Tuesday, April 19, 2011Notice of Infringement
Today Games Workshop sent me a notice of infringement asking me to remove data files and links to them from the BattleScribe website and software. Basically the information included in the data files infringes on Games Workshop's (and other companies') copyrights. Although I knew this in the first place, I hoped that linking to these data files on another site would be OK. I have had to remove all data files and links to data files from the BattleScribe software and the website.
Games Workshop are well within their rights to ask me to do so, and I have no intention of getting into legal trouble over what is essentially a hobby for me. This is not entirely unexpected, although it is unfortunate. To be fair they have been very reasonable about the whole thing and have answered any questions I've had.
To this end:
All posts announcing new data file releases have been removed
No more such announcements will be made here
All links to data files or sources of data files have been removed
Forum posts have had data files and links to data files removed
Forums relating to the "Data Project" have been removed
Issue tracker has been removed from the forum
You will be unable to post data files, links to data files or links to pages containing data files in the forum. Any such posts will be edited to remove infringing content
The Future
What does this mean for BattleScribe? Firstly it isn't going anywhere. The software itself is not at fault in any way and I will continue to maintain and improve it. Watch this space for new versions, news and announcements. I can also continue to provide support and advice on using BattleScribe and it's data file editors. I cannot however endorse, advertise or otherwise be involved with any projects to maintain a list of data files for BattleScribe. Any discussion or links to such projects can't be on this website or in the BattleScribe software.
I wish that if GW is going to persue this kinda crap that they provide us with a computer army building tool. How does Army Builder get away with their program? Do they actually have rights from GW?
I'm pretty sure they don't. Anyway Wolf Lair, the makers of ArmyBuilder, get away with it because they have nothing to do with the data files. The files are a community maintained project, which would be much like swatting at flies I imagine.
But the AB Data Files are linked to from the wolflair website - if anything, the Battlescribe ones are LESS linkable - since they are posted on a forum rather than the 'main' Battlescribe website.
So how come Battlescribe are infringing copyright by linking to community-generated files when AB do exactly the same?
Walls wrote:Actually, I think GW has a hand in the file building for AB... so I've heard anyhow.
You'll need to source that.
As the subject of this topic clearly stated himself - GW are well within their rights. I'd think they were stupid if they were aware of blatant IP breaches and didn't do this.
GW tried making their own army making software, it didn't hold a candle to AB and then GW found out how well AB was selling and well, where once AB did NOT make you have a subscription every bloody year or so, their agreement with GW did make it need a license of renewing subscriptions or something like that.
Sorry if that sounded weird, but i just got done watching the 6 episodes of Black Adder the thrid.,
yeah,
This is a shame, I recently switched to from AB to BattleScribe for it's MAC compatablity and the fact it's Free!
UsdiThunder wrote:...I wish that if GW is going to persue this kinda crap that they provide us with a computer army building tool...
+1 - It would be so easy for GW to hire the Dude from battlescribe to write an official product. Each codex could have a unqiue download code, like you see on some products for free mp3 downloads.
ArbitorIan wrote:So how come Battlescribe are infringing copyright by linking to community-generated files when AB do exactly the same?
Actually AB does one step more, the software also tells you when datafiles have been updated.
I use the miracle that is excel, it also means that I can build lists at work. Huzzah!
Guilty, and proud of it. I have written army lists on the backs of supermarket receipts, fast food bags and envelopes. If somebody wants to see the stats or rules for something, I have no problem showing them my codex. I play with the toy soldiers because my relationship with technology is adversarial at best.
Digital rights to my codex with purchase of the original? That's communism! Blast these young folks and their ridiculous ideas that innovation can be lead by demand!
Seriously though. What is going to happen when there is a 3D printer in every home and we just print our models? They should get on the digital bandwagon before it is too late.
TalonZahn wrote:Correct. ArmyBuilder doesn't actually create the files used.
The people in Spaaaaaaceeee make them.
Good luck shutting that down.
They'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever shutting that down if they so desired, as there is ample legal precedent for doing so. The magical phrase is "vicarious infringement". The fact is that that while GWS clearly is disinclined to shut down AB for whatever - unknowable - reason of their own, they exist as they currently do purely at the whimsy of GW Legal.
MrLimeKing wrote:Digital rights to my codex with purchase of the original? That's communism! Blast these young folks and their ridiculous ideas that innovation can be lead by demand!
Seriously though. What is going to happen when there is a 3D printer in every home and we just print our models? They should get on the digital bandwagon before it is too late.
this is the license agreement for Army Builder. look at the last paragraph in particular.
