, at least they have been consistent.

Ultimate Totalitarian control of the HHHHobby

The first rule about GW- Don't talk about GW.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Then again I guess the comparison would be that if someone leaked the info on a graphics card the audience would be able to build their own using the information given?

Yeah well I'm fairly certain I lack the production equipment to make a graphics card or any particular parts that would make that sort of leak important. If you read off enough of a book though I could copy it and use it for games. If you didn't read off just enough but other people got in on the act I could piece it together. Pretty sure any event would highly prefer I used a real book of course but otherwise I would be good. Leaking 15 minutes of a videogame though for example wouldn't be worth as much since I would still need the game, but heads would still roll over the leak. Maybe GW isn't sure or willing to figure out which heads need to roll, or maybe it sees any level of combinable information as threat.

Which... yeah I guess I wouldn't trust the Internet on that one either. To be fair.