Latest posts for the thread "GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout"

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

George Spiggott — GMT

Herein I will keep a list of all the known fan sites who received a cease and desist letter and how they are adapting (or not). I'll try to keep this up to date as new information is received and confirmed. Apparently there are 50+ affected websites.

[b]talkbloodbowl.com[/b] Bloodbowl fansite: Changed domain to [b]talkfantasyfootball.org[/b]

[b]blood-bowl.net[/b] Bloodbowl fansite: Changed domain to [b]thenaf.net[/b]

[b]bbarena.net[/b] French Bloodbowl fansite: Unknown

[b]enefel.org[/b] French Bloodbowl fansite: Unknown

[b]darkreign40k.com[/b] Dark Heresy RPG fansite: Attempting to comply with C&D letter

[b]portmaw.com[/b] Battlefleet Gothic fansite: Unknown

[b]bloodbowl.net[/b] Bloodbowl fansite: Closed 28/Aug/09. Site domain being transferred

[b]fumbbl.com[/b] Bloodbowl fansite: Unknown

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

Dark Reign got a letter ? Have you got any details/pertinent summary. Many thanks.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

George Spiggott — GMT

"I have received a Cease and Desist letter from Games Workshop's legal group. The website is not allowed to use any art or text from either Games Workshop or Fantasy Flight Games products, not even linked from other websites like Amazon.

You can understand that it is very dificult, maybe impossible, for a fansite to exist if it can't show the product(s) it writes about.

GW has given 19th of november as the deadline. If at that date any images or text remain than they will sue me.

So, unless somebody knows a solution DR40K will cease to be on the 18th." - Mordheim (Dark Reign 40k)

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

Cheers fella !

.. good grief, you think things are dumb enough currently and then...

..sad thing is, it's not even that much of a surprise anymore.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=George Spiggott]"I have received a Cease and Desist letter from Games Workshop's legal group. The website is not allowed to use any art or text from either Games Workshop or Fantasy Flight Games products, not even linked from other websites like Amazon.

You can understand that it is very dificult, maybe impossible, for a fansite to exist if it can't show the product(s) it writes about.

GW has given 19th of november as the deadline. If at that date any images or text remain than they will sue me.

So, unless somebody knows a solution DR40K will cease to be on the 18th." - Mordheim (Dark Reign 40k)

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0[/quote]

The law of copyright has a clear provision of fair use which allows the use of excerpts for the purposes of comment, criticism and review.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Deadshane1 — GMT

Has Dakka recieved any sort of letter along these lines?

Is it a concern here?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Cane — GMT

40k Vassal and that 40k Comic also got some legal letters didn't they? However not much sympathy can be had imo for these cases especially the latter who was basically trying to write a book using/stealing 40k material verbatim.

Can't say I surfed any of those other sites listed though so I know even less of the situation regarding 'em.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Deadshane1]Has Dakka recieved any sort of letter along these lines?

Is it a concern here?[/quote]

Not as far as I know.

No, because (a) the term DakkaDakka is ™ of DakkaDakka not GW, (b) the site content is discussion, review, etc. involving based around GW and other companies' games as well as more general modelling topics, therefore not infringing copyright or trading exclusively off GW properties.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

GW seem to want to crush all coverage of their product outside their control. How things change. When they got rid of their own forums they suggested that people find other fan sites around the web to join. Now they seem to have decided they don't like their customers seeing a hobby outside their control so want to do what they can to get rid of it all. They really have to be one of the most paranoid and aggressively posessive companies in the entire hobby.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Delephont — GMT

This to me shows the fallacy of creating a GW based fansite, or any fan based material for that matter.....not even so much because of the threats they throw around, but also because its madness to support a product that the actual OEM company doesn't support!

In my opinion, if GW doesn't support its products let them die along with their profit margins.

This kind of thing sickens me, and its one of the key reasons why some of the GW WH40K projects I was intending to fund have fallen by the way-side! I'd rather place that investment into my own projects as opposed to further supporting their antics!

I hope, no pray! that all of this comes back to destroy them. I hope the legal "high flyers" that feel they are doing something "whizz" end up looking at an ever decreasing desire for their products, and end up having to pull out all the stops just to sell a single miniature!!!

These people seem to have forgotten that all their selling is a luxury pastime based object, not a cure for cancer or a method for deep space galactic exploration!

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Funny that on the first page that George linked, someone already figured out EXACTLY why those specific sites are being targeted. Yet nobody mentioned it here...

[quote=Millandson] It might entirely be down to the fact that we have "40k" in the website domain name and site name, as well as the linking of GW images from their servers, which is bandwidth theft, which can be illegal.[/quote]

Admittedly, he posted that kinda small after the complete IP page that GW has (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4).

But yes, while it's silly...it does make sense. People deep linking to the GW articles, photos, etc is a HUGE bandwidth leech. I know if someone started deep linking from my photobucket account or a private homepage, I'd go after them too.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Cane — GMT

Yea the lawyers are just doing their jobs here. Again its not really GW you should hate since they're following the legal advice made by their legal professionals - I don't think very many company executives would argue against their own legal department after all.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

malfred — GMT

[quote=George Spiggott]Herein I will keep a list of all the Fansites who received a C&D and how they are adapting (or not). I'll try to keep this up to date as new information is received and confirmed. Apparently there are 54 affected websites in total.

[b]talkbloodbowl.com[/b] Bloodbowl fansite: Closed 08/11/09
[/quote]

You wrote this as day/month/year, right?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

RogueMarket — GMT

Can't wait to get mine *chuckles*

j/k.

How crazy can this get~

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

Site owner receives the C&D and thinks
"Cut the name, create your own artwork, ditch any kind of donations system and... wait there a minute, why the frack do I need to support & give tons of money with free publicity to a company pro bono, If I dont need them for basicly anything? I may well just do my thing for myself OR support and have fun with other hobbies companies who apreciate my efforts."

Thats what goes into the minds of fansites owners... and most will call it quits... less good fansites= less free publicity... last time I checked word of mouth was GW publicity style, so good publicity there for sure.

I ask if it wasnt for BB fansites... would BB even be alive?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Flachzange — GMT

[quote=RogueMarket]
How crazy can this get~[/quote]

Well, yanno ... THIS IS GW!!!!!11

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Agamemnon2 — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO]I ask if it wasnt for BB fansites... would BB even be alive?[/quote]
Absolutely not, inasmuch it is alive even now. With TalkBB gone, even less so.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

George Spiggott — GMT

[quote=malfred]You wrote this as day/month/year, right?[/quote]
Yep, they went belly up yesterday.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

This is really bad form. I agree, hotlinking/deeplinking or whatever is very poor form, but the correct approach is to start out by asking them nicely to stop. Most people would have no problem with stopping in that situation- often, they don't realise that what they are doing is leeching bandwidth.
C&D is ridiculously heavy handed, especially in a fringe hobby like this where customer goodwill counts for so much.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

twistinthunder — GMT

[quote=George Spiggott]"I have received a Cease and Desist letter from Games Workshop's legal group. The website is not allowed to use any art or text from either Games Workshop or Fantasy Flight Games products, not even linked from other websites like Amazon.

You can understand that it is very dificult, maybe impossible, for a fansite to exist if it can't show the product(s) it writes about.

GW has given 19th of november as the deadline. If at that date any images or text remain than they will sue me.

So, unless somebody knows a solution DR40K will cease to be on the 18th." - Mordheim (Dark Reign 40k)

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0[/quote]

erm heres an idea:

take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder]take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.[/quote]

Most of these people aren't making money from them, donations barely cover the costs of the site meaning the owner covers the rest. Few people are going to shoulder the full costs of supporting a website for a community. Which is great for GW because it's a simply way to get them closed down.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

Exactly.
Really, I can understand defending your IP, but you can be NICE about it, and probably garner good press!

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

twistinthunder — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]Funny that on the first page that George linked, someone already figured out EXACTLY why those specific sites are being targeted. Yet nobody mentioned it here...

[quote=Millandson] It might entirely be down to the fact that we have "40k" in the website domain name and site name, as well as the linking of GW images from their servers, which is bandwidth theft, which can be illegal.[/quote]

Admittedly, he posted that kinda small after the complete IP page that GW has (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4).

But yes, while it's silly...it does make sense. People deep linking to the GW articles, photos, etc is a HUGE bandwidth leech. I know if someone started deep linking from my photobucket account or a private homepage, I'd go after them too.[/quote]

reading the link i find:

[quote]you cannot:

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.[/quote]

but the fact that (whilst witch hunters are still female aren't very main stream) the mainstream models that are derogatory,obscene and offensive to women considering the sell daemonettes which:

- show a female body part that is not normally seen bare (in public).
- show them scantily clad in tight fitting garments.
- they mainstream that most (if you disregard with hunters then all) women are daemons.

also surely it cant be their trademark if i change it so it doesn't look like they're trademark.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder][quote=George Spiggott]"I have received a Cease and Desist letter from Games Workshop's legal group. The website is not allowed to use any art or text from either Games Workshop or Fantasy Flight Games products, not even linked from other websites like Amazon.

You can understand that it is very dificult, maybe impossible, for a fansite to exist if it can't show the product(s) it writes about.

GW has given 19th of november as the deadline. If at that date any images or text remain than they will sue me.

So, unless somebody knows a solution DR40K will cease to be on the 18th." - Mordheim (Dark Reign 40k)

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0[/quote]

erm heres an idea:

take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.[/quote]

Do newspapers make money when they sell a copy with a review of a book or film in?

Yes.

You don't have to not make money while making use of Fair Use.

The inverse is also true. You can copy and distribute GW rulebooks at a loss to yourself, it doesn't make it not a violation
of copyright.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

twistinthunder — GMT

[quote=Howard A Treesong][quote=twistinthunder]take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.[/quote]

Most of these people aren't making money from them, donations barely cover the costs of the site meaning the owner covers the rest. Few people are going to shoulder the full costs of supporting a website for a community. Which is great for GW because it's a simply way to get them closed down.[/quote]

doesn't make a difference anything that can be used to collect money from someone can and will be seen as breaching copyright flaws.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder][quote=Howard A Treesong][quote=twistinthunder]take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.[/quote]

Most of these people aren't making money from them, donations barely cover the costs of the site meaning the owner covers the rest. Few people are going to shoulder the full costs of supporting a website for a community. Which is great for GW because it's a simply way to get them closed down.[/quote]

doesn't make a difference anything that can be used to collect money from someone can and will be seen as breaching copyright flaws. [/quote]

I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that lack of profit makes it "ok", I don't know quite how the the argument about that aspect would work out in a legal way. What I'm saying is that the suggested removal of the donations button isn't a viable option. And GW know it.

I think the real issue here isn't whether GW has the legal right to close sites down, but whether they should apply it. It frankly seems to be done for little reason other than to absolutely control their product. They could quite simply overlook lots of fan websites and treat them as little more than free advertising. Obviously hotlinking to their images and using their bandwidth is not on and website owners should prevent it, but the idea that if that by not pursuing these sites GW run the risk of losing their IP doesn't hold water IMO. You aren't allowing use of your IP, you're over looking unofficial use. Many of these sites have been online many years, if there was serious risk of an IP challenge then surely it would have come up before now.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

twistinthunder — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]
Do newspapers make money when they sell a copy with a review of a book or film in?

Yes.

You don't have to not make money while making use of Fair Use.
[/quote]

erm im pretty sure thats the point of fair use.

if your making money from something (whether or not you deem it 'making money') you cannot claim fair use because your not using it fairly.

i cant use one of you models and then put in a magazine/newspaper without your permission because its your model and im making money from the magazine/newspaper i also cant say i was using it fairly because i was the only one gaining any financial gain.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Howard A Treesong][quote=twistinthunder][quote=Howard A Treesong][quote=twistinthunder]take the donations button away. they can't sue you if your not making money off of it because of the fair use agreement laws.[/quote]

Most of these people aren't making money from them, donations barely cover the costs of the site meaning the owner covers the rest. Few people are going to shoulder the full costs of supporting a website for a community. Which is great for GW because it's a simply way to get them closed down.[/quote]

doesn't make a difference anything that can be used to collect money from someone can and will be seen as breaching copyright flaws. [/quote]

I think you miss my point. I'm not saying that lack of profit makes it "ok", I don't know quite how the the argument about that aspect would work out in a legal way. What I'm saying is that the suggested removal of the donations button isn't a viable option. And GW know it.[/quote]

i think you miss my point.

he's getting money from people while using gw IP, if he took away the donations button he wouldn't be gaining anything and could claim fair use.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Kilkrazy][quote=Deadshane1]Has Dakka recieved any sort of letter along these lines?

Is it a concern here?[/quote]

Not as far as I know.

No, because (a) the term DakkaDakka is ™ of DakkaDakka not GW, (b) the site content is discussion, review, etc. involving based around GW and other companies' games as well as more general modelling topics, therefore not infringing copyright or trading exclusively off GW properties.[/quote]

how many people place by their pictures this:

[quote]"miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"[/quote]

because i think this could bring down this site if gw wanted to really people off:

[quote]We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"[/quote]

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder]i think you miss my point.

he's getting money from people while using gw IP, if he took away the donations button he wouldn't be gaining anything and could claim fair use.[/quote]

If most took it away they couldn't afford to run their sites. GW are being disingenuous in making it seem like they are making some small reasonable request, they know that removal of a donations system will sink many sites.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BeefyG — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO]
I ask if it wasnt for BB fansites... would BB even be alive?[/quote]

Categorically no.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Waaagh_Gonads — GMT

BB is having a resurgence in Australia with very healthy leagues run in all the major cities.

The vast majority of players are 10+ year veterans but there are some newer guys, all introduced by friends but who got inspired by the websites.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder][quote=Kilkrazy]
Do newspapers make money when they sell a copy with a review of a book or film in?

Yes.

You don't have to not make money while making use of Fair Use.
[/quote]

erm im pretty sure thats the point of fair use.
[/quote]

No it's not. See here.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Dal'yth Dude — GMT

Copyright laws depend on the country you are in. However, in real life copyright depends on the financial assets of both parties.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

daedalus — GMT

[quote=Dal'yth Dude]Copyright laws depend on the country you are in. However, in real life copyright depends on the financial assets of both parties.[/quote]

This. Even if you are 100% in the right, are you going to go to court and spend thousands of dollars defending that you are right while the corporation, who has money orders of magnitude greater than you, continues to stall and drag the fight out until you run dry? In this day and age, you have two choices: fight and be left bankrupt (and lose because they outlast you), or roll over like the good lap dog you are because the benevolent overlords are giving you a way out. You see this kind of stuff all the time anymore. It's the fact that they gave the corporations the rights of people combined with such fine and upstanding laws as the DMCA and the soon to be unveiled ACTA that give GW this kind of power. You can thank every US and UK politico since the 80s for this. What I just can't figure out is how no one stepped up and stopped it all when they might have had the chance.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BeefyG — GMT

We've got a 30 player league here in Australia's Capital. Which is healthier than any other gaming league around by a good margin that I'm aware of.

If it wasn't for the websites as Waaagh_Gonads mentioned being used as inspiration/learning development tools for new players then the game would have stagnated and died a long time ago.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

R3con — GMT

GWS please bring it, I'll shut down my small club forums when

1) I have a court order from a court who has jurisdiction over my servers.

2) They buy it from me..

www.mi40k.com

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

daedalus — GMT

[quote=R3con]GWS please bring it, I'll shut down my small club forums when

1) I have a court order from a court who has jurisdiction over my servers.

2) They buy it from me..

www.mi40k.com[/quote]

Won't even take that much. The term "40k" is a registered trademark of Games Workshop LLC, and as a result of you using it to discuss miniatures, you are causing confusion on who and what the term is supposed to denote, and as such dilluting GW's brand power. As a result you have to take down any and all content related to wargaming, miniatures, or LotR. You can have the domain though, but you are limited to using it for things not related to wargaming, including war, gaming, space, mechs, guns, humans, or aliens.

See how easy that was?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Ghidorah — GMT

[quote=Mordheim (Dark Reign 40k)]You can understand that it is very dificult, maybe impossible, for a fansite to exist if it can't show the product(s) it writes about.[/quote]False. You can't show the product from GW's site. There's nothing stopping you from photographing the product yourself and hosting your own pics.

[quote=Howard A Treesong]Most of these people aren't making money from them, donations barely cover the costs of the site meaning the owner covers the rest.[/quote]This is a mostly false statement. Definitely an uninformed one. I can't say whether or not these people are making money from the donations, but I [i]can[/i] state that, in MY experience, it is ludicrously easy to make money from donations, would the domain-holder be so inclined.

Have you ever owned a fansite or website of any kind before? Leased a domain name and server space from a company? I am a veteren of nearly a decade of fansite-running for various online games I've played. It started out as my America's Army clan was growing and we wanted forums and what not. I hosted the Team Speak server myself. Then, it moved on to an MMO I used to play, Anarchy Online. We had a website for our Org (Omni-Tek!). Currently, I've been running a website/forums for my guild in World of Warcraft for the last 4 years, as well as a Ventrilo chat server.

Web-hosting companies (GoDaddy, iPowerweb, etc) all offer a yearly rate for the hosting at a fixed cost. Domains are registered for one year, also. Nationvoice.com, the Ventrilo hosting company also charges a yearly fee for my server. So, my website's dowmain is $20/year, the server space is about $80/year, and the Ventrilo server is about $240/year. There's no way I'm spending $350/year on this stuff, so each year I will post a thread on our forums for donations. We have one of the largest guilds on our server, so those donations come in REALLY fast.

If I were so inclined, I could EASILY rake in $500 in a month from donations. That would leave me with another year's site and Vent, plus an extra $150 for hookers and blow.

[quote=Howard A Treesong]If most took it away they couldn't afford to run their sites. GW are being disingenuous in making it seem like they are making some small reasonable request, they know that removal of a donations system will sink many sites.[/quote]Oh poor site owners... If you can't afford the house payment, you shouldn't buy the f'n house. Somehow, this is GW's fault? GW is the bad guy for this?

GW created 40k, WHFB, Blood Bowl, etc. They DESERVE control of their IP as far as the law allows it. Period. You wouldn't sign somebody else's name to legal documents, would you?

www.40kWHFBMordheimNecromundaEpic40kForgeWorldEldarTyranidsBloodBowlMcCraggeImperialArmorChaosDwarvesNurgleSlanneshTzeentchKhorneAsuryan
WindriderImperialFistsdonatemoneytomesoIcanpayforthiswebsiteandbuymymetalSistersOfBattle.com
is getting shut down? How dare you GW...

