Just want to say that Beasts of War's youtube site has been closed down due to 'multiple or severe violations of our Community Guidelines'.

Err, what? I've only watched a few Beasts of War videos---but I don't remember anything remotely bad about them?

When did this happen? What did they Do?

I was watching them, and everything randomly went. At first I thought it could be GW terminating them...

See here:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/problems-youtube/

They're investigating ATM.

I bet GW complained about them showing images from the new Tomb Kings codex... just my suspicions.

cyorysh wrote:I bet GW complained about them showing images from the new Tomb Kings codex... just my suspicions.

I think GW didn't want Beasts of War showing rival compines products, especially after te uproar about the pricing. S GW complained about BoW showing off their codexes...

Maybe they're put in suspension until they can properly script their bits without "uhm-ing" more than three times.

BrookM wrote:Maybe they're put in suspension until they can properly script their bits without "uhm-ing" more than three times.

Hey, don't pick on Derrall

I watched a video from them just last night...

complaining about the GW price rise. I find the timing more than a little coincidental but who knows.

What they do is clearly under the heading of 'review' and therefore should (by my understanding) but fair use.

However if someone complains youtube tend to just take stuff down rather than have to think about whether it's legal or not.

R

MrNurgle wrote:

cyorysh wrote:I bet GW complained about them showing images from the new Tomb Kings codex... just my suspicions.

I think GW didn't want Beasts of War showing rival compines products, especially after te uproar about the pricing. S GW complained about BoW showing off their codexes...

Rargh wrote:I watched a video from them just last night...

complaining about the GW price rise. I find the timing more than a little coincidental but who knows.

What they do is clearly under the heading of 'review' and therefore should (by my understanding) but fair use.

However if someone complains youtube tend to just take stuff down rather than have to think about whether it's legal or not.

R

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I find this to be a bit of a stretch!

I'm sure it was something more... innocent.

Perhaps some British/Scottish swear sneaked past the crack BoW censors or some such?

Anyway, they seem to think they'll be back soon, and I have to agree with them...

Hi guys,

I just watched BoW Turn 8 Live & am happy to report Warren backed me up on Quest (boring some people in the process)

However, it was a roller-coaster ride for sure. A lot of stuff was discussed, some positive, some negative - GW's Price Rise & other policies were a main feature. I won't go into that here.

IF GW are responsible for closing down the BoW Youtube account (be it permanent or not) - that will be my tipping point. I've already started exploring other games but I won't just
quietly protest with my money by not supporting them

Bring on the 'I told you so' speeches (just not in here if you can help it please)

I'm sure others, as well as myself, will keep you posted with any developments on BOW.

I agree that the timing is VERY interesting (I hope it's just a fantasy in my head).

I really hope it's just coincidence. I like BoW and if GW managed to close them down on some technicality, well, I'm already not going to be buying their stuff anymore, but this would just cement the fact that I'd never consider going back.

Stanley Rubric wrote:I really hope it's just coincidence. I like BoW and if GW managed to close them down on some technicality, well, I'm already not going to be buying their stuff anymore, but this would just cement the fact that I'd never consider going back.

It wouldn't be BoW as a whole, worst comes to worst, they might be forced to change video hosting providers. That said, if it is GW, then it is a blatant abuse of the relevant laws; IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

Google - "Doing no* evil"

* well. not that much.

Amusingly, I can't even access the BOW website anymore.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Amusingly, I can't even access the BOW website anymore.

Hmm, nor can I.

How bizarre, hopefully they'll post somewhere to clue us in.

Slinky wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Amusingly, I can't even access the BOW website anymore.

Hmm, nor can I.

Website appears to be back

Slinky wrote:

Website appears to be back

Indeed, with a message about the Youtube outage (although no details):

http://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/problems-youtube/

Ahm... this looks bad...

I like the BOW site very much, I think that it is important to have a "Wargaming TV".
I don´t know why this is happening but... it will be such a pity to loose the BOW channel, they were making something cool.
Youtube, blogs, facebook... all this internet tools are making easier to get into games and understand rules, getting communities together... and the BOW guys were the spearhead of all this.

I was under the impression that copyright holders could not order the removal of files from the internet without first determining if the use violated fair use of the copyright?