This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions for licensing of the Demonstration Version of Army Builder ("Software") from Lone Wolf Development ("Company") to you. Installation of the Software indicates that you have read and understand this Agreement and accept its terms and conditions. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not install or use the Software.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to use a copy of the enclosed Software for 60 days after you install the Software. Thereafter, you must purchase the right to use the full version of the Software, for which license terms are specified separately, by contacting Company or your retailer. By your use of the Software, you understand and agree that after 60 days, you may not be able to continue to access and/or use the Software or any data you have entered into such Software unless you purchase the right to use the full version of the Software.
The Software in its entirety is protected by copyright laws. The Software also contains the trade secrets of Company and other parties, and you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to human-perceivable form or disclose such trade secrets, or disable any functionality which limits the use of the Software. You may not attempt to modify, adapt, translate, rent, sublicense, assign, loan, resell for profit, distribute, or network the Software, Disk(s), or related materials or create derivative works based upon the Software or any part thereof.
This software is distributed for non-infringing uses only. By accepting the terms of this License, you agree to create and use data files for personal use only. You further agree to use this software only in connection with intellectual property that you have legally purchased from the respective copyright owner(s). You shall refrain from publishing, selling, gifting, sharing or exchanging any data files with other users of this software, and doing so is a violation of this License and may subject you to liability for copyright infringement.
This Agreement may be terminated by Company immediately and without notice if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement. Upon such termination, you must immediately destroy all complete and partial copies of the Software, including all backup copies.
Company reserves the right to revise this Agreement at any point in the future, at its sole discretion. Company shall have the right to change, discontinue, or impose conditions on any feature or aspect of the Software, or any internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Software. Such changes shall be effective upon notification by any means reasonable to give you notice, or upon posting such terms in the Software, and your continued use of the Software will indicate your agreement to any such change. For the latest version of this Agreement, go to www.wolflair.com or such other site designated by Company.
The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and of fitness for any purpose. The user assumes the full risk of using the software. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the correct operation of the software, Company does not warrant the accuracy, performance, or results you may encounter by using the software. In no event will Company be liable for direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from the use of the software or any defect within the software, even if Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Any liability of Company will be limited to the refund of the purchase price.
This Agreement sets forth Company's entire liability and your exclusive remedy with respect to the Software. You acknowledge that this Agreement is a complete statement of the agreement between you and Company with respect to the Software or any related services.
This Agreement does not limit any rights that Company may have under trade secret, copyright, patent, trademark or other laws. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, then it is, to that extent, deemed omitted and the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect. No delay or failure on the part of Company in the exercise of any right granted under this Agreement, or available at law or in equity, shall be construed as a waiver of such right.
Army Builder is a registered trademark of Lone Wolf Development Inc. Lone Wolf Development is a trademark of Lone Wolf Development Inc. Other parties' trademarks or service marks are the property of their respective owners and should be treated as such. Some names and sample data used in examples and help content are fictitious and are used for illustration purposes only.
ArbitorIan wrote:So how come Battlescribe are infringing copyright by linking to community-generated files when AB do exactly the same?
AB might have money and lawyers. It seems the quantity of C&D's is inversely proportional to the object of C&D's access to them.
It also might have something to do with the way it's done.
I'd never heard of BattleScribe before, but if they deviated from the way that Army Builder did it(that is to say: they didn't compile scans of the Codices/Army Books and link to those in addition to just having excel sheets made up showing the information taken from the scans) I can see GW coming down on them.
The other thing that might help is that ab40k.org also waits a month before adding a new army to the datafile. The battlescribe maintainers, on the other hand, have been allowing me to stare at Grey Knights for the last week and a half.
Kanluwen wrote:
I'd never heard of BattleScribe before, but if they deviated from the way that Army Builder did it(that is to say: they didn't compile scans of the Codices/Army Books and link to those in addition to just having excel sheets made up showing the information taken from the scans) I can see GW coming down on them.
If anything, the BattleScribe files contained less information than the AB files. No stats, just item names and point values. Given the raw state of the product, having the army book on hand for list creation was almost mandatory.
I understand gw wanting to protect their IP, but i am getting sick of all the stupid lawsuits. This pretty well puts the nail in the coffin for me. I was contemplating starting a second 40k army, or switching to warmachine. This makes my choice for me. Privateer press, whoich allows online army creators to operate, here's my money!
If anything, the BattleScribe files contained less information than the AB files. No stats, just item names and point values. Given the raw state of the product, having the army book on hand for list creation was almost mandatory.
I agree... I like BattleScribe, but you definately require a codex to make any sort of list, whereas with AB you have almost all the rules printed on your list.
I don't understand how battlescribe got shut down for having links when AB does the auto update from within the software.
All in all GW is within their rights. I just think in that squashing products like battle scribe hurt them more than they realize. Hell if GW would develop a flash version that resided on ther website they would gain the knowledge of what the players are playing. They would know that the Nids Codex ran off a lot of Nid players. It would be instant marketing data for them.