I think the moral of this story is that GW should start making Sisters of Battle [i]PLASTICS[/i]...

Ghidorah

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

fullheadofhair — GMT

[quote=daedalus][quote=R3con]GWS please bring it, I'll shut down my small club forums when

1) I have a court order from a court who has jurisdiction over my servers.

2) They buy it from me..

www.mi40k.com[/quote]

Won't even take that much. The term "40k" is a registered trademark of Games Workshop LLC, and as a result of you using it to discuss miniatures, you are causing confusion on who and what the term is supposed to denote, and as such dilluting GW's brand power. As a result you have to take down any and all content related to wargaming, miniatures, or LotR. You can have the domain though, but you are limited to using it for things not related to wargaming, including war, gaming, space, mechs, guns, humans, or aliens.

See how easy that was?[/quote]

40k isn't a registered trademark. Warhammer 40,000 is.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

Yes, it is. See here.

http://www.trademarkdirect.co.uk/trademark/result.aspx?id=43622

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

fullheadofhair — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]Yes, it is. See here.

http://www.trademarkdirect.co.uk/trademark/result.aspx?id=43622[/quote]

funny ... There seems to have been an error during the search. Please click here to try again

However, when I redid the search it said unavailable because it was close to another.

It isn't in the the list on the GW site pg 5 of their blurb on trademarks. would have thought it would have been on that if 40k was trademarked.GW Legal lists it as Warhammer 40k. Below is the blurb from their website - no mention of 40k.

Warhammer 40,000
This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.

Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2009, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]Yes, it is. See here.

http://www.trademarkdirect.co.uk/trademark/result.aspx?id=43622[/quote]

Can't see how you could Trademark 40k, especially as in this format it could be short hand for a money value. Just imagine all those recruitment sites getting a C&D letter because a web search has brought up "40k" in the results.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=Ghidorah][quote=Howard A Treesong]If most took it away they couldn't afford to run their sites. GW are being disingenuous in making it seem like they are making some small reasonable request, they know that removal of a donations system will sink many sites.[/quote]Oh poor site owners... If you can't afford the house payment, you shouldn't buy the f'n house.[/quote]

And that's why people choose to close the sites, I'm not arguing against that only pointing out that the people saying "just change the name" are missing the biggest obstacles being put in their way. And I do have some understanding of the costs of running fan sites though in relation to TV shows not gaming. For instance one of the largest Doctor Who forums online which is plastered with the "Doctor Who" trademark and other images yet was not attacked by the BBC over IP issues and yet they have donation systems. Though I don't think they made money on them but barely broke even, with the owner making up the rest because it was his hobby and he was happy to do so, though he couldn't ever shoulder the full costs. GW can stamp on people if they like, but it's people that buy their product they are spiting. These people aren't recasting and taking money away from GW, they are keeping parts of the hobby alive which undoubtedly brings money the way of GW. GW is within their right to do this but it's their nose they are cutting off.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

http://fumbbl.com/

[quote]In addition to this, there's a bunch of information which is more rumour-like, with me being unable to verify the validity:

- The reason for this is a renewal of GW's trademarks. [u](GW's trademark for Blood Bowl was registered on 22 December 1998, with normal renewal time being 10 years).[/u]- This is only targeting sites that use the Blood Bowl trademark in their site / domain names (all three confirmed sites have been using blood bowl in their domain names).

I will naturally keep you all updated on the matter when I receive any further information. Meanwhile, please remember to adhere to the rules on offensive language that we have on the site.

I am in contact with Tom Anders regarding this issue, and we're trying to find a way to get through this as well as possible. [/quote]

I'm sure that must have been a re-registering of the TM..yes ?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Ghidorah — GMT

[quote=Howard A Treesong]GW can stamp on people if they like, but it's people that buy their product they are spiting. These people aren't recasting and taking money away from GW, they are keeping parts of the hobby alive which undoubtedly brings money the way of GW. GW is within their right to do this but it's their nose they are cutting off.[/quote]I can't argue against this for one second. 100% truth.

Ghidorah

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Wolfstan][quote=Kilkrazy]Yes, it is. See here.

http://www.trademarkdirect.co.uk/trademark/result.aspx?id=43622[/quote]

Can't see how you could Trademark 40k, especially as in this format it could be short hand for a money value. Just imagine all those recruitment sites getting a C&D letter because a web search has brought up "40k" in the results. [/quote]

Trademarks are specific to particular industries. For instance, you could trademark a tabletop wargame called 40K and it would not stop someone from starting a chain of restaurants called 40K.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=fullheadofhair][quote=Kilkrazy]Yes, it is. See here.

http://www.trademarkdirect.co.uk/trademark/result.aspx?id=43622[/quote]

funny ... There seems to have been an error during the search. Please click here to try again

However, when I redid the search it said unavailable because it was close to another.

It isn't in the the list on the GW site pg 5 of their blurb on trademarks. would have thought it would have been on that if 40k was trademarked.GW Legal lists it as Warhammer 40k. Below is the blurb from their website - no mention of 40k.

[/quote]

I searched in classes 28 (games) and 41 (education and internet services) which seemed to best describe the process of making a website about a game.

Maybe there is another company, not GW, which has trademarked 40K in those classes.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

[quote]Thank you for your email concerning the website www.talkbloodbowl.com.

We understand that you are unhappy about the decision by the people running www.talkbloodbowl.com to shut their site down. The Blood Bowl community is important to Games Workshop and we are also disappointed that they have felt it necessary to take such a step. Unfortunately, that decision is entirely one for them and we can have no influence over what action they choose to take.

Unlike many companies, Games Workshop usually only stops people from using our intellectual property if we must do so in order to protect it (provided that use is by and for hobbyists). For example, the law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways – and if we do not – we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and table top hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on.

‘Blood Bowl’ is a trademark that belongs to Games Workshop. Therefore the use of it by third parties, without licence, is unlawful and an infringement of Games Workshop’s rights.

Guidance has been available for our fans for many years in our Intellectual Property Policy that can be found on the legal pages of our website http://legal.games-workshop.com This sets out how our hobbyists can use our intellectual property in such a way that Games Workshop is not likely to object. Within the policy there are some simple rules, such as:

1) Do not mention any Games Workshop Trademarks, such as “Blood Bowl” or “Warhammer” in your URL or league name; and
2) Do not screenscrape any content from official websites.

There are also a number of more general guidelines, setting out the spirit of the policy. If a fan follows the policy in spirit and letter, then it is highly unlikely that Games Workshop will take any action to prevent their use of Games Workshop’s IP.

Games Workshop has not specifically targeted any particular website but instead has taken a consistent approach to all sites that we are aware of that are using our ‘Blood Bowl’ trademark without our permission.

We have written to the owners or administrators of these sites detailing our concerns. In our letters, we gave the parties infringing our rights various options as to how they could address our concerns. At no time did Games Workshop demand that any website close down.

We trust that this clarifies the situation.

[/quote]

[url=http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/09/31255#more-31255]linky[/url]

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

[quote=reds8n]
[quote]Thank you for your email concerning the website www.talkbloodbowl.com.

We understand that you are unhappy about the decision by the people running www.talkbloodbowl.com to shut their site down. The Blood Bowl community is important to Games Workshop and we are also disappointed that they have felt it necessary to take such a step. Unfortunately, that decision is entirely one for them and we can have no influence over what action they choose to take.

Unlike many companies, Games Workshop usually only stops people from using our intellectual property if we must do so in order to protect it (provided that use is by and for hobbyists). For example, the law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways – and if we do not – we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and table top hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on.

‘Blood Bowl’ is a trademark that belongs to Games Workshop. Therefore the use of it by third parties, without licence, is unlawful and an infringement of Games Workshop’s rights.

Guidance has been available for our fans for many years in our Intellectual Property Policy that can be found on the legal pages of our website http://legal.games-workshop.com This sets out how our hobbyists can use our intellectual property in such a way that Games Workshop is not likely to object. Within the policy there are some simple rules, such as:

1) Do not mention any Games Workshop Trademarks, such as “Blood Bowl” or “Warhammer” in your URL or league name; and
2) Do not screenscrape any content from official websites.

There are also a number of more general guidelines, setting out the spirit of the policy. If a fan follows the policy in spirit and letter, then it is highly unlikely that Games Workshop will take any action to prevent their use of Games Workshop’s IP.

Games Workshop has not specifically targeted any particular website but instead has taken a consistent approach to all sites that we are aware of that are using our ‘Blood Bowl’ trademark without our permission.

We have written to the owners or administrators of these sites detailing our concerns. In our letters, we gave the parties infringing our rights various options as to how they could address our concerns. At no time did Games Workshop demand that any website close down.

We trust that this clarifies the situation.

[/quote]

[url=http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/09/31255#more-31255]linky[/url][/quote]

Got some good legal comments there as well.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Tabletop_Insider — GMT

What I'd be interested in is, why GW is behaving like this. Even "big" brands like Star Trek or Star Wars are enhancing fansites and the community. And I never heard of LEGO charging fans for their brick movies...
So I understand how important it is to protect it's IP, what harm are doing fans to GW?
Other companies are even providing a fansite kit to the community...
Or are they only living their own creation of a totalitarian universe which is 40K?
I cannot come up with any other idea than a conspiracy to go bust?!

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Tabletop_Insider]What I'd be interested in is, why GW is behaving like this. Even "big" brands like Star Trek or Star Wars are enhancing fansites and the community. And I never heard of LEGO charging fans for their brick movies...
So I understand how important it is to protect it's IP, what harm are doing fans to GW?
Other companies are even providing a fansite kit to the community...
Or are they only living their own creation of a totalitarian universe which is 40K?
I cannot come up with any other idea than a conspiracy to go bust?![/quote]

IMO GW just don't "get" the Internet.

Many entertainment companies have eagerly embraced the Internet as a means of two-way communication with fans, building supportive communities around their brand, providing User Generated Content (which costs the company nothing and enhances its offerings.)

GW however seem to regard the Internet and fan activity as subversive at best, and direct enemies at worst.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Ghidorah — GMT

It boggles the mind, eh?

Ghidorah

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

Yet internet is GW only publicity tool, since they rely on word of mouth to spread the brand.

Not only they dont understand the internet but they are clearly against it... GW closed their forums and their answer to legit costumers debates and critics is to simply close down things... Shows to me they are stuck on their feudal castle and cant see the peasants are the ones that supply provisions to them...

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

Their mindest is that their product is a "physical" product. In their eyes the hobby is about getting people around a table to paint and play with their models, so there is no need for the internet. They fail to realise that the internet is a vital part of the hobby nowadays. It allows people to share ideas, painting advice, arrange games and most importantly... INSPIRE. You kill all that off and you are likely to suffer a drop off in your sales.

Whether GW likes it or not the Internet has a very place in the scheme of things.

As already mentioned, there are bigger brands out there that have managed to find a balance over the whole IP & Copyright issue and how fans make use of such things. It does appear to be a spite / control issue rather than a genuine concern over protecting their IP.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

[quote=Wolfstan]
As already mentioned, there are bigger brands out there .[/quote]

I wonder actually if this is at least partially the reason they are so paranoid. No court in the world is going to rule against Lucas/Lucasarts from their ownership of the Star Wars IP..and if they did they have deep enough pockets to win almost any court case. GW, whilst they are the "big fish" of the TTWG industry might be a bit worried that this is still a very small pond compared to what else is out there.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Waaagh_Gonads — GMT

Perhaps they think that by killing off all the fan sites they will sell more White Dwarfs, even though they don't offer any coverage of specialist games in said catalogue.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

Surely there must be a disclaimer that allows fansites to use the contested names as urls and use their artwork, without GW losing control of their IP. If the site then fails to post this disclaimer and / or abuse it they get a C&D order.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

GW could make such an arrangement. Perhaps they feel it is too much trouble.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

Would Space Hulk sold as much without the internet? Or would they of even re-released it withyout knowing it was really wanted?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=Wolfstan]Would Space Hulk sold as much without the internet? Or would they of even re-released it withyout knowing it was really wanted?[/quote]

Would we even be in the hobby if it wasnt for the internet? In portugal I can tell you, I wouldnt.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Waaagh_Gonads — GMT

I think the release of space hulk would have been a fizzler without the net.

It generated buzz and allowed people to plan ahead (I bought 2 so had to save for 3 months to use all of my 'mini money' to buy it.)
If it had of appeared out of nowhere (as seemingly they intened I would have only bought 1)

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Balance — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]
The law of copyright has a clear provision of fair use which allows the use of excerpts for the purposes of comment, criticism and review.
[/quote]

That's true, but GW has scary lawyers and most fan sites are lucky if they break even and can't afford to go to court.

(Of course, why should they, as they're a [i]fan site![/i]

The funny thing is, didn't GW basically shut down their own forums with a note that it was because the other online forums did a better job?

I think this is pretty lousy, but I'm guessing this is the lawyers being overzealous.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

H.B.M.C. — GMT

So they've gone after Dark Reign?

They've gone bat shit insane.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Miguelsan — GMT

I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.

M.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Agamemnon2 — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]Many entertainment companies have eagerly embraced the Internet as a means of two-way communication with fans, building supportive communities around their brand, providing User Generated Content (which costs the company nothing and enhances its offerings.)[/quote]
This failure to communicate is their largest problem, regardless of the current spree of alleged legal threats. They simply don't have any desire to talk to the community as people, and even less so to listen.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Agamemnon2][quote=Kilkrazy]Many entertainment companies have eagerly embraced the Internet as a means of two-way communication with fans, building supportive communities around their brand, providing User Generated Content (which costs the company nothing and enhances its offerings.)[/quote]
This failure to communicate is their largest problem, regardless of the current spree of alleged legal threats. They simply don't have any desire to talk to the community as people, and even less so to listen.[/quote]

And that arrogant detachment, coupled with their pricing greed, is why I will be exploring PDF possibilities, alternative miniatures companies, second hand minis and other games.

I urge my fellow dakkites to express your ire with your green. Source your armies from other places, other companies and second hand.

Let them go without your money for a while.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Balance — GMT

[quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.
[/quote]

See the "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect]Streisand Effect[/url]".

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Balance][quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.
[/quote]

That makes sense, really.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

[quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.

M.[/quote]

What, that they were too lazy to remove a trademark that doesn't belong to them from the website URL?

I can't say I'm surprised that they did this at this point in time, though. The Blood Bowl game makes it 'important' for GW to throw their weight around and ensure that people know that those sites aren't official.

Again, it's the wrong way to do it but the webmasters aren't blameless in this either.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen][quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.

M.[/quote]

What, that they were too lazy to remove a trademark that doesn't belong to them from the website URL?

I can't say I'm surprised that they did this at this point in time, though. The Blood Bowl game makes it 'important' for GW to throw their weight around and ensure that people know that those sites aren't official.

Again, it's the wrong way to do it but the webmasters aren't blameless in this either.[/quote]

Your confusing resigned with lazy.

If you created a website for fans of a game as a community, since the creators of the game had given up on supporting it and then...After 9 years... you received a letter from the corporation telling you if you didn't comply with X, Y and Z they would shut you down, then I think it's fairly understandable to sigh and fold, how much enthusiasm for the game could you sum up after the makers behaved like such total cunts.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

R3con — GMT

[quote=daedalus][quote=R3con]GWS please bring it, I'll shut down my small club forums when

1) I have a court order from a court who has jurisdiction over my servers.

2) They buy it from me..

www.mi40k.com[/quote]

Won't even take that much. The term "40k" is a registered trademark of Games Workshop LLC, and as a result of you using it to discuss miniatures, you are causing confusion on who and what the term is supposed to denote, and as such dilluting GW's brand power. As a result you have to take down any and all content related to wargaming, miniatures, or LotR. You can have the domain though, but you are limited to using it for things not related to wargaming, including war, gaming, space, mechs, guns, humans, or aliens.

See how easy that was?[/quote]

See how easy what is, I have no certified letter from the 53rd district court so I could care less...and I am the ISP.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

reds8n — GMT

Via Tabletop Gaming News...

[url=http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/10/31288#comments]linky[/url]

[quote]Fans of Blood Bowl once again can enjoy the wild and wooly nature of the now closed TalkBloodBowl forum at its new domain name; http://talkfantasyfootball.org/

[/quote]

..might want to change the logo on the top there though eh ?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa][quote=Kanluwen][quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.

M.[/quote]

What, that they were too lazy to remove a trademark that doesn't belong to them from the website URL?

I can't say I'm surprised that they did this at this point in time, though. The Blood Bowl game makes it 'important' for GW to throw their weight around and ensure that people know that those sites aren't official.

Again, it's the wrong way to do it but the webmasters aren't blameless in this either.[/quote]

Your confusing resigned with lazy.

If you created a website for fans of a game as a community, since the creators of the game had given up on supporting it and then...After 9 years... you received a letter from the corporation telling you if you didn't comply with X, Y and Z they would shut you down, then I think it's fairly understandable to sigh and fold, how much enthusiasm for the game could you sum up after the makers behaved like such total cunts.[/quote]

And if you created that website with a trademarked name, deep linked to articles/content from the site, and basically did everything possible to restrict your actual involvement--yet still asked for donations?

I'm okay with you getting shut down. I really am. You barely did anything in that regard, and ignored the fact that while getting away with it at the time--you used trademarked material, didn't credit it anywhere, and accepted money for it.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen][quote=MeanGreenStompa][quote=Kanluwen][quote=Miguelsan]I say that the targeted fansites make it public. Like the Ralph Lauren photoshop disaster thing if this gets out of the gamer comunity and spreads GW will have to come to its senses if only because the shareholders might force the board to rein in the stupid C&D letters due to the amount of bad publicity generated.

M.[/quote]

What, that they were too lazy to remove a trademark that doesn't belong to them from the website URL?

I can't say I'm surprised that they did this at this point in time, though. The Blood Bowl game makes it 'important' for GW to throw their weight around and ensure that people know that those sites aren't official.

Again, it's the wrong way to do it but the webmasters aren't blameless in this either.[/quote]

Your confusing resigned with lazy.