Or this could be just another case of one donkey-cave complaining and then Youtube reactively taking down the content because of said donkey-cave.

I seem to recall a video about a kid singing or dancing to a Prince song that got removed by youtube and then the guy whose video was removed later sued the record company.

BobbaFett wrote:Ahm... this looks bad...

I like the BOW site very much, I think that it is important to have a "Wargaming TV".
I don´t know why this is happening but... it will be such a pity to loose the BOW channel, they were making something cool.
Youtube, blogs, facebook... all this internet tools are making easier to get into games and understand rules, getting communities together... and the BOW guys were the spearhead of all this.

Worst case the BoW guys will reupload on some other place. Youtube is not the only place to watch videos online

Or this could be just another case of one donkey-cave complaining and then Youtube reactively taking down the content because of said donkey-cave.

Could be...

...I hope so

I found it.

http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

It appears that a circuit judge declared that a copyright holder must ascertain prior to complaint whether it violates the fair use or not. There still are apparently no laws preventing any tom, dick or harry from making baseless complaints.

Also, I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I am just going by what I read.

Oh ffs man. If this is GW's doing then this is just getting stupid. I guess this must be "Do everything in our power to piss off our fanbase and bury the company once and for all!" week...

What does the BoW site say? I can't access it at work.

BoW Site wrote:Many of you may have seen that our account on YouTube has suffered something of a snafu.

The reason for this is currently being investigated and our partners on YouTube should be back with more details soon.

In the meantime you can still catch us tonight on Justin TV, where we may have more information for you.

Keep your fingers crossed!

The BoW Team

This is really sad I loved Infinity week and the Warmachine videos and the tons of unboxing and reviews, it is a very usefull news site for wargamming and I would hate to see it gone from Youtube.
Hang in there BOW folks.

You would think that GW could hardly risk any more 'love' from their customers by complaining about stuff like this.

Buzzsaw wrote:

Stanley Rubric wrote:I really hope it's just coincidence. I like BoW and if GW managed to close them down on some technicality, well, I'm already not going to be buying their stuff anymore, but this would just cement the fact that I'd never consider going back.

It wouldn't be BoW as a whole, worst comes to worst, they might be forced to change video hosting providers. That said, if it is GW, then it is a blatant abuse of the relevant laws; IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

I totally agree.

The purpose of Beasts of War is to review and criticise "stuff".

Unless GoW suddenly busted out some porn the only way they would be likely to allegedly infringe the You Tube terms of service would be displaying copyrighted works e.g. game figures, rulebooks and so on.

You Tube Community Guidelines

Respect copyright. Only upload videos that you made or that you are authorised to use. This means don't upload videos you didn't make, or use content in your videos to which someone else owns the copyright, such as music tracks, snippets of copyrighted programmes or videos made by other users, without the requisite authorisations. Read our Copyright Tips for more information.

http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_permissions
http://uk.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice
http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

UK copyright law allows for excerpts of materials to be used without permission in order to review and criticise.

UK IPO Web Site

Criticism, review and reporting current events

Fair dealing for criticising or review and reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work (except a photograph) as long as it is with a sufficient acknowledgment.

As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.

So is there any indication as to why the vids are not available?

It does not seem that any involvement by any third party has been indicated at any point and does not You Tube mark videos removed due to Copyright infringements as because of that?

In which case is that what is indicated on You Tube?

If not should I blame the nearside front indicator of my car not working on GW as well, just in case?

I don't get why BoW are so popular. They popped out of nowhere with a glitzy site full of nothing, with amateurish at best videos full of errors and padding.

Dakka is a superior site tbh.

Phototoxin wrote:I don't get why BoW are so popular. They popped out of nowhere with a glitzy site full of nothing, with amateurish at best videos full of errors and padding.

Dakka is a superior site tbh.

Dakka has better forums, but for reviews, videos, etc? Maybe I missing dakka's version though...


Personally I have always believed that Beasts of War is somehow related to Mantic Games. They both sort of popped up at the same time and BoW has supported Mantic quite a bit.

Phototoxin wrote:I don't get why BoW are so popular. They popped out of nowhere with a glitzy site full of nothing, with amateurish at best videos full of errors and padding.

Dakka is a superior site tbh.