For those who use excel that's nice, but how do I trust you put everything correctly or that you aren't flubbing a rule or a number. Pen and paper circumspect as well.
As for AB trying to read one in the 5 minutes before deploying gives me migranes since the layout is not intuitive nor makes sense.
A decent army summary that is easy to read and follow with the garauntee that the point calculations are accurate is what people want.
UsdiThunder wrote:All in all GW is within their rights. I just think in that squashing products like battle scribe hurt them more than they realize. Hell if GW would develop a flash version that resided on ther website they would gain the knowledge of what the players are playing. They would know that the Nids Codex ran off a lot of Nid players. It would be instant marketing data for them.
...
Very true. Good point!
I had never thought of that.
I bet GW haven't either, but there's hundreds of millions of reasons why they should have.
I've been using Battle Scribe since its initial release, it's a great program that has come a long way. If allowed to continue it has the potential to sink Army Builder.
I have a hard time believing that GW didn't know about Battle Scribe. What I'm curious about is whether or not the current version, which asks for donations, had anything to do with the issuance of the C&D. It's almost as if the very moment the software author asked for monetary compensation albeit voluntary, GW stepped in and gave it the axe.
UsdiThunder wrote:I just went on to Battlescribe and saw this:
Tuesday, April 19, 2011Notice of Infringement
Today Games Workshop sent me a notice of infringement asking me to remove data files and links to them from the BattleScribe website and software. Basically the information included in the data files infringes on Games Workshop's (and other companies') copyrights. Although I knew this in the first place, I hoped that linking to these data files on another site would be OK. I have had to remove all data files and links to data files from the BattleScribe software and the website.
<snip>
You know, BattleScribe might have had some argument before they went and said this.
If you get a C&D letter in the mail, don't post a public message that says: "Dang, you caught us infringing your copyrights, which was totally wrong of us, because we were totally infringing your copyrights."
I suppose if GW Legal were really serious about damaging the hobby they would sue BattleScribe for damages as well, because BS practically admitted liability.
I thought GW did take AB to court and AB won. Or maybe is a legal precedent set from another case that allows them use the material. They are creating anything new and you will note that there is a time period between the release of the Codex and then the update to AB. I have not had AB long but I would speculate there is maybe a set time frame from the release to AB update.
I don't think Battle Scribe is down for the count. The software package comes with a catalog creator/editor. We could form a community and share the army catalogs much like that of Army Builder.
I just recently started using BattleScribe and I love it. Shame I only got three armies before the crackdown. But I can spend hours just making different Tau lists in there.
I have to agree it was kind of dumb for the owner to come out and declare guilt to everyone. But let's get together as a community and continue to support a great tool!
I think it is highly likely that this came about because BattleScribe recently (4/4/2011) was released for Android smartphones.
This could mean a number of things... that GW is producing their own list creator for iPhone/Android... that BattleScribe did something wrong... that GW have an unwritten agreement with WolfLair.
Was battlescribe available for other game systems other than GW ones? There is at least one other 40k-only army list creator available on Android.
What this means for me, currently in development of a list tool for Android, I don't know.
Watch out for Wardroid by the end of this year.
Panic wrote:yeah,
I probabily would never of stepped away from AB if they had apple mac support.
Most software companies now realise that it's not so hard to make apple compatible software...
They've quietly mentioned they're working on Mac and iOS support, I believe. They've kept relatively quiet, presumably because they're learning to do it themselves instead of farming it out. I approve of this, but I hope they decide to go of 'functional' even if they need to drop the special skins and such. Honestly, my only issue with Army Builder is that the skins annoy me and it seems to use non-standard controls, but I believe that's better with newer versions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additional: The reason I approve of WolfLair doing it 'in house' (even if that's hiring a "Mac Guy") instead of looking to a company that does ports is it'll probably stay in-sync with the Windows version better. They've been pretty honest that the main reason they're doing a Mac version is as a way to get their hands dirty to do a iOS version.
So realistically there is an incredibly easy way around this. I know it complicates things for the end user a bit but there's absolutely nothing GW can do about it.
Build two separate functions for your software - one for army list building and one for data file building. The data file software doesn't have to do a lot outside of allow a user to input the data from their codex and store it in a text file.
Gets a bit more complicated to do for mobile OS but for PC/Mac it's not too complicated.
My guess is that BS got in trouble because he did everything himself. Everything was his, owned by him, linked by him and created by him.
Wolf Lair creates a product and links it to a page where OTHER PEOPLE have uploaded files to be used with it. "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge" as this may be, it's technically true.
I would suspect that GW tried to bully them early on, and they flexed back. It wouldn't be the first time GW backed down when presented with a strong legal rebuttal.