If you created a website for fans of a game as a community, since the creators of the game had given up on supporting it and then...After 9 years... you received a letter from the corporation telling you if you didn't comply with X, Y and Z they would shut you down, then I think it's fairly understandable to sigh and fold, how much enthusiasm for the game could you sum up after the makers behaved like such total cunts.[/quote]

And if you created that website with a trademarked name, deep linked to articles/content from the site, and basically did everything possible to restrict your actual involvement--yet still asked for donations?

I'm okay with you getting shut down. I really am. You barely did anything in that regard, and ignored the fact that while getting away with it at the time--you used trademarked material, didn't credit it anywhere, and accepted money for it.[/quote]

Some words to conjure with: HOBBY, COMMUNITY, FAN, CUSTOMER BASE, PUBLIC MUTHAFRELLING RELATIONS.

It's a fansite being told it can't mention in it's address what it is a fansite of... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE.

Donations are CLEARLY for the website and not for the continued production of the game.

There was no conflict of interests here and no danger to GW, they applied a sledgehammer to crack a wallnut. EVEN if they felt an overriding need to do all this, they could have sent a polite request to the owner instead of a threat.

A threat to a guy running a website designed to support their product as a hobby, because they had not done so.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa]... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE. [/quote]

From what's been posted so far, GW aren't saying that fansites can't use images of the game. They're just saying that fansites can't hotlink images from the GW website.

Whatever you think of the rest of this sorry mess, it's not unreasonable for a company to object to people leeching their bandwidth.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=insaniak][quote=MeanGreenStompa]... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE. [/quote]

From what's been posted so far, GW aren't saying that fansites can't use images of the game. They're just saying that fansites can't hotlink images from the GW website.

Whatever you think of the rest of this sorry mess, it's not unreasonable for a company to object to people leeching their bandwidth. [/quote]

Ah, well I'll concede that certainly, their website is entirely dedicated as a shopping facility and anything that slowed that might affect a sale...

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Shellfishguy — GMT

Wonder if we'll see sites like 40k Radio getting letters next.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

agnosto — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa]Some words to conjure with: HOBBY, COMMUNITY, FAN, CUSTOMER BASE, PUBLIC MUTHAFRELLING RELATIONS.

It's a fansite being told it can't mention in it's address what it is a fansite of... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE.

Donations are CLEARLY for the website and not for the continued production of the game.

There was no conflict of interests here and no danger to GW, they applied a sledgehammer to crack a wallnut. EVEN if they felt an overriding need to do all this, they could have sent a polite request to the owner instead of a threat.

A threat to a guy running a website designed to support their product as a hobby, because they had not done so. [/quote]

You see, your problem is that you have too much commen sense, which is probably why you don't run a corporation (I'm assuming).

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=insaniak][quote=MeanGreenStompa]... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE. [/quote]

From what's been posted so far, GW aren't saying that fansites can't use images of the game. They're just saying that fansites can't hotlink images from the GW website.

Whatever you think of the rest of this sorry mess, it's not unreasonable for a company to object to people leeching their bandwidth. [/quote]

Its not unreasonable for a 9 year site that pretty much keept a dead game going and gave how many gold coins to GW? To leech... In fact who wants to bet that the money the site generated in GW behalf is SOOOOO huge that moaning about bandwidth pennies is silly!
Thats the big picture GW seems to be ignoring IMO.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=agnosto]
You see, your problem is that you have too much commen sense, which is probably why you don't run a corporation (I'm assuming). [/quote]

Nope, I don't run a corporation, I do adjudicate complaint cases for a large multinational financial company and ensure that it remains compliant with UK financial regulators.
The first thing we teach is that complaints are free feedback, that they can show you areas for potential process improvement.
Doing things like closing down your own forums, cutting back on your 'meet n greet' events days and then attacking fanmade forums with CnDs is only alienating and distancing yourself further, you lose communication with your customer base.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO][quote=insaniak][quote=MeanGreenStompa]... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE. [/quote]

From what's been posted so far, GW aren't saying that fansites can't use images of the game. They're just saying that fansites can't hotlink images from the GW website.

Whatever you think of the rest of this sorry mess, it's not unreasonable for a company to object to people leeching their bandwidth. [/quote]

Its not unreasonable for a 9 year site that pretty much keept a dead game going and gave how many gold coins to GW? To leech... In fact who wants to bet that the money the site generated in GW behalf is SOOOOO huge that moaning about bandwidth pennies is silly!
Thats the big picture GW seems to be ignoring IMO.[/quote]

And alot of people seem to be ignoring the much larger trademark and copywrite issues where GW has to basically "use it or lose it" the their Intellectual Property- Its not a case of being evil as some seem very vocal in saying, its more a case of protecting the IP that has been built up that would otherwise be lost and no-longer belong to GW. And since that is one of the things that kinda makes GW work, they probably don't want to lose that.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Dal'yth Dude — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa][quote=agnosto]
You see, your problem is that you have too much commen sense, which is probably why you don't run a corporation (I'm assuming). [/quote]

Nope, I don't run a corporation, I do adjudicate complaint cases for a large multinational financial company and ensure that it remains compliant with UK financial regulators.
The first thing we teach is that complaints are free feedback, that they can show you areas for potential process improvement.
Doing things like closing down your own forums, cutting back on your 'meet n greet' events days and then attacking fanmade forums with CnDs is only alienating and distancing yourself further, you lose communication with your customer base.

[/quote]

Unless you're Apple, which GW seems to be trying to emulate in so many ways.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Bignutter]
And alot of people seem to be ignoring the much larger trademark and copywrite issues where GW has to basically "use it or lose it" the their Intellectual Property- Its not a case of being evil as some seem very vocal in saying, its more a case of protecting the IP that has been built up that would otherwise be lost and no-longer belong to GW. And since that is one of the things that kinda makes GW work, they probably don't want to lose that.[/quote]
Easily complied with if they asked the sites to carry a caveat clearly stating that they confirm that 'Blahbowl, x, y and z are all the intellectual property of GW PLC and this site in no way challenges that, this site is a fan operated/owned and is not a business or division of GW but has kindly been allowed to use the images and names by permission of the owners, GW etc etc blah blah'...

Piece of piss to set up, GW legal could have emailed the site owners, reached agreement and had that caveat up in a text box within minutes.

Fucking easy to do, instead they chose to issue hatemail. The manner in which GW has carried this out is terrible. There is a fundamental disconnect between the corporation and it's customerbase.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Wait, how the hell do we know that they DIDN'T send the mentioned sites things like that beforehand?

We only know that they received C&D letters. That's when we got informed.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa][quote=Bignutter]
And alot of people seem to be ignoring the much larger trademark and copywrite issues where GW has to basically "use it or lose it" the their Intellectual Property- Its not a case of being evil as some seem very vocal in saying, its more a case of protecting the IP that has been built up that would otherwise be lost and no-longer belong to GW. And since that is one of the things that kinda makes GW work, they probably don't want to lose that.[/quote]
Easily complied with if they asked the sites to carry a caveat clearly stating that they confirm that 'Blahbowl, x, y and z are all the intellectual property of GW PLC and this site in no way challenges that, this site is a fan operated/owned and is not a business or division of GW but has kindly been allowed to use the images and names by permission of the owners, GW etc etc blah blah'...

Piece of to set up, GW legal could have emailed the site owners, reached agreement and had that caveat up in a text box within minutes.

easy to do, instead they chose to issue hatemail. The manner in which GW has carried this out is terrible. There is a fundamental disconnect between the corporation and it's customerbase.[/quote]

And how do you know that they had not already done this?
Heck is that even enough to provide the protection for the IP when it is the URL in question?
I don't think that really is classed as hatemail- it wasn't being mean and nasty and didn't require swearing to get the message across- what was hateful about the notices or indeed the reply?

Is this just another excuse for some people to have a dig at GW showing they have a fundamental disconnect with how a corporation is run?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Bignutter]
And how do you know that they had not already done this?
[/quote]
Fairly self evident given that would have been a reasonable request and several of the cited fansites would have immediately complied, they can't all have been hostile behind closed doors, this CnD was out of the blue and blanket mailed given the information presented so far.
[quote=Bignutter]
Heck is that even enough to provide the protection for the IP when it is the URL in question?
[/quote]
Yes. In fact it would have provided additional supporting evidence if GW were ever challenged since the site fully recognised GW's rights of ownership and acknowledges publicly that it sought and was granted permission to use 'x,y and z' which supports the ownership of them.
[quote=Bignutter]
I don't think that really is classed as hatemail- it wasn't being mean and nasty and didn't require swearing to get the message across- what was hateful about the notices or indeed the reply?
[/quote]
It threatened further action if not complied with, it.carried.a.threat.
[quote=Bignutter]
Is this just another excuse for some people to have a dig at GW showing they have a fundamental disconnect with how a corporation is run?
[/quote]
Possibly, for those who don't, it is most certainly an example of how a corporation can be run poorly. I personally am very familiar with how a multinational corporation is run, I work in financial compliance and broker conflict resolution between corporations to ensure fair play is employed.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Mannahnin — GMT

MGS, I thought the GW statement Reds8n quoted seemed pretty reasonable. If they did indeed give the site owners clear and simple instructions for alterations to make, it's really not so ogrish. Dakka manages to be successful while carefully adhering to those same guidelines.

[quote=NAVARRO]Yet internet is GW only publicity tool, since they rely on word of mouth to spread the brand.

Not only they dont understand the internet but they are clearly against it... GW closed their forums and their answer to legit costumers debates and critics is to simply close down things... [/quote]

Actually I think that was just a cost thing. Their forums were a godawful mess of unpleasant noise and spam. If it were my company I wouldn't want that spew to be seen on my website. And I don't think they could afford to pay a dedicated full-time moderation team.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howlingmoon — GMT

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=Bignutter][quote=NAVARRO][quote=insaniak][quote=MeanGreenStompa]... That it can't use images of the game it was set up TO PROMOTE. [/quote]

From what's been posted so far, GW aren't saying that fansites can't use images of the game. They're just saying that fansites can't hotlink images from the GW website.

Whatever you think of the rest of this sorry mess, it's not unreasonable for a company to object to people leeching their bandwidth. [/quote]

Its not unreasonable for a 9 year site that pretty much keept a dead game going and gave how many gold coins to GW? To leech... In fact who wants to bet that the money the site generated in GW behalf is SOOOOO huge that moaning about bandwidth pennies is silly!
Thats the big picture GW seems to be ignoring IMO.[/quote]

And alot of people seem to be ignoring the much larger trademark and copywrite issues where GW has to basically "use it or lose it" the their Intellectual Property- Its not a case of being evil as some seem very vocal in saying, its more a case of protecting the IP that has been built up that would otherwise be lost and no-longer belong to GW. And since that is one of the things that kinda makes GW work, they probably don't want to lose that.[/quote]

And you keep missing what I'm trying to say mate...
If it wasnt for these BB sites there would be nothing relevant to protect besides a name no one would care about. Thats the real deal.
Any smart corp would get all the free publicity they can get, not the other way around... Instead of antagonizing people why not show some apreciation and say give some t-shirts or someting...
What do BB fans and people that worked for years from their pockets, just to keep things runing, have to say about GW now? Ungratefull and rude corp.

If they only used a bit of brains instead of just hunting and closing down fansites they would offer something back and ask if they could change name yadadada... People would do that and even say thanks for free merchandising...

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO]If it wasnt for these BB sites there would be nothing relevant to protect besides a name no one would care about. Thats the real deal.
Any smart corp would get all the free publicity they can get, not the other way around... Instead of antagonizing people why not show some apreciation and say give some t-shirts or someting...
What do BB fans and people that worked for years from their pockets, just to keep things runing, have to say about GW now? Ungratefull and rude corp.[/quote]

See, here's the thing, though...

Yes, you can argue that these Bloodbowl sites have 'kept the game alive'... Although if it was a game that GW weren't interested in actively supporting in its miniatures-based format any more, that's not really doing so much for GW. Particularly if that same site is (as was apparently the case with at least one of these sites) promoting other companies' miniatures for use with the game.

The computer game is going to be targeted at a different crowd entirely. I frankly doubt that the existence or lack thereof of a few fansites dedicated to the original miniatures game would really have any noticable effect on the sales of the computer game.

On a related note, though... GW have had their legal policies up for as long as they've had a website. The bit about not including GW-owned trademarks in your domain name has likewise been there for as long as I can remember.

If your neighbour has a sign asking people to keep off his grass, and you walk across his front lawn to take him his mail, is he being unreasonable to be grumpy about you trampling his lawn, because you did him a favour?

To be clear: I'm not arguing the fact that GW appear to have been a little heavy-handed about the whole thing. Nor am I arguing the legality of any of GW's claims... that's for lawyers to sort out. But the fact is that these sites ignored GW's stated rules, and now GW is complaining about it. On the surface, that in itself doesn't seem that unreasonable. The fact that they're only complaining about it now that they are interested in marketing that particular property in one form or another is really their option as the owner of that property.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

Am I the only one to think that some DakkaDakka members are missing the point of some the posts in this debate? From what I've read, nobody is saying that GW are in the wrong for wanting to protect their Trademarks or IP.

The anger and confusion is about how they've gone about it and what they want done to fix it. If MGS is correct, and my feeling is he is due to other legal comments made, then a simple disclaimer provided by GW would of covered the whole IP mess. If the affected websites had been given this chance and not taken it, then a C&D order is a valid follow up. Bandwidth stealing is a seperate issue.

It would seem to me that either GW's legal team is 100% right over the IP issue (various comments make me think that they might not be), they don't really know and are being paranoid / over the top, it could be that they are getting ear ache from 3rd parties who are being paranoid / feel threatened or it simply could be GW having a control freak moment (is that really likely, given it's a handful of sites?)

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Yes, "how it's done" is at least as important as "why it's done."

But the "why" isn't totally clear, either. I'm not sure how sites like Bloodbowl and Dark Heresy are hurting GW. I think that's what most people who hear about this think of right of the bat and then they get angry, right? We could defend GW by saying "it doesn't matter why the do what they do with their IP, it's theirs and that's reason enough" but that hardly going to deal with the anger. And that anger is just fanned by the attitude people can (and are) assuming GW takes: "We don't care if you're angry."

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Wolfstan]It could be that they are getting ear ache from 3rd parties who are being paranoid / feel threatened or it simply could be GW having a control freak moment (is that really likely, given it's a handful of sites?)[/quote]

Legal teams are answerable to MDs who are not legal eagles. I have certainly seen with my own eyes threats and hostile stances taken by companies on the orders of overzealous and poorly informed company directors instead of considering taking the less conflict intensive paths. Too many directors see their legal team as a sword to be swung at people instead of a scalpel to perform careful surgery that can help both doctor and patient.

A clearly written caveat, legally watertight, posted on the website's front page, would have alleviated the problem. Instead they applied their jackboots to it. As I mentioned in a previous post, such a written statement, showing the site's recognition of GW's ownership of IP and GW demonstrating their benevolence to anyone who 'asked nicely and didn't present a threat' would even have supported GW's ownership for any future REAL conflict over ownership.

Taking an open and willing path to conflict resolution would have been the honourable thing, the demonstration of professionalism by the corporation and clearly showing a care for their customer base.
Instead we, the wargaming community got crass, arrogant and bullying. They really don't deserve your money whilst they consider you not the customer but more akin to a serf to be dictated to.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

DagobahDave — GMT

[quote=Howard A Treesong]If most took it away they couldn't afford to run their sites. GW are being disingenuous in making it seem like they are making some small reasonable request, they know that removal of a donations system will sink many sites.[/quote]
It's costing me less than $14 a month to keep a website running, which includes the yearly domain registration.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=H.B.M.C.]So they've gone after Dark Reign?[/quote]
There's a fan-made RPG supplement for Space Marine characters on that site that clearly uses FFG's document borders and other artwork. I've known about it for a long time and felt that they were pushing their luck.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

There we go. The rest of the story. Now we can stop being so angry?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Manchu]There we go. The rest of the story. Now we can stop being so angry?[/quote]

No, please reread this:
[quote=Wolfstan]Am I the only one to think that some DakkaDakka members are missing the point of some the posts in this debate? From what I've read, nobody is saying that GW are in the wrong for wanting to protect their Trademarks or IP.

The anger and confusion is about how they've gone about it and what they want done to fix it. If MGS is correct, and my feeling is he is due to other legal comments made, then a simple disclaimer provided by GW would of covered the whole IP mess. If the affected websites had been given this chance and not taken it, then a C&D order is a valid follow up. Bandwidth stealing is a seperate issue.

It would seem to me that either GW's legal team is 100% right over the IP issue (various comments make me think that they might not be), they don't really know and are being paranoid / over the top, it could be that they are getting ear ache from 3rd parties who are being paranoid / feel threatened or it simply could be GW having a control freak moment (is that really likely, given it's a handful of sites?)[/quote]

Thanks.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

@MGS: Er, I'd suggest you read this:

[quote=Manchu]Yes, "how it's done" is at least as important as "why it's done."

But the "why" isn't totally clear, either. I'm not sure how sites like Bloodbowl and Dark Heresy are hurting GW. I think that's what most people who hear about this think of right of the bat and then they get angry, right? We could defend GW by saying "it doesn't matter why the do what they do with their IP, it's theirs and that's reason enough" but that hardly going to deal with the anger. And that anger is just fanned by the attitude people can (and are) assuming GW takes: "We don't care if you're angry."[/quote]
But we ought to ask ourselves why we're rushing to defend the little guy, i.e., assuming GW is playing the tyrant and has no legitimate reasons to ever be upset. Here's another point: has anyone seen one of the C&D letters in person? are any of us getting so pissed truly aware of the full context of GW's motives or the sites' in question transgressions? Does GW have a responsibility to communicate to the whole fan base (if so, how?) when they rightfully clamp down on some portion of it through the single person or small group of persons who manage that portion of it . . . like a webmaster? I'm not so sure that GW is sowing confusion and anger. Rather we're always ready to get riled up over "the man keeping us down." It's not necessarily a bad thing to be vigilant for that sort of bad behavior--but let's give them a little smidgen of the benefit of the doubt, shall we? Do some investigation--as some posters in this thread are doing--and think about it with a cooler head. GW hasn't killed your parents here. They're cracking down on a few fansites for reasons that we don't fully know and so are assuming are stupid/nonexistant. But feel free to respond with a long list of transgressions GW has committed against its consumers since you've been involved with the hobby.

Oh, almost forgot: Thanks!