I'm going to name just one iniciative... Infinity week... They introduced the game, developed a quick intro ruleset for download, had battle reports and developers interviews, fluff debates etc In the end Corvusbelli said a big thank you. If you are not interested in it its ok but you cannot say that this iniciative did not have a positive impact into introducing this smaller game to a wider audience...
This was ONE iniciative, they had lots more of them... some you may like more than others but you cannot claim its a site "full of nothing " Sorry!

Dakka is dakka and BOW is BOW and every single community that promotes the wargamming IN GENERAL is a usefull community to me.

Infinity week was cool, sucks I couldn't take advantage of the army deals though.

I don't much care for BoW videos myself, but they're obviously very popular and taking them down would another blow to the community. Hope they return.

I cannot sit through one of those poorly scripted (if at all) mealy mouthed videos with those guys that sound like they're eating a peanut butter sandwich while taping.

But if you guys like them and it helps the community I hope they get them back up.

I've watched a few of their Warmachine videos, I like'em. Anything positive that introduces more people to wargaming is a good thing, especially when it's done well. I can't say that watching a BoW "unboxing" video is the most thrilling thing in the world, but they obviously put some thought and work into their videos, and it shows.

Text, be it on a forum or in a book, loses a great deal when it comes to communicating ideas. One of the things I like about BoW is the way their videos communicate the concepts in a video format. You really can't compare Dakka to them. There's only..what.. 5? 8? guys on BoW and they're regionally located. But. They do play the games differently than what I see in my FLGS. It's good to get different perspectives and concepts/ideas presented in a way that isn't cold text. It helps in the understanding for some.

Dakka is a much larger base of information, with a much broader range of interpretations and expectation. It's all a matter of what you are looking to get out of the resource. I use yootoob, Dakka, BOW and others as pieces of the gaming puzzle. BoW in specific as I find them entertaining.. perhaps not in the manner they wish.. but entertaining nonetheless.

I found the issue with the yootoob to be curious. The ToA violation statement has me wondering. Naturally I'm drawn to blaming GW as a bad guy, which is entirely unfair at this point. I admit. There just seems to be this expectation that GW is this big, bad, terrible corp. I dunno..they're a business. They're in business to make money, no different than any other 7-11, Coke, or Movie Theatre. I can think of only one way that GW could press or complain about unfair utilization (the photo clause in British fair use law and the prevalent display of GW artwork/boxes), and that's flimsy at best. But.. I also can't even conceive of any other thing that they have done that is a violation of YT ToA. /shrug.

It's not the end of the world to not have BoW vids to my mind. But, the *why* is somewhat disconcerting.

This stinks to high heaven guys....Its a little coincidental to be sure, and I really hope that it means nothing, but with Darrel and the boys being extremely vocal about the recent price hikes and the trade embargo as well......

This, for me is the final straw that broke the camels back.

I'm fed up to the back teeth with GW, and am boycotting them as of..........................Now!

I like their unboxing videos and their funny accents

Their videos were pretty poor quality anyway; so its not really a loss.

How will I get my daily fix of looking at sprues and bases? HOW?!

Just glad they still have Justin.tv.

Mr Hyena wrote:Their videos were pretty poor quality anyway.

Compared to what?

NAVARRO wrote:Compared to what?

All the honest video reviews of products put out by Games Wor... erm... never mind

Compared to what?

Compared to most other videos that perform the same function in any sort of genre/hobby.

I really like their videos. They seem honest and laid back, which is the kind of stuff I like to watch. Their quality of videos are better than most of he stuff on the internet...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Compared to what?

Compared to most other videos that perform the same function in any sort of genre/hobby.

Like? I really am interested.

I like BoW, remember that they are still learning how best to do what they do.

They are not strictly associated with Mantic, but with all types of Wargaming. The discussion groups on their site are well laid out - they have 40k General, How to get Started & dedicated subjects for every Army - so it's easier to find what you're looking for (they're just nowhere near as busy as Dakka/Warseer etc). TBH I prefer the way they've organised this compared to most Forums, it just makes more sense to me

Infinity Week was simply fantastic & the quality of video's far outstrips those of say, GW's Design Studio Podcasts - as if GW couldn't afford a decent camera or external mike?