MagickalMemories wrote:Wolf Lair creates a product and links it to a page where OTHER PEOPLE have uploaded files to be used with it. "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge"
This is exactly what can be done with Battle Scribe as well.
I refuse to purchase Army Builder until the price is cut significantly and the GUI isn't a circa Win98 and an archaic pile of gak.
FYI, I asked Rob over at Lone Wolf a couple years ago about GW using Army Builder. Basically he was amenable to the idea and approached GW to license the product, but GW wanted exclusivity, i.e. LW wouldn't be allowed to have it support other game systems. Rob told them no way and thus there was no agreement between the two parties.
I do not know how they get away with linking to the AB files directly from the program. It probably has something to do with linking to a specific website and not specific files, i.e. AB just reports on *all* files that show up there and Lone Wolf has no control over what users upload. Thus they can avoid liability altogether. IMO the only thing GW could do is try and go after the hosting service for contributory violations of their IP (if that's even a crime). Otherwise GW is out of luck there. Not sure why BattleScribe could not do the same unless they simply folded after receiving the C&D letter. I suspect LW probably has enough money to afford a lawyer willing to hit back, thus making the GW bully tactics not as effective as they would like them to be. IMOGW rely on ignorance on the part of the target for their tactics to work. When that fails GW has to decide if they feel they have a real case and if they do then I have no doubt they would prosecute.
Long ago there was a game company own by a man named David Kenzer and in 1994 he published Kingdoms of Kalamar, a fantasy campaign for AD&D. Now at that time TSR was a sue happy organization but they did even bother to even tangle with this little company. The reason why is that Mr. Kenzer is an expert in copyright law in the US.
The moral of all of this is. IF YOU ARE GOING TO publish anything do your homework first.
GW legal department is simply going after people that they know that they can bully around and get away with it.
GW wants the easy kill. They are not willing (IMHO) to pay for the large legal expenses that are going to be compounded while fighting a long and protracted legal battle. Especially here in the US.
I think of AB kinda in the same boat as a emulater the software is fine as its just a engine. Its the roms or in this case datalists that are potentially a ip violation.
As I understand it, the core program does not infringe. It is merely an engine to process databases.
Battle Scribe could release the database format, allowing enthusiastic fans/scummy data pirates to fill in the required information and publish army modules on blogs, etc.
Lots of games have this kind of army builder program provided by the publisher. I am surprised that GW haven't launched one for their games.
To be clear GW are not suing me/BattleScribe and have merely asked me to remove data files/links to data files from the site and applications. They have been very reasonable about it. I've complied with their request and BattleScribe is not at risk - the software itself doesn't infringe anything. The are certainly not out for blood here, nor are they bullying me in any way. I think they realise the benefit of such programs outweighs any "piracy" issues. They do have to protect their IP though, and I don't have a problem with that.
Also, I announced the situation on the website because I have tried to be transparent about all aspects of creating/maintaining BattleScribe. Since this request meant changes to the forum/website etc, I feel it's only fair to let the users know what's happening and why. I'm certainly not going out of my way to kick up a stink - I think my post was entirely fair to GW, and merely explained the facts of the situation.
There remains then the question of the "Data Project" site, containing the files. Although I initially created the site and have spent time keeping it up to date, it was always the intention for it to be community project. I have just maintained it, and I don't consider myself to own the site or the files (which have been created and donated by community members). In fact they are under a sort of open source license that leaves the IP owned by the company that made it. Of course the fact that I made the software too muddies this a bit... vested interests etc. I've said this to GW and am awaiting a reply. If they ask me to take down that site, I'm not going to fight them.
I had wanted to get around to properly washing my hands of the Data Project after getting it up and running. I just never got around to it - programming is much more fun than admin The KnowledgeForge site it's hosted on can be publicly accessed by anyone (you can check out from the SVN repo there without a password), and anyone can sign up, be given admin access and then commit to SVN/maintain the webpages etc. It's similar to SourceForge and other open source software hosting sites.
The desktop version of BattleScribe has editors for the files bundled with it, so worst comes to worst you can always create your own.
I don't think this has come about because of the donation button, or mobile app advertising (the money). Remember AB requires a subscription.
Finally I think the AB40K project "gets away with it" because they are completely unaffiliated with AB/Wolf Lair. I think in fact that GW turns a blind eye to them. I've been told by the AB40K guys that were GW to ask them to take it down, they would have to. They haven't been asked to, and the site has remained for some years. I think that BattleScribe could have a similar project, following the same model as AB40K, and it would probably be fine. The worst that would happen is GW would ask for it to be taken down.
Anway, apologies for the wall of text. I hope it explains things a bit better.
Grot 6 wrote:Sure wish there was a good computer generated army builder that I could use without having to watch it become useless gak in five minutes.
Too bad they don't support thier own games.....