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=DagobahDave][quote=Howard A Treesong]If most took it away they couldn't afford to run their sites. GW are being disingenuous in making it seem like they are making some small reasonable request, they know that removal of a donations system will sink many sites.[/quote]
It's costing me less than $14 a month to keep a website running, which includes the yearly domain registration.

[/quote]

How much data do you serve?

I think I pay about £3.95 a month for hosting and I'm capped at 2GB, something like that.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Dave47 — GMT

[quote=Manchu]Here's another point: has anyone seen one of the C&D letters in person? are any of us getting so pissed truly aware of the full context of GW's motives or the sites' in question transgressions?[/quote]
Obviously, no one knows "the full story." But that's a stupid standard for debate; one that is never met on the internet or elsewhere. When people tell us that C&D letters represented the first communication from Games Workshop, why do you assume they are lying?

As a general rule, when people try to claim that they would really [i]love[/i] to be nice guys, but, you know, these [i]lawyers[/i] are just forcing them to be all mean and stuff, then you can safely conclude that those people are being dishonest. Lawyers are a popular scapegoat, but, as has been already pointed out, GW could come up with a solution that would allow the fansites to keep their domain names. It's not like trademark law has some magical domain name fetish. "Use it or lose it" is only an issue when dealing with [i]unauthorized[/i] uses; a company with a better ear for public relations could easily come to a compromise instead of treating their dedicated fans like internet pirates.

[quote=Manchu]GW hasn't killed your parents here.[/quote]
Can't your entire post be turned on its head, Manchu? It's not like these Blood Bowl fansites have murdered anyone's parents, so what's the big deal with them using the word "Blood Bowl" in their domain name! And similarly, how can you step in and defend GW when you, like, don't know the whole story, man!

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=insaniak][quote=NAVARRO]If it wasnt for these BB sites there would be nothing relevant to protect besides a name no one would care about. Thats the real deal.
Any smart corp would get all the free publicity they can get, not the other way around... Instead of antagonizing people why not show some apreciation and say give some t-shirts or someting...
What do BB fans and people that worked for years from their pockets, just to keep things runing, have to say about GW now? Ungratefull and rude corp.[/quote]

See, here's the thing, though...

Yes, you can argue that these Bloodbowl sites have 'kept the game alive'... Although if it was a game that GW weren't interested in actively supporting in its miniatures-based format any more, that's not really doing so much for GW. Particularly if that same site is (as was apparently the case with at least one of these sites) promoting other companies' miniatures for use with the game. [/quote]

Not interested? So leave impact miniatures alone... let people have their leagues as they want it... Speaking of leeching... GW been leeching these sites efforts for almost a decade and even if its in their power to enforce changes they should at least show some respect about it.

[quote=insaniak]

On a related note, though... GW have had their legal policies up for as long as they've had a website. The bit about not including GW-owned trademarks in your domain name has likewise been there for as long as I can remember.

If your neighbour has a sign asking people to keep off his grass, and you walk across his front lawn to take him his mail, is he being unreasonable to be grumpy about you trampling his lawn, because you did him a favour? [/quote]

Unrelated, because not only I took his mail but when my neighbour didnt had a lawn I let his children mess up mine for a full decade without complaining at my expenses... even if i got maintenance tools on my neighbours hardware shop.

9 years ago web design and web masters were a lot more noobies at it.. I think the name chosen could have been avoided yet I think it was a inocent decisison.

@Manchu Who's angry? I know I'm not... I'm expressing my unfavorable opinion about GW in this particular issue... as much as i give favorable opinions about them when they do things like spacehulk reedition.
Also I'm not the paladin of the small opressed fans VS the megacorp GW... Besides I believe this megacorp behaved in a amateur childish manner and I think GW is less well informed about whats going on than said fans

As for not expressing our reporval about all this because we dont have full information... Do you EVER have full information about anything these days? Or just parcial preception? Dont answer its retorical.
People just work with what they have.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Alpharius — GMT

There is a lot of good information and discussion in this thread, but let's remember to keep it on topic and polite, please.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

What disappoints me about the whole issue is that GW seemingly either don't know or don't care about the fan community surrounding their games.

It would no doubt be very convenient for GW if people would just go to the shop every few weeks and buy the lastest stuff.

A lot of players want to HAVE FUN with their products, and THE FUN includes discussing it, praising it, criticizing it, arguing about it, make jokes about it and all the things people do on Dakka and other forums.

That's why shutting down fan forums is a bad idea.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kirasu — GMT

Hosting is just no where near as expensive as it once was due to prevelance of fiber optics and drastically increased hard drive capacities (both for a fraction of the cost that they were years ago)

I dont buy it that a small fansite needs a ton of money to run.. my wife hosts all her websites which have a decent amount of daily traffic for a low yearly cost

However, it is quite irritating how GW seems INTENT on destroying their own games (IE specialist games).. I honestly do not understand .. since those games are basically ONLY supported via fan communities

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Cane — GMT

Eh, those fansite owners weren't doing themselves or their visitors any favors by not complying with GW's legal guidelines thats easily and readily available. The 'donation' button also seems pretty dubious since those are small-scale sites that literally have a tiny fraction of the traffic that Dakka experiences. Undoubtedly they pocketed the donated money for their own profit which is understandable but unethical.

Does GW look like a bully? Face value, maybe. But in the legal game they're playing it right and in some of those fansites they were ripping GW material like you'd find on a torrent. To GW and the rest of the legal world; those fansites were in the wrong and deserve to be rectified or shut down. Its also interesting that instead of changing the name or their behavior to comply with GW's and the legal world's reasonable standards, the owners are shutting down or handing over the site to others. Makes their motives for running a fansite look even more dubious.

Smaller forums I've discovered are also havens for illegally acquired content. I remember printing out the 5th edition codex from someone's camera phone pictures posted on a small IG forum. Big ones like Dakka have the mods and the ethic to quickly shut down such behavior whereas smaller communities, from my experience, do not. In some cases its even encouraged to post codices, etc.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

The point of the people arguing against GW in the thread is that while they have a point, there were less abrasive ways of going about getting their message across.
When dealing with dedicated fans this is probably best practice.
Also, the only people on the list with any suggestion of ripping off GW material are the dudes with the fan made Dark Heresy character stuff. If you have evidence the rest were all pushing piracy, give it, otherwise your speculation is useless and just muddies the waters.
GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

R3con — GMT

And Fan sites ARE NOT IP VIOLATIONS...at least by US law.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

[quote=Dave47]Obviously, no one knows "the full story." But that's a stupid standard for debate; one that is never met on the internet or elsewhere.[/quote]
Well, I think you've hit on why a lot of internet discussion is fairly worthless. Why be responsible about the basis for one's opinions when you can immediately and nearly anonymously post any idea that comes to mind? Knowing every single possible facet and fact is impossible. Investigating the facts before assuming you understand all parties motivations and goals, which is what I was advocating, is entirely possible and I think you'll find it is the standard for debates among reasonable people everywhere. (I don't mean that you're unreasonable, just that you're taking my points to unnecessary extremes that I didn't intend.)

[quote]When people tell us that C&D letters represented the first communication from Games Workshop, why do you assume they are lying?[/quote]
I don't think they're lying. I think they're puzzled and upset. I think they turn to the members of the community they've fostered, throw their hands up, and vent. And those guys let the other communities they are a pat of know about, and pretty soon we're all venting. The whole thing snowballs (see your standards for internet opinions above) into a bawfest/ragestorm of utter inconsequence. Meanwhile, the guys who are serious about preserving their communities have shaken off the initial funk and are setting about to the investigation stage I was talking about earlier. They wipe their eyes, blow their nose, and try to figure out how they can cease and desist. That's what's going on over at Dark Reign and godspeed to them.

[quote]GW could come up with a solution that would allow the fansites to keep their domain names . . . a company with a better ear for public relations could easily come to a compromise instead of treating their dedicated fans like internet pirates.[/quote]
But wait, many of the fans are proud, self-confessed pirates. Just look at the current "do you buy your codices" poll or the many, many threads where people have defended their God-give, Cnstitutional, self-evident and inherent right to recast. Speaking of which, we can't pretend that fansites aren't a place where people get together to streamline their ideas about how to, form the company's point of view, creatively screw the company over in those ways. Dakka has a very middle of the road policy about this. The mods around here aren't thought police (you can be honest about your piracy) but I think they make it clear where the lines are. As was mentioned, Dark Reign has at least some content that was directly (and notoriously) ripping of Dark Heresy products. I don't think that kind of thing would fly around here.

[quote][quote=Manchu]GW hasn't killed your parents here.[/quote]
Can't your entire post be turned on its head, Manchu? It's not like these Blood Bowl fansites have murdered anyone's parents, so what's the big deal with them using the word "Blood Bowl" in their domain name! And similarly, how can you step in and defend GW when you, like, don't know the whole story, man![/quote]
It's pretty simple about the domain names. The fansites are in the wrong. As insaniak pointed out, you can be mad that GW has only called them on it now or is calling them on it in an inappropriately harsh way (the point I question) but you can't actually defend using GW IP in your domain name as rightful. Finally, I'm only defending GW by saying that people don't know/aren't interested in (because they'd rather be up on their high horse) the whole story so that last bit of flippancy turns out to be rather lame.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Cane — GMT

[quote=Da Boss]GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.[/quote]

While getting a letter from a legal department from the company you're site is based off is no fun; I don't see how the letter they wrote wasn't done professionally. They even wrote a follow-up letter that seemed pretty polite and also again, professional. The sites were given the option of staying around as long as they complied with GW's very reasonable and readily available legal standards.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=Cane][quote=Da Boss]GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.[/quote]

While getting a letter from a legal department from the company you're site is based off is no fun; I don't see how the letter they wrote wasn't done professionally. They even wrote a follow-up letter that seemed pretty polite and also again, professional. The sites were given the option of staying around as long as they complied with GW's very reasonable and readily available legal standards. [/quote]

Yep and because of this GW is in the wrong, crushing their fan-base, ignoring how people feel, leaching off the hard work of the fans and is utterly evil- and anyone who sees it as well reasoned as that is branded a fan-boi (There may be a hint of sarcasm here)

I actually see GW's response as a sensible way to deal with the issue of the websites- and although people think it could have been done better, it was done well enough and could have been done a hell of a lot worse. I don't really see how anyone can argue that nothing should be done because of the issues revolving around protecting your IP.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

[quote=Bignutter][quote=Cane][quote=Da Boss]GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.[/quote]

While getting a letter from a legal department from the company you're site is based off is no fun; I don't see how the letter they wrote wasn't done professionally. They even wrote a follow-up letter that seemed pretty polite and also again, professional. The sites were given the option of staying around as long as they complied with GW's very reasonable and readily available legal standards. [/quote]

Yep and because of this GW is in the wrong, crushing their fan-base, ignoring how people feel, leaching off the hard work of the fans and is utterly evil- and anyone who sees it as well reasoned as that is branded a fan-boi (There may be a hint of sarcasm here)

I actually see GW's response as a sensible way to deal with the issue of the websites- and although people think it could have been done better, it was done well enough and could have been done a hell of a lot worse. I don't really see how anyone can argue that nothing should be done because of the issues revolving around protecting your IP.[/quote]

QFT (Cane & BigN)

Maybe GW should send a free torch and pitchfork with every order. That might reflect adequate knowledge of the fanbase.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Dave47 — GMT

[quote=Cane]But in the legal game they're playing it right and in some of those fansites they were ripping GW material like you'd find on a torrent. To GW and the rest of the legal world; those fansites were in the wrong and deserve to be rectified or shut down. [/quote]
[quote=Manchu]But wait, many of the fans are proud, self-confessed pirates. Just look at the current "do you buy your codices" poll or the many, many threads where people have defended their God-give, Cnstitutional, self-evident and inherent right to recast.[/quote]
So, you don't want to pass judgment on GW until you hear the full story, but it's totally ok to pass judgment that these sites are internet pirates based on... What exactly? Obviously some fan sites out there do cross the line, but casting such a wide net in analogizing "fan sites" with "internet pirates" is inappropriate.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=Manchu][quote=Bignutter][quote=Cane][quote=Da Boss]GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.[/quote]

While getting a letter from a legal department from the company you're site is based off is no fun; I don't see how the letter they wrote wasn't done professionally. They even wrote a follow-up letter that seemed pretty polite and also again, professional. The sites were given the option of staying around as long as they complied with GW's very reasonable and readily available legal standards. [/quote]

Yep and because of this GW is in the wrong, crushing their fan-base, ignoring how people feel, leaching off the hard work of the fans and is utterly evil- and anyone who sees it as well reasoned as that is branded a fan-boi (There may be a hint of sarcasm here)

I actually see GW's response as a sensible way to deal with the issue of the websites- and although people think it could have been done better, it was done well enough and could have been done a hell of a lot worse. I don't really see how anyone can argue that nothing should be done because of the issues revolving around protecting your IP.[/quote]

QFT (Cane & BigN)

Maybe GW should send a free torch and pitchfork with every order. That might reflect adequate knowledge of the fanbase.[/quote]

You see, I don't think that it does adequately reflect the fanbase- just a very noisy minority who have an axe to grind for some reason. It seems to come up that certain people will always see GW in a bad light no matter what. The likes who complain about new models coming out because they "ruin it for those with the old ones" or don't like new army books or rule books coming out because it seems to them to be a "money grabbing evil corporateness" regardless of any good that comes of such releases.

Sure GW may in your eyes have some downsides- but I on the whole feel there are a great many more good things including some kick ass models, fun games and places I have hung out and made friends with staff and gamers alike.

I've noticed on the 3 or so threads about this that some of those old "GW is pure evil" type posts cropping up again and people seeming to get quite upset- and then lashing out at anyone who shows any support for GW. I think its fine that they have their opinions, and I may not agree with them, but I'd prefer not get flamed for holding a different opinion.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

Bignutter, WTF? I never said GW were evil. Or that you were a fanboy. Stop putting words in my mouth and constructing the argument you want to fight against, it's very annoying. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd understand that I have no problem whatsoever with GW protecting their IP, and definitely no problem with them stopping bandwidth leeching. No where did I say that these actions were wrong, or that I disagreed with them. What I think was a bad move on GW's part was using a Cease and Desist letter with a threat of further action on these forums and also requesting the donations button be taken down. Legal action did not need to be threatened as a first port of call, a friendlier and less aggressive approach would be to simply contact them and ASK, while explaining the situation and the options to resolve it. It's the difference between asking and telling, and while you may not see it as important, many do, and that does not mean they endorse any illegal activities, think GW is evil, or have an axe to grind.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

@Dave47: I think you'l just have to reread my post because responding to your last one would just be repeating myself.

@BigN: You're right, of course, it is a very loud minority of people who've hated GW for a long time and are always ready to pounce on the chance to decry their actions. But I suppose to them I look like the fanboy who's always ready to jump to the megacorp's defense. Point is, nothing satisfies some folks who will live and die atop their high horse.

@Da Boss: Right, as stated, receiving anunexpected letter from lawyers is jarring. I think that's just what happens when the private sector crosses paths with the private citizen. It's like shaking hands with a Titan--whether he means to or not, his grip sorta crushes your hand.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

I'm sorry Da Boss- that was not directed at you- I had read what you have written and am sorry if you feel that any unhappyness was directed at you.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

Okay, right. I should probably cool my jets a bit. Thank you for the apology and sorry myself for going on a mild rant.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Cane — GMT

@ Da Boss: GW's C&D letters and its follow up letter were conducted professionally and reasonably. From a legal and company standpoint its up to the legal staff to handle situations like these and since its a legal situation it requires legal work such as the letters they sent. These sites were given the opportunity to shape up and continue and its follow up letter shows that GW does care about its fans; imo there's not much sympathy or worthwhile excuses for these sites since GW has had their legal information readily available and they conducted this whole matter professionally.

[quote=Bignutter][quote=Manchu][quote=Bignutter][quote=Cane][quote=Da Boss]GW could have politely asked for people to stop leeching bandwidth and gotten them to put disclaimers acknowledging that they are not GW or endorsed by GW on the websites. That would have solved the issue quickly, politely and quietly. It would not have gotten them a negative fan reaction and would have meant that the fan forums could keep running, GW's bandwidth was not being leeched and their IP was protected.[/quote]

While getting a letter from a legal department from the company you're site is based off is no fun; I don't see how the letter they wrote wasn't done professionally. They even wrote a follow-up letter that seemed pretty polite and also again, professional. The sites were given the option of staying around as long as they complied with GW's very reasonable and readily available legal standards. [/quote]

Yep and because of this GW is in the wrong, crushing their fan-base, ignoring how people feel, leaching off the hard work of the fans and is utterly evil- and anyone who sees it as well reasoned as that is branded a fan-boi (There may be a hint of sarcasm here)

I actually see GW's response as a sensible way to deal with the issue of the websites- and although people think it could have been done better, it was done well enough and could have been done a hell of a lot worse. I don't really see how anyone can argue that nothing should be done because of the issues revolving around protecting your IP.[/quote]

QFT (Cane & BigN)

Maybe GW should send a free torch and pitchfork with every order. That might reflect adequate knowledge of the fanbase.[/quote]

You see, I don't think that it does adequately reflect the fanbase- just a very noisy minority who have an axe to grind for some reason. It seems to come up that certain people will always see GW in a bad light no matter what. The likes who complain about new models coming out because they "ruin it for those with the old ones" or don't like new army books or rule books coming out because it seems to them to be a "money grabbing evil corporateness" regardless of any good that comes of such releases.

Sure GW may in your eyes have some downsides- but I on the whole feel there are a great many more good things including some kick ass models, fun games and places I have hung out and made friends with staff and gamers alike.

I've noticed on the 3 or so threads about this that some of those old "GW is pure evil" type posts cropping up again and people seeming to get quite upset- and then lashing out at anyone who shows any support for GW. I think its fine that they have their opinions, and I may not agree with them, but I'd prefer not get flamed for holding a different opinion.[/quote]

Agreed, and that sort of thing is what you'll find on basically all forums similar to GW fansites. Whether its World of Warcraft or TV shows like Top Gear; there's always a vocal and passionate minority trying to demonize and polarize the site's focus.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

Cane: We'll have to disagree on that point. I think they could have handled this without the C&D letters, and they would have been better off if they had approached it that way.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=Da Boss]Okay, right. I should probably cool my jets a bit. Thank you for the apology and sorry myself for going on a mild rant.[/quote]

It seems to be quite fashionable... even I got caught up in it

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

Here's one to mull over: Why is GW suddenly so insane about it's IP?