BoW provide video's akin to most Forum content. They are enthusiastic, honest & provide information about products I probably would never have heard of otherwise. Sure Darrell may get some rules wrong but he always says he's likely too in his quest for more cheese...

In all I think the hobby needs BoW as they are truly independent & enthusiastic about what companies all over the world are producing & they often bring News about all these products first, as they have the contacts in the industry. You may not like their video's but for many they are informative and engaging. For me they are the most refreshing site about Wargaming in general as they offer an easy way to view and demonstrate wargames & how they work. I can think of no other site which offers such clean looking, quality vidoes. They sure make a difference to reading posts all the time

They've only just got started and have done quite a lot in that time...only to get bombed off youtube (please don't let it be GW )...

warspawned wrote:I like BoW, remember that they are still learning how best to do what they do.

They are not strictly associated with Mantic, but with all types of Wargaming. The discussion groups on their site are well laid out - they have 40k General, How to get Started & dedicated subjects for every Army - so it's easier to find what you're looking for (they're just nowhere near as busy as Dakka/Warseer etc). TBH I prefer the way they've organised this compared to most Forums, it just makes more sense to me

Infinity Week was simply fantastic & the quality of video's far outstrips those of say, GW's Design Studio Podcasts - as if GW couldn't afford a decent camera or external mike?

BoW provide video's akin to most Forum content. They are enthusiastic, honest & provide information about products I probably would never have heard of otherwise. Sure Darrell may get some rules wrong but he always says he's likely too in his quest for more cheese...

In all I think the hobby needs BoW as they are truly independent & enthusiastic about what companies all over the world are producing & they often bring News about all these products first, as they have the contacts in the industry. You may not like their video's but for many they are informative and engaging. For me they are the most refreshing site about Wargaming in general as they offer an easy way to view and demonstrate wargames & how they work. I can think of no other site which offers such clean looking, quality vidoes. They sure make a difference to reading posts all the time

They've only just got started and have done quite a lot in that time...only to get bombed off youtube (please don't let it be GW )...

QFT

They are new and are growing fairly fast. I love going there and listen to British guys ramble on about minis while I paint or such. Sure they aren't the MOST knowledgeable people, but they aren't afraid to come out and say something truly sucks.
They are also great for companies, too. I've bought quite of few things because of their "unboxing" where I can really see the mini and it's good sides and bad sides in a high quality video.
I haven't been to the forums, but that's why I come to Dakka.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Compared to what?

Compared to most other videos that perform the same function in any sort of genre/hobby.

Predictable vague answer.
And to be clear, I say its predictable not because I know you, but because you dont have today anything remotelly close to what BOW chaps delivered in therms of quality and quantity in our wargamming side of things... For that hard work alone you could at least be a little gratefull.

Compared to most other video hobby review sites out there BOW has better production value and some well thought out vids as well

the criticism that they dont have a script is what appeals to me. it comes out more honest and makes the guys a lot more relatable.

and theyre free for effs sake!

the only closest thing i can think of is Miniwargaming.com's but cmon...theyre the video version of whitedwarf all adverts

I hope they bring back the vids

As a video producer I rather like the BoW vids and consider them well done for a hobby site.

They have a good format, decent lighting and set, and they show wargamers the stuff they are interested in. The camera work is fine.

The presenters' lack of polish is part of the charm and helps create the impression that these guys are hobbyists just like you and me.

I can tell you a lot of high class Japanese TV is far more amateurish than BoW.

My question is, how do you do a video review of something and NOT show the item you're reviewing? How the hell do people like GW expect ANYONE to get excited about their product when you have to keep looking over your shoulder for the knife every time you're caught in public with it?

IF GW had something to do with this: complete and total dick move. No other way to categorize or explain it other than a bad case of corporate malice.

Kilkrazy wrote:As a video producer I rather like the BoW vids and consider them well done for a hobby site.

They have a good format, decent lighting and set, and they show wargamers the stuff they are interested in. The camera work is fine.

The presenters' lack of polish is part of the charm and helps create the impression that these guys are hobbyists just like you and me.

I can tell you a lot of high class Japanese TV is far more amateurish than BoW.

+1 I like the Irish accent, and laid back approach

Their painting guides are pretty good too. Not competition level, but I got a lot of good tips on how to get my minis up to tabletop quality.