Anyone want to buy these two GW cd's full of gak? Nice price, and only dropped once.
I have to say, that project was doomed from the start.
From people being able to make spreadsheets to Army Builder(which supported more army systems than simply 40k)--it wasn't going to ever really take off unless they did something 'extra'.
Leprousy wrote:I understand gw wanting to protect their IP, but i am getting sick of all the stupid lawsuits. This pretty well puts the nail in the coffin for me. I was contemplating starting a second 40k army, or switching to warmachine. This makes my choice for me. Privateer press, whoich allows online army creators to operate, here's my money!
They have to file lawsuits or risk losing their IP. If they don't file the suits, then another company can use that against them in court and GW could then be judged as having forfeited said rights. Considering GW is built on its IP, far more than its game design, that would be the kiss of death to GW if it were to happen. They know that. That's why they do file the lawsuits. They aren't being malicious about it, even the Battlescribe guy said they were very amiable about the whole thing, but they have to do it or risk losing their IP, and thus, their core product, leaving the company dead in the water.
oni wrote:
I refuse to purchase Army Builder until the price is cut significantly and the GUI isn't a circa Win98 and an archaic pile of gak.
Funny thing. I got the GW ones first and got used to that clunky interface so when I tried out AB I thought it was hopelessly cluttered. Now AB strikes me as pretty streamlined. I gin up a list much faster than I ever could with the GW one.
Kanluwen wrote:
I have to say, that project was doomed from the start.
From people being able to make spreadsheets to Army Builder(which supported more army systems than simply 40k)--it wasn't going to ever really take off unless they did something 'extra'.
I don't think it was doomed. I think there's a sizeable chunk of the player base who would automatically see a GW list builder as inherently superior because of the logo, assume that their data was more accurate/error free, and look sideways at AB lists as a result. I think GW blew it because they couldn't resist splitting their program into two parts and then didn't update the programs to keep up with the changes in the game. I guess it's understandable since they don't even like updating the rules for their core games. They basically ceded the market to Lone Wolf.
This is the developer for Army Creator Mobile. Some of you may have seen my postings elsewhere regarding this Android app that was released last month. I too have been contacted by GW with a "Notice of Infringement" and I'm assuming that at least 2 other apps that were on Android/iOS have been contacted as they have been pulled. My app is built like Battlescribe and AB where there are data files to create for them and GW took issue with the sharing of data files. Same as Battlescribe, I removed the data files from my site where you previously could download from within the app and have kept the app in the marketplace.
I cannot stop others from creating data files and posting them if they choose to. My app does not have any GW IP information so it by itself does not infringe and GW has told me as much. They did specifically use the language of "sharing data files" in my communications with them, they are saying they could technically go after anyone who posts data files for any app and shares them.
As others have mentioned here, somehow Wolflair and AB40K.org have a gentlemen's agreement with GW that GW does not go after them. I'm not a lawyer and do not claim full knowledge here, but without any public affiliation between Wolflair and GW or any knowledge of licensing GW's information to Wolflair or AB40k.org, this to me is sounding like it is close to creating an unfair monopoly - at least by US standards. This allows Wolflair to continue to operate charging the prices they are charging without the worry of any competition. This hurts the consumers because there are obviously developers out there that will charge cheaper prices for a similar product. This last statement is what a monopoly does and is against the law. This is a different situation than the typical monopoly case as it involves someone's IP. What is unknown is whether there are agreements between Wolflair and GW that license or provide exclusive rights to AB, which would make this legal without any argument from anyone. But I would think this is not case because if it were, you would see that as the response and probably have Wolflair also look to enforce their exclusive rights. GW is well within their rights to protect their IP, but giving a pass to certain parties and not others just seems wrong.
I want to make it clear that I'm not claiming any of the parties mentioned above are breaking the law. I'm only pointing out that it seems very fishy and could warrant further investigation by someone. Of course, I would bet that if pushed GW would close down AB rather than open up to everyone else.
Someone should use clean room reverse engineering technique to write a specification for you to write an Army Creator that would be compatible with the data files for Army Builder.
Found this on the wolflair forums. Explains the history of AB and GW, at least through 2008. I don't think anything has changed since then, but it is clear there is no license that they have with GW.
I must admit I'm not surprised but very disappointed, I have use this program for as long as I can remember and it forms a vital tool of my hobby for me and my friends.
So what's the best way forward to make sure that this program of genius does not die.
And by reading the above link it's more important now than ever for the community to get involved.
Basically, all this means is someone has to be willing to step up and make a simple website that only hosts files.
Or the website could not even contain any actual files and just be a community hub, with the files distributed via other means... this would be a much safer approach.