Answer: Because it would seem it doesn't actually own it in some countries.

I ran this by some attorneys, who have agreed with me that GW doesn't have a leg to stand on in most of these cases. Further, their own claim of ownership of the IP is, itself, somewhat questionable, as US copyright law forbids recognition of a copyright contingent on US participation in the Berne Convention.

Further I might refer to the 1976 copyright act: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

So, in theory, as long as you did not plagiarize the original text, you could re-write any Games Workshop rule system and sell it perfectly legally in the US.

Now, that can claim [i]trademark[/i], which might hold water.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]Here's one to mull over: Why is GW suddenly so insane about it's IP?

[/quote]

I think someone in the other thread mentioned the trade-marks being up for renewal this yeah- hence having to be seen to protect them

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

Wow, port maw, really?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

[quote=Somnicide]Wow, port maw, really?[/quote]
Yeah that one was a bit of a shock. Seems to be a pattern with the specialist games. Those games have so little official support that people have taken to making their own (sometimes high quality like Warp Rift) stuff up which GW is not happy with.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

Also remember that there is that newish blood bowl video game - I can see them wanting to protect their IP - as someone else mentioned, if they don't do anything about little stuff, they can't do anything about big stuff (say Hasbro making a fantasy world based blood bowl type football game) because they didn't protect their IP

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Somnicide]Also remember that there is that newish blood bowl video game - I can see them wanting to protect their IP - as someone else mentioned, if they don't do anything about little stuff, they can't do anything about big stuff (say Hasbro making a fantasy world based blood bowl type football game) because they didn't protect their IP[/quote]

Point of fact, Hasbro could legally make a fantasy world based blood bowl style games since they own something called Dungeons & Dragons...

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

Yep, but if GW didn't defend their IP Hasbro could basically use their rule set and aesthetic.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=Somnicide]Yep, but if GW didn't defend their IP Hasbro could basically use their rule set and aesthetic.[/quote]

Well GW keep saying that if they don't step on these fan sites they will lose their IP. But is that actually true? Some of these sites have been online for a decade and there are loads of fan sites that are tolerated for everything under the sun and I don't see these companies losing their IP over their movies and other products as a result. GW could just as easily ignore fan sites and pretend that they don't know TalkBloodBowl and others exist. They can demonstrate that they value their IP when they prosecute recasters.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Platuan4th — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh][quote=Somnicide]Also remember that there is that newish blood bowl video game - I can see them wanting to protect their IP - as someone else mentioned, if they don't do anything about little stuff, they can't do anything about big stuff (say Hasbro making a fantasy world based blood bowl type football game) because they didn't protect their IP[/quote]

Point of fact, Hasbro could legally make a fantasy world based blood bowl style games since they own something called Dungeons & Dragons...[/quote]

I don't know if it's Hasbro, but there's some fantasy football board game they sell at TRU. It's a self-contained game, but I can't think of the name and can't find it through a web search yet.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Somnicide]Yep, but if GW didn't defend their IP Hasbro could basically use their rule set and aesthetic.[/quote]

... it's a bit stickier, but legally they could use the aesthetic, and with more legal difficulty, the ruleset. Remember, a ruleset is a system, and systems cannot be copyrighted.

[quote=Howard A Treesong][quote=Somnicide]Yep, but if GW didn't defend their IP Hasbro could basically use their rule set and aesthetic.[/quote]

Well GW keep saying that if they don't step on these fan sites they will lose their IP. But is that actually true? Some of these sites have been online for a decade and there are loads of fan sites that are tolerated for everything under the sun and I don't see these companies losing their IP over their movies and other products as a result. GW could just as easily ignore fan sites and pretend that they don't know TalkBloodBowl and others exist. They can demonstrate that they value their IP when they prosecute recasters.[/quote]

GW has been saying this because under German copyright laws, they loose part of their right to the IP if they don't. The problem is that GW has based their entire business on the extremely fluid state of international copyright law. For example, Fair Use covers a much broader spectrum of activity in the US then it does in the UK or EU. This leads them to issue nonsensical cease and desists so that they do not lose copyright elsewhere, even though if the case actually went to trial in the US, they'd almost certainly lose.

(It would be ironic if, in persecuting one of these cases, a judge were to award the defendant the copyright in question as punitive damages.)

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=Bignutter]
Yep and because of this GW is in the wrong, crushing their fan-base, ignoring how people feel, leaching off the hard work of the fans and is utterly evil- and anyone who sees it as well reasoned as that is branded a fan-boi (There may be a hint of sarcasm here)

.[/quote]

I find a hint of provocation instead

[quote=Manchu]

Maybe GW should send a free torch and pitchfork with every order. That might reflect adequate knowledge of the fanbase.[/quote]

Flaming

[quote=Bignutter]

You see, I don't think that it does adequately reflect the fanbase- just a very noisy minority who have an axe to grind for some reason. It seems to come up that certain people will always see GW in a bad light no matter what. The likes who complain about new models coming out because they "ruin it for those with the old ones" or don't like new army books or rule books coming out because it seems to them to be a "money grabbing evil corporateness" regardless of any good that comes of such releases.

I've noticed on the 3 or so threads about this that some of those old "GW is pure evil" type posts cropping up again and people seeming to get quite upset- and then lashing out at anyone who shows any support for GW. I think its fine that they have their opinions, and I may not agree with them, but I'd prefer not get flamed for holding a different opinion.[/quote]

Initial Provocation ended up in just flaming others

I assume we are here to talk about GW actions not users... also I feel your line of argumentations and GROSSE generalizations towards all that express diferent opinions and also that fansites=bunch of pirates not only offbase but clowds your points (thanks for labeling me not only as a retarded hater, but since I have a fan site, also a lame pirate)...
Because, see I dont find that the world is black and white and cant establish a reasonable dialogue with who does.
I havent labeled no one of anything the topic for me is about GW atitudes towards fansites triggered about IP protection issues... so I would apreciate if you guys stoped flaming a perfect good & interesting topic.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=BaronIveagh]

(It would be ironic if, in persecuting one of these cases, a judge were to award the defendant the copyright in question as punitive damages.)
[/quote]

That would be just crazy, yet so damn funny Probably bloodbowl fansites would promote the thing beter than GW.

Thank you for the legal clarifications mate it really helps out.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

IP is a very broad brush term which covers three main areas of law, trademarks, copyright and patents.

Leaving patents out, as I think they are irrelevant to the argument, GW are protecting two things; (1) their trademarked names Blood Bowl and Dark Reign, (2) the copyright in their pictures.

Trademarks [i]must[/i] be defended or they are lost. The concept behind a trademark is different to a copyright. A trademark is a name or phrase used for a specific area of business. Blood Bowl is only trademarked as the name of a tabletop game and now a computer game of American Football played in a fantasy world. If I wanted to start a chain of restaurants based on Masai cuisine, and call it Blood Bowl, I would be legally entitled to do so. If GW let the world and their sister make free with the name Blood Bowl, meaning a fantasy football game, they will lose the trademark.

Copyright doesn't have to be defended, in the sense that just because a lot of people illegally copy your stuff, it doesn't stop being your stuff.

However, it's a good idea to defend copyright because as we all know, a lot of copying goes on, particularly among teenagers and college students (for sociological reasons) and these groups are GW's main target market. GW loses money every time someone downloads a scan of a codex instead of buying it.

Since GW are sending out these letters to offending sites, it makes sense to shoot two birds with one stone and defend both the TM and their copyright.

I still think GW handled the issue badly and raised an internet stink among vets which they could have avoided by being a bit more graceful in their approach. It also certainly didn't help that they had let some of these sites alone for nine years.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

twistinthunder — GMT

[quote=fullheadofhair] Warhammer 40k Device,
[/quote]

yep no 40k in there. nuff said

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howard A Treesong — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]GW has been saying this because under German copyright laws, they loose part of their right to the IP if they don't. The problem is that GW has based their entire business on the extremely fluid state of international copyright law. For example, Fair Use covers a much broader spectrum of activity in the US then it does in the UK or EU. This leads them to issue nonsensical cease and desists so that they do not lose copyright elsewhere, even though if the case actually went to trial in the US, they'd almost certainly lose.
[/quote]

The German situation was slightly unusual if I recall. An independent company produced a film and if GW had allowed a public release it would have been a sign of voluntarily surrendering their IP. It would be akin to cooperating with a company to reproduce miniatures just like their own which no one is expecting them to do. I don't think that overlooking fan websites can compare to this precedent because if you don't know someone is violating IP, then you can't be expected to lose your IP to them. If that were the case music companies would lose their IP because people copy their stuff illegally and they don't take action against them all.

I can see that publically identifying people violating IP and them giving them a free pass would be dangerous, say if they linked to such fan sites on their own website as that would appear to endorse a site using their IP. But if they simply ignore them, what's the problem?

They are frankly making mountains out of molehills. Fan websites don't take any money from them, people who copy their miniatures and books do, but that's a different kettle of fish.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO]
[quote=Bignutter]

You see, I don't think that it does adequately reflect the fanbase- just a very noisy minority who have an axe to grind for some reason. It seems to come up that certain people will always see GW in a bad light no matter what. The likes who complain about new models coming out because they "ruin it for those with the old ones" or don't like new army books or rule books coming out because it seems to them to be a "money grabbing evil corporateness" regardless of any good that comes of such releases.

I've noticed on the 3 or so threads about this that some of those old "GW is pure evil" type posts cropping up again and people seeming to get quite upset- and then lashing out at anyone who shows any support for GW. I think its fine that they have their opinions, and I may not agree with them, but I'd prefer not get flamed for holding a different opinion.[/quote]

Initial Provocation ended up in just flaming others

I assume we are here to talk about GW actions not users... also I feel your line of argumentations and GROSSE generalizations towards all that express diferent opinions and also that fansites=bunch of pirates not only offbase but clowds your points (thanks for labeling me not only as a retarded hater, but since I have a fan site, also a lame pirate)...
Because, see I dont find that the world is black and white and cant establish a reasonable dialogue with who does.
I havent labeled no one of anything the topic for me is about GW atitudes towards fansites triggered about IP protection issues... so I would apreciate if you guys stoped flaming a perfect good & interesting topic. [/quote]

Different opinions are fine- I can deal with those- but there have in these threads been people playing the "oh your a fanboi" card

At no point did I call you a retarded hater, nor indeed a pirate (in fact I've not mentioned pirates or retardness so why put words in my mouth)

I feel my mini soapbox rant has been caused by this topic becoming the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to some people taking as you would put it the "retarded hater" approach, including those who have made it personal.

As for the topic- I believe it has gone full circle- Everyone has said their bit and everyone seems to have their views deeply entrenched- so why doesn't everyone back off- agree to disagree and have a cup of tea?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]
I still think GW handled the issue badly and raised an internet stink among vets which they could have avoided by being a bit more graceful in their approach. It also certainly didn't help that they had let some of these sites alone for nine years.[/quote]

Sums it up perfectly for me, a smart company if wanted to change things could change them in away that average people would not notice and fansite owners would thank GW for helping out.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Except, once again, we don't know that GW didn't approach the sites before now politely.

We only got into the issue when the sites began hooting and hollering that they received cease & desist orders.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]Except, once again, we don't know that GW didn't approach the sites before now politely.

We only got into the issue when the sites began hooting and hollering that they received cease & desist orders.[/quote]

Except that they all starting 'hooting and hollering' at the same time and none had taken any action prior to this and we aren't hearing about any who did.

Which leaves the overwhelming evidence that a mailshot was issued for a number of sites at the same time and that either;
A) they all ignored previous advice to get to that stage, indicated a similar wilful disregard for polite previous requests...or
B) no prior warning.

Given the evidence provided so far, B is looking by far the more likely.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

What evidence?

All we've got is a bunch of sites that ignored legal mumbojumbo that's been on the GW site for 9 years and leeching corporate bandwidth...

Seems to me they'd have no problem ignoring a politely worded "Please stop".

But eh. I still think it's more because the Blood Bowl game just came out and GW might be under pressure from the developer to shut down anything that might take hits away from the "official" Blood Bowl site.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]What evidence?
[/quote]

Several fansites relating to GW games or games that incorporate GW IP all reporting receiving a C&D instruction.

The rest of your post is supposition and hyperbole.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Just like the fact that we "know" that GW didn't send them a prior warning?

I'm just saying. Before we go and crucify GW for being the big evil jackboot of gaming companies, it's entirely possible that there WERE prior issues and the websites aren't interested in anything more than rabble rousing.

Which incidentally, bumps up their traffic and potentially the donations they receive.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]Just like the fact that we "know" that GW didn't send them a prior warning?

I'm just saying. Before we go and crucify GW for being the big evil jackboot of gaming companies, it's entirely possible that there WERE prior issues and the websites aren't interested in anything more than rabble rousing.

Which incidentally, bumps up their traffic and potentially the donations they receive.[/quote]

Technically, isn't a cease and desist actually just a legaleese and official warning? They weren't asking for compensation or anything.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Kanluwen brings up a good point. Ignorance of the law is never a defense. Fan sites have a responsibility to make sure their content doesn't step on the toes of GW. Plus, GW has had their IP policy posted. What is GW supposed to do? Send every fansite a link to that page as soon as they set up shop (assuming some way that GW could find them at that point) saying "wait a minute, read this"?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BeefyG — GMT

I think it will be an interesting time when the Epic licence comes full circle and this is repeated. Does anyone know when their term will be up similar to BB's recent 10 year cycle?

As Insaniak wrote in the other post "...GW have always acted like this".

Whether we are OK about it or not does not mean that people don't have a right to discuss it.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Manchu]Kanluwen brings up a good point. Ignorance of the law is never a defense. Fan sites have a responsibility to make sure their content doesn't step on the toes of GW. [/quote]

Perhaps the recently renamed talkbloodbowl surmised that nine years of operation with frequent input from GW staff was enough time to judge they were not in the wrong, running a fansite for a game the creator company has all but abandoned.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa][quote=Manchu]Kanluwen brings up a good point. Ignorance of the law is never a defense. Fan sites have a responsibility to make sure their content doesn't step on the toes of GW. [/quote]

Perhaps the recently renamed talkbloodbowl surmised that nine years of operation with frequent input from GW staff was enough time to judge they were not in the wrong, running a fansite for a game the creator company has all but abandoned.[/quote]

and that, if they chose to pursue that angle, they may have proven.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

@MGS: If you assume GW staff that are not (a) on the board of directors or (b) their lawyers can approve of your ignoring their stated IP policy, what can I say? The usual line about assumptions applies.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

GW legal itself points out in on of the C&D's that they don't need to inform you of anything beyond the C&D.

Manchu: Under US tort law, that GW employees contributed would constitute implicit approval, as your company is responsible for the actions of it's employees.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

This is nonsense, they used a CnD, a threat of legal action, when a simple request would have sufficed.

It was lazy and overly aggressive and a corporation casually lashing out at the fanbase of it's own product. Whilst GW have every right to protect their IP, the threat really wasn't here and they took the short and brutal road instead of employing those same lawyers to produce caveats capable of accommodating those fansites.

GW have the right to protect their own copyrights and property, but they were protecting them from a threat that simply wasn't there, it's like suing a group of folks who've trespassed in a forest to pick up the litter, it is attacking a benevolent group of people who support your product. I can't make sense of the attitude to do that, based on what we've seen so far.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

actually I think someone else has said this really well in the other thread.....

[quote=insaniak]

So far as the C&D itself goes... Yes, as a layperson it seems a little extreme as a first step. But as has been pointed out in the other threads, we have no way of knowing whether or not GW [i]did[/i] engage in any prior communication with these sites. I don't know about anyone else, but I also have no idea of the legal requirements of these sorts of requests... it's entirely possible that there are sound legal reasons that GW jumped straight to the C&D, if that's in fact what happened.

It's also possible, knowing what an intractible and/or unmotivated bunch a lot of wargamers tend to be, that GW have found in the past that asking politely just doesn't actually [i]work[/i]. I can very easily imagine someone who has been running a fan site for years receiving a letter from GW politely asking them to change their domain name and thinking 'Yeah... when they make me' or 'Yeah, I'll get to it later...'

So, yeah, it's terrible that site owners feel that their best option is to close down. It [i]seems[/i] on the surface to be a rather non-customer-friendly approach on GW's behalf. But we don't have the full story, here. [/quote]

So yeah... what he said

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Self-quote time!

[quote=Manchu]Right, as stated, receiving anunexpected letter from lawyers is jarring. I think that's just what happens when the private sector crosses paths with the private citizen. It's like shaking hands with a Titan--whether he means to or not, his grip sorta crushes your hand.[/quote]

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Da Boss — GMT

Yeah but when he does, it's okay for some people to go "Dude that titan totally crushed that dude's hand. Lame."

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Bignutter — GMT

[quote=Da Boss]Yeah but when he does, it's okay for some people to go "Dude that titan totally crushed that dude's hand. Lame."[/quote]

and is it ok on the internets for people to ask for pics and video?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Or maybe: "Hmm, should be more careful."

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Manchu]Self-quote time!

[quote=Manchu]Right, as stated, receiving anunexpected letter from lawyers is jarring. I think that's just what happens when the private sector crosses paths with the private citizen. It's like shaking hands with a Titan--whether he means to or not, his grip sorta crushes your hand.[/quote][/quote]

At those times the titan should have the wit to realise it is not shaking hands with another titan and that it may crush the guy's hand, so it talks to the little guy instead, being careful to check it's communicating in his language and not frightening him, after all, it is a titan and he is a little guy, the onus is firmly on the titan.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Wait, why? Isn't it GW's IP? We're dancing around the same points made in the recast threads: "I buy their stuff so they owe me!"

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

fullheadofhair — GMT

[quote=twistinthunder][quote=fullheadofhair] Warhammer 40k Device,
[/quote]

yep no 40k in there. nuff said[/quote]

The trade mark is "warhammer 40k device" not "40k" - rather like "drink it in the sun" doesn't mean "drink" is also trademarked.

Like I say, the term "40k" isn't specifically listed on pg5 of the legal section of the GW website. Why do you think that? Maybe they forgot.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

@fullheadofhair: we've been over that; seems as though KK said 40k was a registered TM

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Manchu]"I buy their stuff so they owe me!"[/quote]

If you buy their stuff, they do owe you.