Hope they come back.

yakface wrote:

Slinky wrote:

Website appears to be back

Indeed, with a message about the Youtube outage (although no details):

http://www.beastsofwar.com/featured/problems-youtube/

Except the words we have our suspicions.at 1.40 ish on the video

The big three on YouTube: Beasts of War, MiniWarGaming and Blue Table Painting. These sites should be out of GW's reach, they're all independant, cater to all wargamers and all have expressed their opinions on GWs new pricing. If one of the other two go down, or both, then wargaming on YouTube is screwed.

Beasts of War are great, they provide great coverage and a huge window into the wargaming industry. It's a huge loss to the wargaming community if they get taken down. I hope they get back on their feet and brush whatever this problem is off.

If GW continues to advance it's corporate Nazi-ism, you can bet we'll all be playing something else in 5 years as they have made it outright impossible for people to conduct free business with their products, hype/review their products, and have been gunning their complete lack of marketing towards knocking over rich moms for their profits. Mark Wells and co have literally no moral or ethical basis for their business model - it's all greed.

I am curious to find out what BoW is told from Youtube, hopefully it was something other than GW this time. Time will tell.

Mr Hyena wrote:Their videos were pretty poor quality anyway; so its not really a loss.

#


Typical of some of the negativity there is in this community. BoW, to me, is a useful addition to this hobby. Dont see many other resources with this sort of thing. Much better than the useful than the rubbish on most sites related to tournament gaming (cue - how many ubber repetitve army lists can i post on the internet). These guys offer a get resource for al manner of game systems and smaller companies - and surely thats a good thing for our hobby?????

I for one 1 hope there up and running again soon, but cant help feeling GW have a hand in this somewhere....

I liked watching BoW prior to getting podcast/webchannel overload (I've dialed down to Podhammer and 11th Company, pretty much). Their close-cam unboxing videos are excellent, and led me to make sounder, more informed purchases here and there.

Never watched any but now I want to, thanks to this thread. Oh, the irony!

See the guys on here http://www.beastsofwar.com/turn-8/turn-8-19-may-2011/

For those going through BoW video withdrawal, their live webcast from last night is available, Turn 8; it's a nice summation of their nature (warning! Copious use of rice wine and beer!) and, at about the 1:30 (that's 1 hour, 20 minute) mark they start getting into the GW situation and its implications for the hobby as a whole.

Edit: Dangit! Ninja'd by the old fart! That'll teach me to take a bathroom break while posting...

Despite the total lack of evidence, everyone has assumed that GW took down BoW with an underhand copyright allegation to You Tube, in retaliation for comments regarding Infinity and the GW price rises.

That is;

A) rather unfair.
B) very informative about the current PR surrounding GW.

Interesting stuff, if true. Any particular source to this or just general scuttlebutt?

No, it is just rumour - not even that, wild thoughts at best. I'm sure the BoW guys will update us as soon as they find out.

It's just the mutter from the gutter. That's my point.

Agreed.

I think BoW do a great job at what they clearly set out to do, and I hope they're back up soon.

Nah, GW would never do something like that, it would be to dumb (hm, ive hear that before, 4 times this week)

Coincidence? Dunno, but only theway we all point to GW when things like this happen, show how good they are in the community, dont you think?

As the BoW guys alluded to in their last video, YouTube has been known to in essence shot first, ask questions later in an over eager attempt to ensure that YouTube can't be held liable because they waited to respond to a complaint while they substantiated the claim.

In other words, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that the YouTube channel will be back and the explanation will be that YouTube either made a mistake or removed the channel as a precaution while they reviewed a complaint.

I am sure they will. That doesn't remove the fact that the channel has been taken down.

That makes sense. It's probably just someone over-reacting to something...what that could be I don't know. We'll just have to wait & see how it all pans out...

Knowing youtube it was probably a complaint over a song used in one or more of their videos. They tend to ere on the side of caution in that regard. Given enough complaints they just take the site down until the user can prove licensing etc.