Battelscribe comes in .zip format, so it would be very easy to create a pre-packed 40k/fantasy build of Battlescribe that the end-user can simply unzip and start using right away. Such a project could then simply be uploaded to sourceforge as a modified build of someone else's open-source code, which the original owner cannot be held to account for, as some "other random internet person" has taken their code and modified it. We can't expect Battlescribe's creator to do all of the legwork for us anymore, he's got GW legal breathing down his neck.
It's quite simple, and will only take about an afternoon's worth of effort by someone who already has the files... whether anyone is willing to put the effort in is another matter entirely. In my experience, I've seen plenty of examples where the public love to make use of stuff like this, but when it comes to contributing tumbleweeds roll past...
For my part, I'm looking into making Kings of War army lists for Battlescribe, I'm not really that interested in GW stuff at the moment.. Mantic have all their rules and army lists as free online downloads so there isn't a legal issue there.
And don't worry. The files are both out there, and will be moved if we can to a community based site if all possible. There are a bunch of options available, and interim solutions. Quite a few of us have put in some hard work on the files, so we will see them go on. We just want to make sure Battlescribe isn't associated with it and or liable for it. If anything, it's really easy to create your own files, and is great for your own use. I was an instant convert when I was able to sit down in a few hours and hack out a basic file for myself to use. Something I could never do in AB. AB was a ton of work. From what I gather, there is no issue with Battlescribe itself, and he will continue his great work on the project. So nothing lost out here.
Toreador wrote:If anything, it's really easy to create your own files, and is great for your own use. I was an instant convert when I was able to sit down in a few hours and hack out a basic file for myself to use. Something I could never do in AB. AB was a ton of work.
+1 to this. It is really easy for someone without any programming knowledge to go ahead and make their own files in Battlescribe. It's just as easy as making a roster.
As an example, the Kings of War project I started yesterday?
I agree with every thing said here in well...all the posts. What I want to do is host the files...and I have been in talk with other people what what to do the same thing. The problem seems to be that is we do that we know that GW will come after us...and it may cause problems for Battlescribe as well. Now the problem I have is this...AB has been doing this for years and making money off of it as well. Battlescribe is doing this for free and now GW is having a problem with it? That just does not seem right to me...
Now here is what I have to say about the data files...
Warmonger Gameday will be host the files. I just have to figure out how I'm going to do it. Yes I know GW will come after me but IMO someone has to stand up in a way to this. Either they let us do this as well or stop AB from doing it. You can not play fav here IMO.
Now when I do this I need a team to help with the data files...any one willing to help?
I just wish that GW would focus more on helping people enjoy the hobby, instead they have jumped in league with a force far more evil then Horus or even the Chaos gods themselves... that evil force I speak of is lawyers. Of course this is my personal opinion and I am stating such so the bloodthirsty Attorney legions from the 7th layer of hell have no power to attack me with there evil powers.
FOR THE EMPEROR! ((Used in reference to some other Emperor, as I clearly do not mean anyone in the 40k Universe or their copyrights))
baranowito wrote:As others have mentioned here, somehow Wolflair and AB40K.org have a gentlemen's agreement with GW that GW does not go after them. I'm not a lawyer and do not claim full knowledge here, but without any public affiliation between Wolflair and GW or any knowledge of licensing GW's information to Wolflair or AB40k.org, this to me is sounding like it is close to creating an unfair monopoly - at least by US standards. This allows Wolflair to continue to operate charging the prices they are charging without the worry of any competition. This hurts the consumers because there are obviously developers out there that will charge cheaper prices for a similar product. This last statement is what a monopoly does and is against the law. This is a different situation than the typical monopoly case as it involves someone's IP. What is unknown is whether there are agreements between Wolflair and GW that license or provide exclusive rights to AB, which would make this legal without any argument from anyone. But I would think this is not case because if it were, you would see that as the response and probably have Wolflair also look to enforce their exclusive rights. GW is well within their rights to protect their IP, but giving a pass to certain parties and not others just seems wrong.
I want to make it clear that I'm not claiming any of the parties mentioned above are breaking the law. I'm only pointing out that it seems very fishy and could warrant further investigation by someone. Of course, I would bet that if pushed GW would close down AB rather than open up to everyone else.
This might be an interesting intellectual exercise. Can a company selectively enforce their copyrights, thereby advantaging another unlicensed party? Is the failure to license the work either (1) create a defense to infringement for other parties; or (2) create a case of collusion (of the Lanham variety)?
I'm thinking the answers are "Yes" and "No," but that's just a gut instinct.
UsdiThunder wrote:For those who use excel that's nice, but how do I trust you put everything correctly or that you aren't flubbing a rule or a number. Pen and paper circumspect as well.
How do you know I didn't edit the AB or BS datafiles before I made the list?
Question here for any lawyers watching: How does indirect infringement factor into any army list creation tools?