That makes you the customer. That makes you the wellspring of the company's continued existence. Any firm saying 'we don't owe them, they just buy our stuff' needs a rocket fired under their asses.

The comparison to recasting is not a fair one. Utilising the name of the product to bring together fans of the product after the creators of the product stated that fans of the product should get together in this way seems a logical pathway for private individual consumers to take. The logical assumption for people coming together to discuss their love of jaffa cakes would be to call their website jaffacakefan.org or something. The problem and the distaste are generated for me personally, by the notion of a CnD letter being issued to these people 'cold'. It certainly appears, given what's been discussed so far (and mentioned by me before) that the legal compliance directives were the first notice anyone on the several websites had heard from GW.

That's my personal dislike in all this, that no mutually reasonable accord was sought prior to this.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

Actually, the comparison to recast is quite appropriate for the alleged SM ruleset at Dark Reign. I don't know if talkbloodbowl had any similar content or what the extent of the problems were.

When you buy from a company they only owe you what you have paid for. Whatever else you expect is a gratuity. As for GW, YMMV. They've always been considerate to me in my few dealings with them.

C&D letters are issued "cold" all the time. That's just the way lawyers work.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

In any non-Berne Convention signatory nation, GW's IP ownership is questionable at best, and usually honored 'in the breach' as it were.

The major problem that companies like GW run into is that the Internet is everywhere, but copyright law is not. Therefor a webpage might be perfectly legal doing what it's doing in that country, but GW will still send a C&D threatening legal action, even if no legal action is actually possible in the nation in question.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Manchu]
C&D letters are issued "cold" all the time. That's just the way lawyers work.[/quote]

Well aware of how you folks work, I was referring to GW letting slip the dogs of law before exploring other avenues. Cold as in without prior communications from it's marketing/PR dept.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

[quote=MeanGreenStompa]Well aware of how you folks work, I was referring to GW letting slip the dogs of law before exploring other avenues. Cold as in without prior communications from it's marketing/PR dept.[/quote]
On a slightly different note, I wonder why they don't let somebody who obviously wants to get the face time with the fans as much as JJ handles some of these things.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

And I wonder why, given they closed down their own forums and recommended people set up their own, that they didn't offer layman friendly advice or some form of build patterns for establishing a forum or fansite that GW wouldn't have to issue the CnDs to.

Some kind of forum package and guidance.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

oni — GMT

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=oni]
Do you have clue how often that happens here? A LOT! So what does that mean for Dakka?[/quote]

It means that dakka will get one in the mail as soon as they figure out who to send it to.

Though I've often wondered why dakka and warseer seem to get fewer of these then everyone else, when the activity is even more blatant.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=oni]Do you have clue how often that happens here? A LOT! So what does that mean for Dakka?[/quote]

It means that if GW sees something here being hotlinked from their website, and decides to send the administration a letter telling them to remove it, the offending image will be removed.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Howlingmoon — GMT

[quote=Manchu][quote=MeanGreenStompa]Well aware of how you folks work, I was referring to GW letting slip the dogs of law before exploring other avenues. Cold as in without prior communications from it's marketing/PR dept.[/quote]
On a slightly different note, I wonder why they don't let somebody who obviously wants to get the face time with the fans as much as JJ handles some of these things.[/quote]\

Because Jervis doesn't want face time with the fans. He wants to issue decrees from the holy pulpit and tell everyone how bad they are*.

*That is not insinuating that he is incorrect.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Manchu — GMT

How bad at what?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Manchu]How bad at what?[/quote]

Making sense of GW.

If it's a problem with the mini, GW is a game company.

If it's a problem with the rules, GW is a mini's company.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Dysartes — GMT

[quote=fullheadofhair][quote=twistinthunder][quote=fullheadofhair] Warhammer 40k Device,
[/quote]

yep no 40k in there. nuff said[/quote]

The trade mark is "warhammer 40k device" not "40k" - rather like "drink it in the sun" doesn't mean "drink" is also trademarked.[/quote]

Out of interest, what does "warhammer 40k device" actually entail, from a legal perspective?

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

H.B.M.C. — GMT

The Warhammer 40,000 logo I'd say, and the double-headed eagle design.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Arwel — GMT

[quote]It's pretty simple about the domain names. The fansites are in the wrong. As insaniak pointed out, you can be mad that GW has only called them on it now or is calling them on it in an inappropriately harsh way (the point I question) but you can't actually defend using GW IP in your domain name as rightful.[/quote]

I'm genuinely curious if this is true. Can anyone cite any court cases either in the UK or US where a fansite or similar has been ruled to be infringing on a trademark in an url when they haven't been selling goods or services? Some of GWs claims may well be just bullying, they can claim what they like in those cease and dessists and legal pages but that doesn't necessarily mean their arguments will stand up in court. I fully understand why fans won't want to risk going to court to try and defend themselves though.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

agnosto — GMT

meh, GW is just being Orky and we're the grots.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Arwel][quote]It's pretty simple about the domain names. The fansites are in the wrong. As insaniak pointed out, you can be mad that GW has only called them on it now or is calling them on it in an inappropriately harsh way (the point I question) but you can't actually defend using GW IP in your domain name as rightful.[/quote]

I'm genuinely curious if this is true. Can anyone cite any court cases either in the UK or US where a fansite or similar has been ruled to be infringing on a trademark in an url when they haven't been selling goods or services? Some of GWs claims may well be just bullying, they can claim what they like in those cease and dessists and legal pages but that doesn't necessarily mean their arguments will stand up in court. I fully understand why fans won't want to risk going to court to try and defend themselves though.[/quote]

No, it's not. precedent: Beck v Eiland-Hall. As long as it cannot be confused with an official site, you can name your domain anything you damn well please, whether it contains a trademark or not.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Manchu]@fullheadofhair: we've been over that; seems as though KK said 40k was a registered TM[/quote]

It's registered, I don't know by whom as it costs to download that report.

I would take out a trademark on a certain term myself, only it costs about £1,000 to do so.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Grimstonefire — GMT

Methinks
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/index.php

Will be getting a knock at the door soon.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Teufelskerl — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]I would take out a trademark on a certain term myself, only it costs about £1,000 to do so.[/quote]

Registering a Trademark is cheaper in the US, at little as $375, though the process is not fast; [url=http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/index.jsp]US Trademark Process[/url]

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

siamtiger — GMT

Another one is around:

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/12/31361

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Teufelskerl][quote=Kilkrazy]I would take out a trademark on a certain term myself, only it costs about £1,000 to do so.[/quote]

Registering a Trademark is cheaper in the US, at little as $375, though the process is not fast; [url=http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/index.jsp]US Trademark Process[/url]

[/quote]

To clarify, it's about £1,000 for a European trademark, a GB only one is about £350.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

[quote=siamtiger]Another one is around:

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/12/31361[/quote]

From the link:
[quote] Games Workshop Limited has for some time been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing: hobby board games; war games; models; miniatures; and associated products and in the course of this business has acquired and registered a large number of copyrights and other intellectual property rights.

It has recently come to our attention that much of the information hosted on your website, www.fumbbl.com (the “Website”), provides us with cause for concern as it conflicts with our intellectual property rights. Although we are confident that the Website is a well-intentioned resource, we are acutely aware of the need to assert our intellectual property rights. Specifically, our causes for concern are that:

* the Website contains copies of Blood Bowl statistics and rules;
* tje Java Bowl programme contains various pieces of GW Blood Bowl art including the Blood Bowl pitch and Blood Bowl logo; and
* the Java Bowl programme uses all the Blood Bowl rules and statistics for each model.

As you may appreciate, GW has a strict policy of protecting all of its intellectual property rights. To this end, we must insist that these materials are removed from the Website.[/quote]

So, they want people to not post rules/stats or artwork from the books.

This is what people are up in arms about? Really? Jesus people. That's the same rules we abide by here on Dakka.

Or are you going to start pouting that the rules aren't available "legally"? Because last time I looked on ebay...

Or heck, maybe see if GW would allow a file server to be set up for hosting specialist games/space hulk rules or the like. Who knows.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

siamtiger — GMT

It was just a notification, no justification added.

Many of these are plausible and comprehensible. It is just the question, where will be drawn the line between protecting the ip and crushing the fanbase.

I can absolutely see the point about the domains etc., but if you would really keep everything in mind that is written in the disclaimer, you couldn't even post pictures of new products in forums to discuss, as it would be a violation.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

Agamemnon2 — GMT

Since FUMBBL has been used for quite a long time by Blood Bowl aficionados to play the game without having to purchase any models, the decision to axe the Java Bowl program is only good business.

The fact that by so doing Games Workshop is slowly eradicating every last vestige of the Specialist Games fiasco is, to use one of your Earth expressions, "gravy".

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

George Spiggott — GMT

The Java Bloodbowl program could probably get round this by making players enter their own stats. Rules cannot be copywritten or Trademarked unless you copy the exact wording. The Bloodbowl pitch can be replaced with a simple grid with American Football markings on it.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

So if I wanted to show off and tell the world about my Space Wolf army, then registering a domain of "wolfstansspacewolfarmy" would have them having a hissy fit? I'd have to call it something that didn't infringe their IP and hope that it was found via meta tags?

I've mentioned meta tags before and what I find interesting about them is that to promote my site I could use terms like "real space wolves, genuine space marines, official space wolf site" and it's not an infringement, even though they would be being used to mislead and direct people to my web site. However I create a site called "wolfstanspacewolfarmy" and plaster a mixture of own photos and GW artwork on it, but with a clear disclaimer at the bottom, I run the risk of get a C&D letter.

Just thought I throw that in to the mix

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

If you made a commercial site plastered with those kind of metatags, and were not selling official GW figures, they probably would jump on. Metatags are a bit like advertising.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

Like I said, the domain name thing is not illegal, there is legal precedent that shows that using someone else' IP in your domain name is fair use, so long as it cannot be confused with a 'official' website.

FUMMBL's situation is a bit stickier, and in all honesty, my solution would be to move the servers to a nation where it's activities do not constitute a copyright violation.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

inquisitor_bob — GMT

Just a quick check on GW's trademarks and I turned up these 2 attorneys as the ones who filed the most popular GW trademarks; Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer.

Attorneys:
Naresh Kilaru
Mark Sommers

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Ozymandias — GMT

Grab the torches, get 'em!!

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Chapterhouse — GMT

I wonder how a company can trademark something like an abbreviation. 40k is just an abbreviation for 40,000... is that even legal? Or is that trademark on a specific font and style?

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Somnicide — GMT

I don't think you can trademark 40k on it's own. However, 40k when referring to Warhammer 40,000 you probably could make an argument for.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Fateweaver — GMT

Same way GE can copyright "GE". Sure they are paired up commonly in words like "age, adage, rage, cage...etc." So they cannot be copyrighted in terms of "OMG you used the words spaceaGE in your url so we can sue you"; but if you went and created a website discussing the merits of GE products (why you would I do not know) and then called it "GElovers" you most likely would get a friendly warning and then a C&D (or maybe it'd go right to a cease and desist).

A company is not required to play nice you know in regards to legal matters. If someone is trying to steal my tv from my house I SHOULD fire a warning shot or yell out a warning but there is no law saying I have to. I can just go right to the killing and maiming if I want.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Sidstyler — GMT

[quote]I can just go right to the killing and maiming if I want.[/quote]

What country do [i]you[/i] live in, lol...if anything what I've heard seems to suggest the opposite. You can't kill someone for stealing your TV, nor can you shoot them, and I even have my doubts about being able to throw a punch their way if they were coming at you and clearly intended to do you harm. You'd probably get sued for it and/or end up doing time.

Maybe it differs depending on the state, I dunno.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Orkeosaurus — GMT

It is state law; it's usually called the "castle doctrine", or something along those lines, and it allows pretty much any action to be taken to defend yourself against someone breaking into your residence.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Fateweaver — GMT

We just need to let that one lie. This thread will derail super fast (although it is on it's way to closure within the next 5-8 pages).

Point I'm making is that if these sites violate GW's policy on their IP (and seriously, do some goddamn homework on the subject before you begin) GW does not owe it to them to give them 3 warnings or 6 or 8. If you are found to be pirating and distributing movies I promise the MPAA is not going to send a C&D letter first. Your home will be raided, computers taken and your illegal movies confiscated for use as evidence. MPAA won't give 3 strikes, why the hell should GW?

In the end we will all gnash teeth and bitch about how fair or unfair we think they are with their IP "strong arming" but I guarantee that 5 years from now I will be posting on dakka (or at least reading all the whining about GW's continued evil corporate ways) and I will see the same people that I see now putting up pics of newly painted minis or posting rumors or what have you that involves this big corporate evil entity known as GW.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Chapterhouse]I wonder how a company can trademark something like an abbreviation. 40k is just an abbreviation for 40,000... is that even legal? Or is that trademark on a specific font and style?[/quote]

Trademarking does not give you the right to control all possible uses of the phrase, only use in a specific category of trade such as names for wargames.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Fateweaver]
In the end we will all gnash teeth and bitch about how fair or unfair we think they are with their IP "strong arming" but I guarantee that 5 years from now I will be posting on dakka (or at least reading all the whining about GW's continued evil corporate ways) and I will see the same people that I see now putting up pics of newly painted minis or posting rumors or what have you that involves this big corporate evil entity known as GW.
[/quote]

Perhaps, perhaps not, I would not have predicted five years ago that there would have been strong companies like PP emerging to challenge on any form of scale (still a small scale I know but rising), since I was fairly convinced the fantasy tabletop game was becoming extinct with the rise of MMORPGs. I still think the online gaming will continue to eat at the potential customerbase for these types of game and will continue to grow more advanced and I still think rival companies will continue to emerge and that is entirely healthy, GW needs some very strong rivals to emerge to make it healthy again, if it has gone down the road of corporate power then it needs a vibrant market or we see what we have seen happening to GW continue, it remains bloated and overpriced in a virtual monopoly.

I do not hate GW, despite my agitation with it. I am annoyed at how it has been behaving for the last 10 years or so, my annoyance heightened by how I remember it and how I believe we have seen across many other corporations a change for the better in customer relations that is woefully missing in GW's approach. It's abit like someone sat Kirby and the other senior management in a dark room and forced them to watch Wallstreet on a loop for a week and they all emerged bleary eyed murmuring 'greed is good' and believing they're still in the economic bubble of the late 80s. If this had been the GW of 15 years ago, they would have carried a full article in WD about the fansites and what they did and interview the owners, overjoyed at being able to promote the Hobby as Community instead of what we see here in action as the Hobby as Product.

I don't want GW to fall, I love warhammer and 40k, I grew up with those figures and reading the fluff and walking with my friends into the wargames club at age 12 and getting sneered at by old 40somethings for bringing a 'fantasy' game to the club and arguing to keep the warhammer game in the club when at the AGM some of the less tolerant wanted it thrown out.

But I want GW to change its ways.
I want it to respect its customers, not produce end of year financial reports that imply the customer of their product will tolerate much abuse because they love the product so much and use that as vindication to carry out actions like we are seeing here and the continued price hikes or inefficient and downright infuriating rules/codex/armylist cockups we keep seeing.

I have become nostalgic for the GW I knew and that is entirely impossible to recreate because the company has moved on as has the market, I understand completely and as I said, good, because I want to see eldar and orks and genestealers and skaven and witchelves in another 5 years or 50! I want the company to be healthy so it can survive. But not as it is, not with the crazy prices, not with the bullying we've seen here, not with the cynical use of rules to promote sale of certain products, not with the fingers in the ears denouncing of the rest of the wargaming world, not with the failings in the rules that are covered by some shrugging and being told to 'roll for it', not with the failure to maintain ALL lines instead of concentrating on one line to the detriment of the others.

I was sent a pm by someone here telling me to 'show some respect' to GW. I ask you, why would I show respect to a company that is proving entirely unwilling to respect me as it's customer?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Sidstyler — GMT

[quote]putting up pics of newly painted minis[/quote]

No, NEVER! As long as I draw breath no mini of mine will ever see paint!

[quote]I was sent a pm by someone here telling me to 'show some respect' to GW. I ask you, why would I show respect to a company that is proving entirely unwilling to respect me as it's customer?[/quote]

What the fuck? Who said that?

You got a lot of balls guy, but not a lot of brains. I'm sorry but only a dipshit would show respect to someone who clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about them and treats them like dirt on a daily basis.

Respect has to be earned.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

R3con — GMT

You can receive cease and disist orders all day long, they go the same place all the offers for credit card processing go...into the shredder...unless it comes from a court which has jurisdiction over you its just a letter.

For a Tort to be valid they have to prove Real Damages, and will be hard pressed to do so.

Plus over here in the states it takes 30 seconds and 50 bucks to create a LLCorp, anything big actaully comes down the pipe and you let that corp go bankrupt.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

From someone of the same age... respect MGS. Do you per chance go to the model / engineering show @ The Bath & West Show Grounds? If you do it would be nice to meet and greet next year. Our club, Wessex Wyverns along with our friends from MCS Miniatures & Simple Miniature Games should be there in force in 2010. I missed our first showing last year, but gather some serious drinking happened

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Wolfstan]From someone of the same age... respect MGS. Do you per chance go to the model / engineering show @ The Bath & West Show Grounds? If you do it would be nice to meet and greet next year. Our club, Wessex Wyverns along with our friends from MCS Miniatures & Simple Miniature Games should be there in force in 2010. I missed our first showing last year, but gather some serious drinking happened [/quote]

Sounds cool, lemme know when?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Sidstyler — GMT

Mr. Anonymous must be a Space Marine player, that's all I can think of. It's the only way that makes any sense.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Lanrak — GMT

Hi all.
It appears that GW PLC are using two seperate corperate ideals against each other!

Originaly fan support went into GW towers and was delt with by inclusion and/or acknowledgement by GW staff.

After a while it seemed posible to let fans support games directly with minimal support from GW PLC .(Specialist games were a test of this IMO.)

And so GW PLC cut the amount of game development and support to the absolute minimum, assuming the fans will take up the slack.
(FAQs ,alternative armies , rules etc.)

Now the fans HAVE taken up activley supporting GW games saving GW PLC loads of time and money...The corperate lawyers take exception and start slapping C&D on them!

Either GW takes game development and support seriously and keeps it in house,(with fan input,) or it lets it go to fan support.