They leaked Mantic concept art in said video and on their website. Maybe Mantic is the new Evil Galactic Empire behind this
More on mantic in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370280.page

yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

Smitty0305 wrote:yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

From the first page;

Buzzsaw wrote:

Stanley Rubric wrote:I really hope it's just coincidence. I like BoW and if GW managed to close them down on some technicality, well, I'm already not going to be buying their stuff anymore, but this would just cement the fact that I'd never consider going back.

It wouldn't be BoW as a whole, worst comes to worst, they might be forced to change video hosting providers. That said, if it is GW, then it is a blatant abuse of the relevant laws; IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

Emphasis added.

Smitty0305 wrote:yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

Apparently you can, according to the laws of the USA and UK.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.


http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-review.htm
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticising or review and reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work (except a photograph) as long as it is with a sufficient acknowledgment.

As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.


Oh! Eire too!!!

http://www.dit.ie/media/documents/library/Copyright-Guidelines.pdf

You may copy if:

You hold the copyright.
The copyright has expired.
You have permission from the copyright owner.
The copying falls within the concept of “fair dealing” and is for research or private
study, criticism or review.

What is “fair dealing”?

You may copy under “fair dealing” in the interests of:

Research or private study.
Criticism or review (with acknowledgement).
Reporting current events (with acknowledgement).

Fair dealing applies to almost all works, including electronic resources. Photographs
are excluded from the concept of fair dealing.



Crazeee!

I'm hoping it's just coincidence that the channel being down is happening at the same time as GW's giant act of errorism this week. I would never be able to believe GW would cancel the ability of a website to promote their products/discuss them-then again I couldn't see the extortionate price increase from the metal->resin or the embargo. Hopefully the events are unrelated, as I actually used to like/love GW as a company. If this is true, I have a feeling I'll be trying out a new game soon: how do Mantic's and Malifaux's rules look guys? I think I'll pick up one or the other. A steampunk army sounds quite fun

Any new information?

Nothing yet, not even on their website...

I think it was because they partnered with Battlefoam (advert at the start of their latest videos) and Wayland games (advert at the end of their latest videos). Soon after this their channel was shut down. It might be against Youtube's terms and conditions.

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

Not that I personally mind what these guys are doing, btw, but I definitely don't consider them journalists.

Just like anyone can print a magazine or newspaper and say "Hey look at us, we're journalists, the rules don't apply to us?".

It's debated if "blogs" are journalism or not. But you could definitely consider BoW and the likes to be "reporters" (as in, they report on new products etc) and that kinda makes it a "publication". In other words, it's "journalism". Although not by journalists.

Then again it's not all that uncommon to employ people with no academic education in journalism as journalists on more old-school media outlets. It's more of a title nowadays.

As for it being a crazy US idea I want to tell you that us swedes are just as crazy and consider blogs journalistic endeavours in the sense that they're protected by the Tryckfrihetsförordning. A part of the constitution regarding media. I do think that applies to most of the EU as well.

You need no formal document in the United States to become a "journalist," simply whatever money it takes to support your endeavor, and the time to do it. There are many freelancers out there that report and review all kinds of things for columns in thousands of publications. It's completely normal - and at least in the United States, it's protected free speech.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

...

It would fly fine in the UK or Eire, or any country which has a Fair Dealing clause in its copyright laws.

France has a very similar clause.

Dutch law also includes a sort of fair use though apparently more restrictive than the English speaking versions. I do not know the details.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is hardly possible to have public discussion of artworks without some kind of fair use provision in copyright laws.

We are talking about guys who unpack kits of plastic miniatures and show the sprues to us on camera, for freak's sake. If that is what it takes to be called a journalistic endeavor then why even bother making any rules at all, because anyone can be a "journalist" whenever it's convenient to use as an excuse to break them.
Journalists (legit ones) take too many liberties with the code of ethics they are supposed to have as it is, but don't let me get started on that.

I'm sure all the people who went through years of proper education to (be able to) work in this particular field of profession would also like if there were some kind of (official) distinction. In this case it's like calling the cleaning lady an "interior decorator"

If you require people who review products to have a phd, something is wrong. Take, for instance, the guys that review cars on TV. They haven't got jack for formal education, but they know a lot about cars, what makes cars good, and what people generally are looking for in a car. That makes them plenty qualified for what they do. BoW can review miniatures as well as any of us, and they don't need a piece of paper to do it. I respect your point, but it's not really carrying any water.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would fly fine in the UK or Eire, or any country which has a Fair Dealing clause in its copyright laws.