Indirect Infringement Contributory infringement results when somebody knows of the direct infringement of another and substantially participates in that infringement, such as inducing, causing, or materially contributing to the infringing conduct. That substantial participation could take the form of providing a device or service that facilitates the infringement if that device or service has no substantial use other than infringement.
Vicarious Infringement Vicarious infringement results when there has been a direct infringement and the vicarious infringer is in a position to control the direct infringer and benefits financially from the infringemen
One would think that if the individual data files are infringing on copyright, then providing the software to write and display them would also be infringing.
Edit - another point:
GW attempted to release their own Interactive Army List tool. Well, they released it, but it floundered because AB was so successful. If they could have brought down AB (or at least the GW files) they would have.
Trasvi wrote:One would think that if the individual data files are infringing on copyright, then providing the software to write and display them would also be infringing.
Maybe.
Does the creator of AB have "the right and ability to control the direct infringer"? That is, could he design his software to prevent infringement, while still maintaining noninfringing functionality?
Does the creator of AB "benefit financially from the infringement"? Does he obtain a financial benefit based on the infringement? Are people more likely to buy his product because of the infringement?
Of course, the next question is: Is it worth GW's time and effort to go after him?
Trasvi, you're ignoring the existence of fair use of databases of facts.
I have a nice two page reference sheet for the Daemon codex that I sat down and wrote based on the Chaos Daemon codex. Microsoft isn't guilty of vicarious infringement because I used their word processor to infringe on GW's copyrights.
Wolf Lair is probably skirting by the vicarious infringement problem by not being "in a position to control the direct infringer"--anyone can put up a datafile and they don't check for accuracy or completeness or anything else in the data files they link to, and I'm sure they'd be willing to remove any of the links if GW asked them to.
There's also the defense that their product is sufficiently generic that it has sufficient non-infringing uses to make it more like a word processor or VCR than old-Napster on the "evil devices capable of infringing copyright" scale.
Trasvi wrote:Edit - another point:
GW attempted to release their own Interactive Army List tool. Well, they released it, but it floundered because AB was so successful. If they could have brought down AB (or at least the GW files) they would have.
This is incorrect.
GW's product didn't flounder because AB was so succesful. It floundered because it was such a horrible product.
Trasvi wrote:One would think that if the individual data files are infringing on copyright, then providing the software to write and display them would also be infringing.
Maybe.
Does the creator of AB have "the right and ability to control the direct infringer"? That is, could he design his software to prevent infringement, while still maintaining noninfringing functionality?
Does the creator of AB "benefit financially from the infringement"? Does he obtain a financial benefit based on the infringement? Are people more likely to buy his product because of the infringement?
Of course, the next question is: Is it worth GW's time and effort to go after him?
Do they have the ability to control the infringer? Most definitely. If the data files themselves are infringing (which seems the case, based on the original topic of this discussion that GW asked Battlescribe to remove their files) then Wolflair has both the ability to stop hosting the files, or to stop providing the program which creates the data files.
Do they benefit financially? Wolflair has said (in the linked History of GW + AB) that their Warhammer/40k data files are by far their most popular. Most people are buying AB to use GW's files.
I'm not saying Wolflair is guilty. Given GW's litigious history, I assume if GW had a hope of getting the 40k files removed they would have. I'm just wondering, what makes them not guilty?
And part of what I wonder, is GW going after them because of their trademarked words used in the data files? Or because the creator by hosting the files along with the application even if indirectly is making money off of a GW product?
GW only has trademarks on iconic words. Everything else is not covered. The points costs aren't covered, the generic common use words aren't covered. If all trademarked words were removed, would there even be anything for them to go after? I am just curious I haven't seen much on something like this before.
I dont know about the area the developer is in, in Dallas there is a Lawyers association that will refer you to an attorney for a cheap 1 hour consultation. When I say cheap, I mean $40 for the hour. During that time you can talk to the attorney and he can and will answer any questions you have.
From what little I remember, GW cannot copyright stats and rules. They can copyright the books and drawings and stories from the books. So you shouldnt be able to take a GW picture from a codex and put it in your application, or a paragraph from the codex.
You should be able to put simple summarized rules, short sentences, statements and even stat lines.
I do suggest talking with an attorney, and also note that even though what you are doing could be completely legal, it does not mean GW wont try to sue you anyways.
I'm not saying Wolflair is guilty. Given GW's litigious history, I assume if GW had a hope of getting the 40k files removed they would have. I'm just wondering, what makes them not guilty?
They don't create or host the data files. That makes them not guilty.
I'm not saying Wolflair is guilty. Given GW's litigious history, I assume if GW had a hope of getting the 40k files removed they would have. I'm just wondering, what makes them not guilty?
They don't create or host the data files. That makes them not guilty.