Being too 'fat and lazy' to do a job properly , then stopping others from doing it for you, is a recipie for disaster IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Wolfstan — GMT

I see that TGN has an interesting post on the subject. He's trying to get the whole subject clarified by some IP lawyers who have offered to answer relevant questions.

Sounds like a good idea in principal Just out of interest have we had any IP lawyers post their opinions here? The reason I ask is that there does appear to of been posts from people with legal experience, but I have to say, they don't seem to be singing from the same song sheet. Now this could be because they aren't IP lawyers, but work in the legal world.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Ketara — GMT

I believe there are two IP lawyers who post on Dakka, however I don't think either of them have chipped in in this thread.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

malfred — GMT

[quote=Platuan4th][quote=BaronIveagh][quote=Somnicide]Also remember that there is that newish blood bowl video game - I can see them wanting to protect their IP - as someone else mentioned, if they don't do anything about little stuff, they can't do anything about big stuff (say Hasbro making a fantasy world based blood bowl type football game) because they didn't protect their IP[/quote]

Point of fact, Hasbro could legally make a fantasy world based blood bowl style games since they own something called Dungeons & Dragons...[/quote]

I don't know if it's Hasbro, but there's some fantasy football board game they sell at TRU. It's a self-contained game, but I can't think of the name and can't find it through a web search yet.[/quote]

What's TRU?

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

nvillacci — GMT

Toys R Us

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

Anyone can make a fantasy world based blood bowl style game as long as they don't call it Blood Bowl.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Black Blow Fly — GMT

Chu Ching!

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

MeanGreenStompa — GMT

[quote=Green Blow Fly]Chu Ching! [/quote]

Indeed!

I wus jus finkin abawt 'Blud Bowlin!' (TM) where ya gets all da stunties and lines em up an den yous frows da big squig at em and sees 'ow many ov dem get's squashed!

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

raven322 — GMT

Miniwargaming got a C&D for having GW pictures of their products.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

Ok, this is heading into the realm of just plain fucked up.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/17/31483

So, we'll punish the fans if we hear them talking about using substitute figures??? WTF?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

loki old fart — GMT

IF microsoft can't get away with it, why should GW.
Report them to the monopolies commission.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]Ok, this is heading into the realm of just plain fucked up.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/17/31483

So, we'll punish the fans if we hear them talking about using substitute figures??? WTF?[/quote]

Except that's not what they're stating.

They'll punish the fans if they hear about other COMPANIES marketing figures exclusively as stand-ins for ones GW doesn't make.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BeefyG — GMT

Its a bit of a "cry baby" statement though can't you at least agree kanluwen?

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

I'd agree if there weren't companies that would jump all over the chance, but what does it matter?

People will take the comments however they will. They'll read into GW's evil overlording policies, etc etc.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=BeefyG]Its a bit of a "cry baby" statement though can't you at least agree kanluwen?[/quote]

That's one way to look at it.

Alternatively, you could look at it as the Specialist guys doing what they can for the game with the resources they've been given. If they don't have the budget to add new models to the range, they've at least tried to give you the option of creating those characters yourself. If you simply go out and buy models from other ranges rather than converting GW miniatures for the job, they gain nothing from this... they're just providing free advertising for a competitor.

They're giving you a free rulebook, and trying to improve the game by updating it and adding new options. If you repay that by buying miniatures from a competing company instead, frankly I think they're justified in being a little cranky about it.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=insaniak]

Alternatively, you could look at it as the Specialist guys doing what they can for the game with the resources they've been given. If they don't have the budget to add new models to the range, they've at least tried to give you the option of creating those characters yourself. If you simply go out and buy models from other ranges rather than converting GW miniatures for the job, they gain nothing from this... they're just providing free advertising for a competitor.[/quote]

Nope, they are giving good advertising to their own game bloodbowl... So you think its somewhat logic to cripple your own game options because...err... some fans buy elsewere? By that logic they should shut down all games they develop.

[quote=insaniak]

They're giving you a free rulebook, and trying to improve the game by updating it and adding new options. If you repay that by buying miniatures from a competing company instead, frankly I think they're justified in being a little cranky about it.[/quote]

- people repayed, payed, repayed and keept paying for over a decade of inconditional suport on a abandoned game.. if someone is due to repay something is GW not the fans that keept it going at their expenses.

Cranky? Yes people should be VERY cranky... not only GW abandoned Specialist games ( great for those that invested in the systems and for the flags like mine that still has mordheim stock that cant shift) but GW atacked the few stubborn passionated by BB fan sites.... etc I will not run down things again man, its crystal clear.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen][quote=BaronIveagh]Ok, this is heading into the realm of just plain fucked up.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/17/31483

So, we'll punish the fans if we hear them talking about using substitute figures??? WTF?[/quote]

Except that's not what they're stating.

They'll punish the fans if they hear about other COMPANIES marketing figures exclusively as stand-ins for ones GW doesn't make.[/quote]

Eh... not exactly. They also say that if they hear the fans talking about a model as a possible alt mini (in forums or whatnot, I guess) same result.

I wonder when they're going to start sending goons to hobby shops to break our legs for using Pig Iron heads on IG troopers.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO]So you think its somewhat logic to cripple your own game options because...err... some fans buy elsewere?[/quote]

They're not crippling their own options. They're threatening to remove certain proposed new content, because they gain nothing from publishing it if people are just going to shop elsewhere.

[quote]- people repayed, payed, repayed and keept paying for over a decade of inconditional suport on a abandoned game.. if someone is due to repay something is GW not the fans that keept it going at their expenses.[/quote]

This touches on something that has always confused me a little... Why is it that a game has to be receiving ongoing support for people to play it?

GW didn't [i]have[/i] to release a new version of the rules. The fact that they are doing so, and doing so in a manner that allows people to get it for free is a bonus, not something that you should consider yourself entitled to because you bought the last version of the game.

Seriously, I'm not saying that I think that removing the star players is a great idea. Personally, I'm all for people using whatever miniatures in their games that they see fit to use. But I can certainly see the logic behind it.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Wrong again.

They don't want the COMPANIES marketing figures as stand-ins for the ones they do not make.

But, the actual person who sent in the tip to TTGN said that he didn't want people talking about it due to they might cause issues or encourage third parties that read the forums like Chapterhouse.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

LOLWUT?

This is as simple as protecting their investment in the recent Blood Bowl game, and protecting their own Blood Bowl sales. Heck, for all we know we'll even see a Blood Bowl rerelease within the next few years.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Fateweaver — GMT

Hey, let the GW haters have their time in the sun Kan.

In the meantime I'm going to paint up the Tyranids I have in preparation for the new codex and minis.

Cya.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=insaniak][quote=NAVARRO]So you think its somewhat logic to cripple your own game options because...err... some fans buy elsewere?[/quote]

They're not crippling their own options. They're threatening to remove certain proposed new content, because they gain nothing from publishing it if people are just going to shop elsewhere.[/quote]

How do you establish "they dont gain anything" and that "people will buy elsewere"? Really mate is this stance I dont understand... If you create a game there will always be people who play it diferently and if your game is a hit competition will try to emulate it... thats a given fact in gaming of all sorts... should that demote you from creating your game and support it?
Its much like looking at things in the "defeated position" prespective. Cant understand how these conclusions are made.

[quote=insaniak]
[quote]- people repayed, payed, repayed and keept paying for over a decade of inconditional suport on a abandoned game.. if someone is due to repay something is GW not the fans that keept it going at their expenses.[/quote]

This touches on something that has always confused me a little... Why is it that a game has to be receiving ongoing support for people to play it?

GW didn't [i]have[/i] to release a new version of the rules. The fact that they are doing so, and doing so in a manner that allows people to get it for free is a bonus, not something that you should consider yourself entitled to because you bought the last version of the game.

Seriously, I'm not saying that I think that removing the star players is a great idea. Personally, I'm all for people using whatever miniatures in their games that they see fit to use. But I can certainly see the logic behind it. [/quote]

First question is rethorical? If not I think like anything in human evolution needs to be improved, updated, better versions etc thats why you have windows V2734364 and videogames updated constantly, computers, cars, clothes pretty much anything will evolve to keep people interested and have wider & constant exposure to targets...
BB people can play any version they want true... but dont you think that new versions will bring more attention to it and as consequence atract new gamers?

If I buy a video game I want servers to be up and running as much as i buy BB game I espect some kind of support at GW stores with leagues tournaments... I still can play offline and also BB at home but thats only enjoying part of the wider potential of the game... do you find this illogical or confusing?

Rackham released games and canned them also guess what consequences they had, these kind of games that require money and customer labour investments do need a wider window of support in order to stay alive IMO.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

nvillacci — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]Wrong again.

They don't want the COMPANIES marketing figures as stand-ins for the ones they do not make.

But, the actual person who sent in the tip to TTGN said that he didn't want people talking about it due to they might cause issues or encourage third parties that read the forums like Chapterhouse.[/quote]

I am trying not to be offended by that remark, but for some reason I am.

To suggest that in some way Chapterhouse is a parasite, well if giving hobbyist the means to accesorize and providing them with original bits and stuff that GW never makes, well I guess CHS will have to live with that stigma.

Its a good thing that CHS isn't in existance to make GW happy, but to provide for the gamers.

What exactly is wrong with third parties making miniatures? Isnt that what free enterprise is about, competitors keep other competitors prices in check and prevent harmful monopolies.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kanluwen — GMT

Then you're not thinking hard enough, Navarro.

The point Insaniak was making is that why should Games Workshop leave up a set of rules which include characters that they don't have models for--but everyone "knows" that suchandsuch third party company makes the EXACT character model with their EXACT rules for the EXACT price that GW would charge.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=nvillacci][quote=Kanluwen]Wrong again.

They don't want the COMPANIES marketing figures as stand-ins for the ones they do not make.

But, the actual person who sent in the tip to TTGN said that he didn't want people talking about it due to they might cause issues or encourage third parties that read the forums like Chapterhouse.[/quote]

I am trying not to be offended by that remark, but for some reason I am.

To suggest that in some way Chapterhouse is a parasite, well if giving hobbyist the means to accesorize and providing them with original bits and stuff that GW never makes, well I guess CHS will have to live with that stigma.

Its a good thing that CHS isn't in existance to make GW happy, but to provide for the gamers.

What exactly is wrong with third parties making miniatures? Isnt that what free enterprise is about, competitors keep other competitors prices in check and prevent harmful monopolies.[/quote]
Except Chapterhouse IS a parasitical entity.
And as for "original bits and stuff that GW never makes"...
Salamander icon bitz, Space Wolf icon bitz, etc are available via Forge World.
Which is a subbranch of what Company again...?

And CHS isn't in existence to provide for the gamers.
It's to make money by filling a niche that Forge World and GW don't consistently exploit.

And as for the "issue"...
There's no problem with third parties making miniatures...for their own games.
Free enterprise isn't about making money off of someone else's idea by leeching off a few minor slots that they don't have filled in.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=Fateweaver]Hey, let the GW haters have their time in the sun Kan.

.[/quote]

Oh FFS can people please just DROP IT? Its like the most pointless argument ever, repeated to its 10000000th time.. URRR HATERZ.

Just leave people have peacefull and enjoyable chats.

[size=9]Automatically Appended Next Post:[/size]
[quote=Kanluwen]Then you're not thinking hard enough, Navarro.

The point Insaniak was making is that why should Games Workshop leave up a set of rules which include characters that they don't have models for--but everyone "knows" that suchandsuch third party company makes the EXACT character model with their EXACT rules for the EXACT price that GW would charge.

.[/quote]

Dont have models? Have you checked GW range of products?... how many will not buy elsewere and buy instead some GW warhammer fantasy range dwarf regiment box and some GW GS blister and GW sculpting tool and GW brushes to just make that character? Really I'm probably not thinking at all because i cant find sense in a GW game that INSPIRES people to buy more GW stuff, being reduced/revised because competition makes some models.
This is somewhat a poor way to promote your games and products...

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

nvillacci — GMT

[quote=nvillacci][quote=Kanluwen]Wrong again.

They don't want the COMPANIES marketing figures as stand-ins for the ones they do not make.

But, the actual person who sent in the tip to TTGN said that he didn't want people talking about it due to they might cause issues or encourage third parties that read the forums like Chapterhouse.[/quote]
[quote=nvillacci]
I am trying not to be offended by that remark, but for some reason I am.

To suggest that in some way Chapterhouse is a parasite, well if giving hobbyist the means to accesorize and providing them with original bits and stuff that GW never makes, well I guess CHS will have to live with that stigma.

Its a good thing that CHS isn't in existance to make GW happy, but to provide for the gamers.

What exactly is wrong with third parties making miniatures? Isnt that what free enterprise is about, competitors keep other competitors prices in check and prevent harmful monopolies.[/quote]
Except Chapterhouse IS a parasitical entity.
And as for "original bits and stuff that GW never makes"...
Salamander icon bitz, Space Wolf icon bitz, etc are available via Forge World.
Which is a subbranch of what Company again...?

And CHS isn't in existence to provide for the gamers.
It's to make money by filling a niche that Forge World and GW don't consistently exploit.

And as for the "issue"...
There's no problem with third parties making miniatures...for their own games.
Free enterprise isn't about making money off of someone else's idea by leeching off a few minor slots that they don't have filled in.[/quote]

So I guess, battlefoam and armybuilder and vallejo are parasitic as well, not to mention all the other 3rd party mini companies that have bits that fit on GW models.

I guess after-market car part companies and companies that make oil filters and customization kits are parasitic as well... I think they will get over your label, as will CHS and the other 3rd-party companies.

Last I checked there is NOTHING wrong with making more options that ARE different from another companies bits for a game. I have a degree in Business, and I seem to remember that is a huge part of free-enterprise, how about you?

It is funny how there are always a few people who are determine to uphold GWs monopoly for them regardless of the fact that GW is more then capable of doing so themselves if it was necessary or more importantly legally able.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=NAVARRO] how many will not buy elsewere and buy instead some GW warhammer fantasy range dwarf regiment box and some GW GS blister and GW sculpting tool and GW brushes to just make that character?[/quote]

I'm sure that some will. I'm equally sure that whoever decided that removing the characters from the game was an appropriate response realises that some players will.

What they need to consider is how that balances out against the number of people who will just buy the ready-to-go miniature from company 'X' instead. If they feel that a larger proportion of players are going to do that, then they're better off just not including that option in the book.

This reduces the number of models that people are going to look elsewhere for, because it returns them to a position where everything required is available straight from GW.

Again, not saying that I agree that it's the best course of action.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Kanluwen]LOLWUT?

This is as simple as protecting their investment in the recent Blood Bowl game, and protecting their own Blood Bowl sales. Heck, for all we know we'll even see a Blood Bowl rerelease within the next few years.[/quote]

The problem is that they have specifically targeted it to try and reduce competition rather then release their own competing product. You may recall something called Standard Oil?

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

insaniak — GMT

[quote=nvillacci]So I guess, battlefoam and armybuilder and vallejo are parasitic as well, not to mention all the other 3rd party mini companies that have bits that fit on GW models.

I guess after-market car part companies and companies that make oil filters and customization kits are parasitic as well... I think they will get over your label, as will CHS and the other 3rd-party companies.[/quote]

If you're making a product that is specifically designed to complement and/or owes its existence to another company's product, then yes, your business is by definition parasitic. Without that first company making what they do, your product wouldn't have a market.

That doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

[quote]It is funny how there are always a few people who are determine to uphold GWs monopoly for them regardless of the fact that GW is more then capable of doing so themselves if it was necessary or more importantly legally able.[/quote]

GW don't have a monopoly on anything. Being the only company that makes wargaming miniatures would give them a monopoly. Being the only company that makes Warhammer 40K does not.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Platuan4th — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]Or get GW sued for violating the Sherman Anti-trust act. (whether it would stick or not, this smells of abusing one's dominant position in the market.)[/quote]

Maybe the GWUS arm could be sued, but I fail to see how else the US can enforce an AMERICAN law upon a BRITISH company.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Platuan4th][quote=BaronIveagh]Or get GW sued for violating the Sherman Anti-trust act. (whether it would stick or not, this smells of abusing one's dominant position in the market.)[/quote]

Maybe the GWUS arm could be sued, but I fail to see how else the US can enforce an AMERICAN law upon a BRITISH company.[/quote]

However, since GW does business in the US, yes, they can be brought to trial for violating US laws, the same way that if a British citizen were to do something in the US that is illegal here but legal there, they would be arrested. Further, I believe it also violates British anti-monopoly laws, as well, though I'm uncertain on this point.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

TBD — GMT

Deciding to release or not release part of one's OWN product does by no means violate anti-monopoly laws.

Please stop posting that stuff like it is actually valid. It will only confuse people.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=TBD]Deciding to release or not release part of one's OWN product does by no means violate anti-monopoly laws.

Please stop posting that stuff like it is actually valid. It will only confuse people.[/quote]

Releasing one's own product or not does not. The problem is that they've supposedly stated that they will deliberately make their product incompatible with another companies to prevent competition. If they were to then go ahead and do so, said competitors would have a valid case against them. It may or may not hold water in court, depending on how much GW can convince the judge that their ownership of the IP gives them rights, etc.

Microsoft v Sun Microsystems, I believe is the case you may wish to look into.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Miguelsan — GMT

[quote=Platuan4th][quote=BaronIveagh]Or get GW sued for violating the Sherman Anti-trust act. (whether it would stick or not, this smells of abusing one's dominant position in the market.)[/quote]

Maybe the GWUS arm could be sued, but I fail to see how else the US can enforce an AMERICAN law upon a BRITISH company.[/quote]

Probably the same way a certain BRITISH company wants to enforce BRITISH IP laws on third countries I guess.

And about the parasitic relationships, the availability of a Nobrand workstation for a Sony laptop is bad for some posters in this thread because from time to time Sony releases a Sony workstation? Guys you need to go to a marketing detox clinic and start thinking about how to spend your money by yourselves again.

M.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

TBD — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh][quote=TBD]Deciding to release or not release part of one's OWN product does by no means violate anti-monopoly laws.

Please stop posting that stuff like it is actually valid. It will only confuse people.[/quote]

Releasing one's own product or not does not. The problem is that they've supposedly stated that they will deliberately make their product incompatible with another companies to prevent competition. If they were to then go ahead and do so, said competitors would have a valid case against them. It may or may not hold water in court, depending on how much GW can convince the judge that their ownership of the IP gives them rights, etc.