France has a very similar clause.

Dutch law also includes a sort of fair use though apparently more restrictive than the English speaking versions. I do not know the details.

What I was referring to with the "fly" comment was whether or not it would fly that BoW (or anyone else similar for that matter) can be called a legit journalistic endeavor, not to the copyright laws themselves. Not sure if we are talking about the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thrax wrote:If you require people who review products to have a phd, something is wrong. Take, for instance, the guys that review cars on TV. They haven't got jack for formal education, but they know a lot about cars, what makes cars good, and what people generally are looking for in a car. That makes them plenty qualified for what they do. BoW can review miniatures as well as any of us, and they don't need a piece of paper to do it. I respect your point, but it's not really carrying any water.

But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

My point is: to the law it often matters a lot whether or not someone can be called a journalist. They happen to be able to legally get away with a lot of things non-journalist wouldn't be able to get away with. So if just about anyone can create circumstances where he or she can say "I'm a journalist!", then where exactly do you draw the line? It would basically mean Chaos applies.

So, you're essentially saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak freely and openly? I don't understand what kind of control you wan imposed on the rights of others. We live in a global society today, one where people have rights and are free to speak their minds - how exactly is that unacceptable?

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It would fly fine in the UK or Eire, or any country which has a Fair Dealing clause in its copyright laws.

France has a very similar clause.

Dutch law also includes a sort of fair use though apparently more restrictive than the English speaking versions. I do not know the details.

What I was referring to with the "fly" comment was whether or not it would fly that BoW (or anyone else similar for that matter) can be called a legit journalistic endeavor, not to the copyright laws themselves. Not sure if we are talking about the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thrax wrote:If you require people who review products to have a phd, something is wrong. Take, for instance, the guys that review cars on TV. They haven't got jack for formal education, but they know a lot about cars, what makes cars good, and what people generally are looking for in a car. That makes them plenty qualified for what they do. BoW can review miniatures as well as any of us, and they don't need a piece of paper to do it. I respect your point, but it's not really carrying any water.

But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

My point is: to the law it often matters a lot whether or not someone can be called a journalist. They happen to be able to legally get away with a lot of things non-journalist wouldn't be able to get away with. So if just about anyone can create circumstances where he or she can say "I'm a journalist!", then where exactly do you draw the line? It would basically mean Chaos applies.

Anyone can call themselves a journalist. There is no legal qualification to become one as you would need to become a doctor.

If someone does a good job, they will get a following. Journalism above everything requires an audience.

Being a journalist does not mean you don't have to obey the law, and it doesn't give you automatic rights of access to everywhere. There is an area of contention on the shielding of sources from police investigation. That doesn't apply to Beasts of War.

I will note that some bloggers have become an accepted part of the journalistic community.

Japan Times employs Arudou Debito as a columnist off the back of his blog.
Penny Arcade is widely followed and quoted.
The Drudge Report.
Many companies have introduced blogs as part of their PR efforts.

Thrax wrote:So, you're essentially saying that people shouldn't be allowed to speak freely and openly? I don't understand what kind of control you wan imposed on the rights of others. We live in a global society today, one where people have rights and are free to speak their minds - how exactly is that unacceptable?

That is not exactly what I said either. Certain fields of profession happen to require certain education or documents for someone to be able to be called a proper - lawyer, physician, dentist, you name it. A lot of professions have unique legal obligations/liberties/restrictions/etc that come along with them. If you didn't go to lawschool you simply can't call yourself a lawyer (at least not where I live). If you aren't a - insert profession here - you can't legally do certain stuff you could otherwise legally do.

Now, if the name tag "journalist" happens to come along with certain legal liberties others (non-journalists) do not have, like publication of other people's yet unreleased work, then yes, there should be a well-defined proper distinction.

Let's call a real journalist a journalist, and guys who review & spoil things on Youtube what they are: guys who review & spoil things.