That's a pretty weak case. Their program even alerts you when the files have been updated and download and installs them for you. I think if GW really wanted them gone it would happen.
They also have download links posted on their website.
Leprousy wrote:I understand gw wanting to protect their IP, but i am getting sick of all the stupid lawsuits. This pretty well puts the nail in the coffin for me. I was contemplating starting a second 40k army, or switching to warmachine. This makes my choice for me. Privateer press, whoich allows online army creators to operate, here's my money!
They have to file lawsuits or risk losing their IP. If they don't file the suits, then another company can use that against them in court and GW could then be judged as having forfeited said rights. Considering GW is built on its IP, far more than its game design, that would be the kiss of death to GW if it were to happen. They know that. That's why they do file the lawsuits. They aren't being malicious about it, even the Battlescribe guy said they were very amiable about the whole thing, but they have to do it or risk losing their IP, and thus, their core product, leaving the company dead in the water.
I do not believe that you can lose copyright that way. You could lose trademark i suppose? Unless battlescribe is including all of the needed information to play an army in their army list creator there is even an argument of whether they are violating any significant amount of IP. Does battlescribe include special rules and stats? It seems to me that battlescribe is merely a free tool, but in order for a consumer to make use of GW's IP a copy of GW's published work is still required. That is why morally i feel that GW's actions are malicious. Just because GW are being amiable in tone does not mean that their actions are not malicious.
I am currently painting my first warmachine warjack, and i am quite pleased with my choice to not provide GW with money to pay their lawyers.
^^ I did do some research, and I found the Contributory/Vicarious infringement. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there would be at least a strong argument to be made that Wolflair is an indirect infringer.
As Griever said, saying 'we don't have anything to do with it' is a pretty weak excuse when they have links on their website and an auto-update function.
Furthermore, if the case brought against Battlescribe was specifically related to them posting links to the data files, then Wolflair is doing something extremely similar.
People have asked why GW haven't shut Wolf's Lair down.
The answer is they can't, because what Wolf's Lair do is legal.
People have asked how it is legal, and that has been explained.
If you don't believe these explanations, please do some research into IP law for yourself, and see if you can come up with a different explanation.
I disagree, but this is looking too much like work. Plus, it's too close to giving a legal opinion rather than discussing the legal topics, which could raise issues that I'm not excited about dealing with.
1) Pre-release of the new version of BattleScribe is up on the forum. This has a new feature for letting BS download data files from a "repository". Tools are included to help you create repositories.
2) I've been talking to one of the guys over at The Codex Project, and he pointed me at the rules they follow when creating their custom codices. I'm not saying this is water-tight legal stuff, but it is sensible. By the sound of it, the main thing that is infringing copyright is the fact that rules were in the files in full. References to the rulebook's page numbers would mean the files cannot be used as a substitute for the rule book, so GW still get their sales.
Here's the list of rules, and my thoughts in red
1. Absolutely no reprinting of material that has been created by GW unless it's use also requires the user to access the original GW document from which it came. This means if you are going to reprint or reuse and existing GW Codex unit you cannot provide material in the TCP Codex that would allow users to ignore or not have to own the GW product from which it originated. This includes but is not limited to unit entries.
Page references instead of rules would mean the user must have the codex. I think the important thing here is that the files shouldn't interfere with GW sales...
2. You cannot re-use GW artwork under any conditions. Any and all use of GW created visuals other than those necessary to designate TM and Copyright credit are forbidden.
3. Rule 2 applies to all GW created Background and Fiction.
2 and 3, not an issue with BS data files
4. The Codex cannot either visually or organizationally create confusion as to its origin. This means the codex must be laid out and organized in a way that is divergent from GW style and look.
Not even laid out as a book
5. No PDF or like document of a codex can be distributed on the forums or blogs of TCP with out permission and approval of a TCP Council Member.
I think approval is a good idea. If anyone wants to host files elsewhere, I would suggest you at least check files for any infringing stuff
6. No complete rewrites of a current GW Codex. ie. You cannot re-write The Space Marine Codex. You could however write a new codex based on Space Marines but not a replacement of an existing GW codex.
Hmm, think the files count as a re-write? More a summary I guess? The content's of the files are not intended to compete with the codex book - they mirror the codex, not try to re-write a "better version" of it.
And to add:
7. You shouldn't ask for money or advertise on the page the files are hosted.
I have created a lot of files for my own use, and am trying to set up a good way to store these, and other user created files from the community. Working together is much better than working apart.
If you would like to chip in on helping create and maintain files for any game system come give us a visit.
Just in the nick of time.
The KnowledgeForge site it's hosted on can be publicly accessed by anyone (you can check out from the SVN repo there without a password), and anyone can sign up, be given admin access and then commit to SVN/maintain the webpages etc. It's similar to SourceForge and other open source software hosting sites.