Microsoft v Sun Microsystems, I believe is the case you may wish to look into.[/quote]

This is [b]completely[/b] different.

Microsoft and Sun had a [b]contract[/b] that Sun claimed Microsoft had broken. If I remember correctly the dispute was about Microsoft's right to extend the JAVA language (Sun said they couldn't and Microsoft said the contract didjn't cover that part), and about an interface that was not supported while Sun claimed it was part of the [b]contract[/b] as well.

So first and most importantly there was a [b]contract[/b] involved, which is kind of crucial to such a case.

Seriously, do not make this seem like this is something it is not. I understand that some people really really want GW to be in the wrong on this one, but they very very likely are not.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

H.B.M.C. — GMT

Still yet to see one of those 3rd Party 'Star Players' marketed as an actual GW model, or GW star-player substitute.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BeefyG — GMT

[quote=insaniak]

[b] They're giving you a free rulebook[/b], and trying to improve the game by updating it and adding new options. If you repay that by buying miniatures from a competing company instead, frankly I think they're justified in being a little cranky about it.[/quote]

Sorry but I need to clear this up for people, GW have done F#(@ all in terms of giving. The BBRC (Bloodbowl Rules Council) with Jervis Johnson sitting at the head of it saying yay or nay...have put thousands of hours into developing the game into what it is today. GW have simply enjoyed the benefits of people willing to give to the gamers. They have only produced a couple of bloodbowl miniatures in the last couple of years (that didn't need to be recreated! as others desperately need to be done) by someone just showing off to GW what he can do. Other people have tried to offer their excellent services in terms of amazing bloodbowl sculpts only to be turned down. People have tried to buy the license to do something meaningful with the game only to be (effectively) turned down.

Its important that people understand where the upset posts are coming from (really) and its good to keep the upset people on track. Yes GW have responded to the immediate backlash about TBB, but they have had an absolute PR [b] fail [/b] in regards to keeping their player base on side and informed. All of the initial problems could have been solved with a simple statement saying "Bloodbowl copyright is coming to its 10 year cycle so we will be enforcing IP over the next month". Instead they have generated a ton of fear, angst and general ill will in the community.

The latest efforts in terms of the addendum for LRB6 (threatening the ruleset) are an outright insult to the gaming community and devalues the BBRC's work to the point of disregard. If i'd been involved in that I would have punched someone by now, so its lucky I'm not.

People need to voice their fears and concerns and the people shouting over the top of them about "40K being awesome...I still <3 you GW no matter what you do" are not really helping. I appreciate insaniak and other mods much more reasonable posts, especially the ones where they argue from a reasonable perspective, cheers.

You're right it is all my perspective but a lot of people on here haven't really given any perspective to speak of and jump all over people all day without first acknowledging the other gamers concerns.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=TBD][quote=BaronIveagh][quote=TBD]Deciding to release or not release part of one's OWN product does by no means violate anti-monopoly laws.

Please stop posting that stuff like it is actually valid. It will only confuse people.[/quote]

Releasing one's own product or not does not. The problem is that they've supposedly stated that they will deliberately make their product incompatible with another companies to prevent competition. If they were to then go ahead and do so, said competitors would have a valid case against them. It may or may not hold water in court, depending on how much GW can convince the judge that their ownership of the IP gives them rights, etc.

Microsoft v Sun Microsystems, I believe is the case you may wish to look into.[/quote]

This is [b]completely[/b] different.

Microsoft and Sun had a [b]contract[/b] that Sun claimed Microsoft had broken. If I remember correctly the dispute was about Microsoft's right to extend the JAVA language (Sun said they couldn't and Microsoft said the contract didjn't cover that part), and about an interface that was not supported while Sun claimed it was part of the [b]contract[/b] as well.

So first and most importantly there was a [b]contract[/b] involved, which is kind of crucial to such a case.

Seriously, do not make this seem like this is something it is not. I understand that some people really really want GW to be in the wrong on this one, but they very very likely are not.

[/quote]

It would appear there is egg on my tie. I was thinking United States v Microsoft and wrote Sun Microsystems for some reason. Perhaps the fact that a Sun case led to the US v Microsoft case. Which, interestingly enough, was the one settled when Microsoft was required to hand over it's IP in the form of it's application programming interfaces to third parties as part of the settlement. Originally Microsoft had been ordered broken up, but successfully appealed that. The appellate court however did not overturn the findings of fact in the case, that Microsoft had indeed committed the crimes in question.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

skrulnik — GMT

[quote=BeefyG][quote=insaniak]

[b] They're giving you a free rulebook[/b], and trying to improve the game by updating it and adding new options. If you repay that by buying miniatures from a competing company instead, frankly I think they're justified in being a little cranky about it.[/quote]

...GW have done F#(@ all in terms of giving. ...[/quote]

editted for brevity.
+1 Beefy. GW hasn't done anything since releasing BB and Deathzone in, what, '95, '96?
The rest has been fans.

GW Fansites vs. GW: C&D Fallout

WC_Brian — GMT

[quote=Howard A Treesong]GW seem to want to crush all coverage of their product outside their control. How things change. When they got rid of their own forums they suggested that people find other fan sites around the web to join. Now they seem to have decided they don't like their customers seeing a hobby outside their control so want to do what they can to get rid of it all. They really have to be one of the most paranoid and aggressively posessive companies in the entire hobby.[/quote]

hobby= anything in the world

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Osbad — GMT

[quote=skrulnik]
+1 Beefy. GW hasn't done anything since releasing BB and Deathzone in, what, '95, '96?
The rest has been fans.[/quote]

Which makes me think of something else. GW have always, ever since the first issue of WD back in the 1970's considered every idea submitted to them as their own IP, even if they didn't originate it. It's there in their Legal blurb. Now I have always wondered if that was actually legal, or just a bluff that's never been called. As I understand it, for a contract to be legal consideration (i.e. goods, money, value etc.) has to pass in both directions. Yet GW do not actually pass any consideration back to the authors for much of the stuff they treat as "their IP" (such as the text of the BB LRB which has been edited and compiled by vounteer fans rather than GW staff for years now). So if one of the authors or the editor was to say "stuff you GW" and take the content they wrote/compiled and publish it anyway (with GW's registered trademarks's expunged of course) would GW have a leg to stand on as they never gave those volunteers any money for doing the work, and so never actually owned it in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer and only did a small amount of contract law many years back as part of my degree, but it seems like there's a case to be answered. Certainly it would be worth looking further into!

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

You can enter into a contract by performance of the proposed conditions.

I don't remember if consideration has to be exchanged like money. I remember it doesn't have to be anything significant.

In other words, I offer to spend the time to read your submission and use it as my own. You accept the offer by sending in a submission. Consideration has been given. The contract conditions have been fulfilled.

It needs a bit of research to come up with a case which would support it.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

NAVARRO — GMT

[quote=insaniak][quote=NAVARRO] how many will not buy elsewere and buy instead some GW warhammer fantasy range dwarf regiment box and some GW GS blister and GW sculpting tool and GW brushes to just make that character?[/quote]

I'm sure that some will. I'm equally sure that whoever decided that removing the characters from the game was an appropriate response realises that some players will.

What they need to consider is how that balances out against the number of people who will just buy the ready-to-go miniature from company 'X' instead. If they feel that a larger proportion of players are going to do that, then they're better off just not including that option in the book.

This reduces the number of models that people are going to look elsewhere for, because it returns them to a position where everything required is available straight from GW.

Again, not saying that I agree that it's the best course of action.[/quote]

Sure mate neither I'm saying you consider these actions the best option, we are just chatting a bit trying to figure out some sense in all this.

The problem concerning the GW judgement towards who buys here or who goes buy elsewere is that it cant be measured because:
a) You dont know competition balance sheets
b) Why someone buys GW GS or models to convert cannot be directly linked to BB... so GW as no way of knowing the actual numbers of who buys to convert specially for BB

This is another reason why I consider this action not in their best interests... They cant establish casuality on BB starplayers listings = ppl buy elsewere.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Gandair — GMT

This may be off-topic, but does anyone else find it insane you can copyright a common word(s)? Imagery and physical material I understand, but a series of words? Unique Nouns should be copyrightable, but two common words in sequence? I'm picturing the GW legal team assassinating some poor up-and-coming game creator for having an item called Blood Bowl in his online game. I'm imagining him having to rename the necromancer's Blood Bowl to something else... Soul Well? what if that's copyrighted too...

*sigh*

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

You can't copyright a common word or phrase.

You can trademark it for specific purposes.

Blood Bowl has been trademarked as the name of a fantasy American football game.

It has not been trademarked as the name of a restaurant chain, or a specialist S&M pottery company.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Delephont — GMT

[quote=Gandair]This may be off-topic, but does anyone else find it insane you can copyright a common word(s)? Imagery and physical material I understand, but a series of words? Unique Nouns should be copyrightable, but two common words in sequence? I'm picturing the GW legal team assassinating some poor up-and-coming game creator for having an item called Blood Bowl in his online game. I'm imagining him having to rename the necromancer's Blood Bowl to something else... Soul Well? what if that's copyrighted too...

*sigh*[/quote]

I agree! I also take on board KillKrazy's logic as well.

I have often wondered how GW could be legally entitled to copyright a term which is in general use. I especially wonder how they themselves have avoided I.P infringement by using terms like Terminator, Imperial Guard, Wolfen, Dark Angels....etc when all of these terms have been used and trademarked by other companies for very similar genres and usages! Terminator, see the film Terminator, Dark Angels, see any number of 80s sci fi films...and the list goes on.....for GW to suddenly use these terms and copyright themm would suggest the laws governing these things are not as clear cut as we might think.

Surely that goes both ways.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Ian Sturrock — GMT

IP laws are not that complicated, as long as you remember the difference between trademarks, patents, and copyrights.

Copyrights apply to creative works: pieces of art, books or other significant portions of text (including excerpts from books), etc. Broadly speaking, as soon you've created something like a short story or painting, you own the copyright on it (unless, say, it's a work-for-hire, where someone's paying you to create it on the understanding that they'll own the copyright). You don't have to take any special legal steps to own the copyright in something you create. Notably, you can't copyright ideas, which is usually held to include things like recipes, or game rules; however, you can certainly copyright the specific words used to explain a recipe or a set of game rules.

Trademarks are basically brand names. The law varies by country, but in most cases it works along the lines of you paying a fee to a central body to own the name "Ian Sturrock's Awesome SF Wargame" in that country, in a specific product category (like, "Board Wargames"). Since there's a central register of TMs, it'd be hard for someone else to register a similar TM in the same category, so once I own that one someone else couldn't register "Ian Sturrock's Amazing SF Wargame" as a trademark in the board wargames category.

Patents rarely apply to the gaming industry -- they tend to be more about technical innovations. Game companies have occasionally tried to patent their ideas, but how well those patents would stand up to a legal challenge is questionable, at best.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Oldgrue — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy] or a specialist S&M pottery company.[/quote]
paperwork in process. You sir, are a Genius!

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

AgeOfEgos — GMT

All this talk of IP reminds me of;

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130

[i]"Because all integers and natural numbers derive from one and zero, Microsoft may, by extension, lay claim to ownership of all mathematics and logic systems, including Euclidean geometry, pulleys and levers, gravity, and the basic Newtonian principles of motion, as well as the concepts of existence and nonexistence," Yale University theoretical mathematics professor J. Edmund Lattimore said. "In other words, pretty much everything." [/i]

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kirasu — GMT

Step 1: Take donations off site (You shouldnt *need* donations with how super inexpensive web hosting is.. if your little fan site costs a lot of money to host then youre doing it wrong)
Step 2: Put in header "this is a parody" of whatever youre talking about.. then write something funny
Step 3: give GW legal the finger

Or simply get an offshore host :p

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Kilkrazy — GMT

I would be interested to know the legal position regarding donations.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Oldgrue — GMT

You might want to chat up the guy who ran 'Turn Signals on a Land Raider' I think they got uffish at him for that very thing.

edit: complete sentences, even this close to midnight, are critical.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Bookwrack — GMT

What happened to TSLR was that the creator wanted to do a print compilation of his strips to sell, and GW wasn't keen with that.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

Appearently this is continuing to roll on, with boardgamegeek.com the latest to fall.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Vladsimpaler — GMT

I wonder what would've happened if GW made BGG shut down...worst case scenario, I know, but still.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Hellfury — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]Appearently this is continuing to roll on, with boardgamegeek.com the latest to fall.[/quote]

I know its all the rage to blame GW for every woe in the world currently, but the assertion you made is without a single iota of doubt, categorically false.

Reading comprehension is your friend:

"The site is down for maintenance
We apologize for the inconvenience"

Meaning quite literally what is said.

No need to have paranoia read between the lines for you here.

Websites do occasionally have to go down while admins do maintenance. Hell, Dakka used to have horrible outages for up to a week a few years ago. Lets stop this rumor before it gets any more retarded than was submitted, eh?

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

A-P — GMT

[quote=Vladsimpaler]I wonder what would've happened if GW made BGG shut down...worst case scenario, I know, but still. [/quote]

An unprecedented PR gakstorm. BGG has how many registered users? In the five digit range? It is one of the largest ( if not the largest ) game sites on the Web. The fallout would be huge. Just the elimination of all GW related user made stuff has caused an uproar.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Hellfury — GMT

[quote=A-P][quote=Vladsimpaler]I wonder what would've happened if GW made BGG shut down...worst case scenario, I know, but still. [/quote]

An unprecedented PR gakstorm. BGG has how many registered users? In the five digit range? It is one of the largest ( if not the largest ) game sites on the Web. The fallout would be huge. Just the elimination of all GW related user made stuff has caused an uproar.[/quote]

I think that is one David vs. Goliath story that GW would not care to recreate. They already know the end to that story.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Hellfury][quote=BaronIveagh]Appearently this is continuing to roll on, with boardgamegeek.com the latest to fall.[/quote]

I know its all the rage to blame GW for every woe in the world currently, but the assertion you made is without a single iota of doubt, categorically false.

Reading comprehension is your friend:

"The site is down for maintenance
We apologize for the inconvenience"

Meaning quite literally what is said.

No need to have paranoia read between the lines for you here.

Websites do occasionally have to go down while admins do maintenance. Hell, Dakka used to have horrible outages for up to a week a few years ago. Lets stop this rumor before it gets any more retarded than was submitted, eh?[/quote]

Um, that wasn't what I was talking about. They received a C&D to remove all GW IP from thier site. There's been a lot of grumbling about this from the authors of some of them, as it included things like replacement pieces for OOP GW board games and homebrew rules, etc.

Though I admit, that GW trying to shutdown BGG would be hilarious to watch the fur fly.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

siamtiger — GMT

[quote=Hellfury][quote=A-P][quote=Vladsimpaler]I wonder what would've happened if GW made BGG shut down...worst case scenario, I know, but still. [/quote]

An unprecedented PR gakstorm. BGG has how many registered users? In the five digit range? It is one of the largest ( if not the largest ) game sites on the Web. The fallout would be huge. Just the elimination of all GW related user made stuff has caused an uproar.[/quote]

I think that is one David vs. Goliath story that GW would not care to recreate. They already know the end to that story.[/quote]

As if GW would even give a damn. The customers are so incredible stupid and behaving like addicts, they buy, buy and buy more.

You kind a loose the believe in common sense, when somebody buys a used codex for more than the retail price on ebay. And you loose even more of it, when you see that people prefer a new opening up GW Store over a long time LGS, even if he is not giving any % off etc., just because its the "genuine" stuff.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Hellfury — GMT

[quote=BaronIveagh]Um, that wasn't what I was talking about. They received a C&D to remove all GW IP from thier site. There's been a lot of grumbling about this from the authors of some of them, as it included things like replacement pieces for OOP GW board games and homebrew rules, etc.[/quote]

Oh, you must be referring to what was discussed to death in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/267171.page

[quote=siamtiger]As if GW would even give a damn. The customers are so incredible stupid and behaving like addicts, they buy, buy and buy more. [/quote]

I am not talking about people screaming on internet boards, I am talking actual legal ramifications.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

Perhaps I'm just malicious, but I can say that I hope this comes around and bites GW somehow. (Other then the loss of me as a customer.)

[img]http://www.notsounwashed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/gwchart.jpg[/img]

Says quite a bit about GW policies in general, actually...

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

Bookwrack — GMT

[quote=Hellfury][quote=A-P][quote=Vladsimpaler]I wonder what would've happened if GW made BGG shut down...worst case scenario, I know, but still. [/quote]

An unprecedented PR gakstorm. BGG has how many registered users? In the five digit range? It is one of the largest ( if not the largest ) game sites on the Web. The fallout would be huge. Just the elimination of all GW related user made stuff has caused an uproar.[/quote]

I think that is one David vs. Goliath story that GW would not care to recreate. They already know the end to that story.[/quote]
Ha, hardly. GW sent BGG the C&D letter asking them to take down certain things, BGG responded by taking down ALL the GW related stuff on the site. Any uproar or problems are of their own making.

GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

agnosto — GMT

[quote=Hellfury][quote=BaronIveagh]Appearently this is continuing to roll on, with boardgamegeek.com the latest to fall.[/quote]

I know its all the rage to blame GW for every woe in the world currently, but the assertion you made is without a single iota of doubt, categorically false.

Reading comprehension is your friend:

"The site is down for maintenance
We apologize for the inconvenience"

Meaning quite literally what is said.

No need to have paranoia read between the lines for you here.

Websites do occasionally have to go down while admins do maintenance. Hell, Dakka used to have horrible outages for up to a week a few years ago. Lets stop this rumor before it gets any more retarded than was submitted, eh?[/quote]

Agreed, you can't remove all that material from a database without something hiccuping.

Re:GW Fansites vs. GW: Cease & Desist Fallout

BaronIveagh — GMT

[quote=Bookwrack]
Ha, hardly. GW sent BGG the C&D letter asking them to take down certain things, BGG responded by taking down ALL the GW related stuff on the site. Any uproar or problems are of their own making.[/quote]

Well, as I've said before: I showed the C&D that Dark Reign got to a IP lawyer, and assuming they all follow the same pattern, which seems to be the case, there are ways of reading it that it says to do just that. So what they did may depend entirely on how severe their lawyers said for them to view it.