The topic of journalism & freedom of speech in our global society is an entire different, off topic, discussion I will not go into, except for saying that yes, journalistic freedom is something that does get insanely abused and needs to be addressed. For example there are entities out there that are almost 100% pure politically motivated, but yet get to operate under a different set of rules because they mask themselves as "journalistic endeavors". Journalists are supposed to operate under a certain code of ethics, but throw it out of the window whenever they feel like it. So yes, there is such a thing as abusing freedom of speech. A lot of people are blind to it though.

As far as i know BOW doesnt do it for pay from the miniature companies ( ?? ) and they certainly have some of the best videos in the miniature company.

-They have professional way to display their videos with the editing software
-The qualities and know hows of the videos are all very good.
-They are also very diligent on the updates as well as they cover a broad spectrum of Product Review , Game Mechanic Discussion , and introducing new games.

Mr Hyena wrote:Their videos were pretty poor quality anyway; so its not really a loss.

You are either trolling or you dont know how to switch the video to HD. Their videos are sometimes 1 gig and is crystal clear at full screen.

Mr Hyena wrote:Compared to most other videos that perform the same function in any sort of genre/hobby.

How cute, then by all means , show us some?

If GW doesn't want their stuff to be "spoiled" then they should learn to keep their house in order and hide it from the world until such time as they decide to share it with the rest of the world. It's not anybody but GWs fault for things becoming rumor and showing up online. They're tightening the grip on everything now, so you haven't much to worry about. It's not like BoW sneaks into their HQ and steals gak on a regular basis. GW allows people who leak things access to their upcoming product - they are aware they do this and it is either deliberate, or a calculated risk. 'Nuff said.

@ TBD : The problems you describe are mostly related to the fact that the accepted definitions of "Journalist" and the laws and regulations applying to that have simply not caught up with the nature of the internet and modern communication.

Cases like this, and the debate on whether "blogs count" and so on are what will eventually inform the rules and regulations.

After all, modern communications move a lot faster than the Law Behemoth.

But for the record, these video reviews do indeed count as "Journalism". Similar things have existed for years...the only thing that has changed is that the set-up costs and medium have changed.

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

My point is: to the law it often matters a lot whether or not someone can be called a journalist. They happen to be able to legally get away with a lot of things non-journalist wouldn't be able to get away with. So if just about anyone can create circumstances where he or she can say "I'm a journalist!", then where exactly do you draw the line? It would basically mean Chaos applies.

Just because you're not a journalist (by degree) doesn't automatically disqualify a publication / journalistic endeavour you publish. Noone is saying that the BoW-dudes are journalists in the sense that they have a degree. But they're journalists in the sense that they publish a journalistic endeavour. Get it?

To the law – and I'm only referencing Sweden now since I'm not as well versed in how it works in other countries – there usually is some caveats to what is a publication or not. You have to be kinda regular, have someone that's responsible for the publication (that bears responsibility for any laws that the publication might break) etc. It's not mandatory (in Sweden) for digital media though. We have a bunch of cases when blogs actually were considered publications and therefore were protected under the constitution regarding copyright and the right not to give up your sources to the police.

But that's law, and the law is a completely different kind of universe. In the case of YouTube it seems that they shut down channels and videos more or less without questioning when someone files a violation of TOS/copyright claim. My very uninformed guess is that they have to do that in order not to be responsible in case there is a lawsuit since they're the ones providing the publishing service.

LunaHound wrote:As far as i know BOW doesnt do it for pay from the miniature companies ( ?? ) and they certainly have some of the best videos in the miniature company.

-They have professional way to display their videos with the editing software
-The qualities and know hows of the videos are all very good.
-They are also very diligent on the updates as well as they cover a broad spectrum of Product Review , Game Mechanic Discussion , and introducing new games.

Mr Hyena wrote:Their videos were pretty poor quality anyway; so its not really a loss.

You are either trolling or you dont know how to switch the video to HD. Their videos are sometimes 1 gig and is crystal clear at full screen.

-BoW does indeed have some pretty pro editing.
-Qualities and know hows? No. The BoW staff are about as well qualified with 40k rules and tactics as someone who has been playing for a short time, still is mistaken on some rules, and has not been in any sort of tournament.
-Diligent about updates, yes.

As for Mr Hyena's comment, he means quality as in production value. Despite the editing effects being good, the scripts are bad, they stand around saying "uhhhh" often, they do not talk professionally, and they are not well informed on many topics. Especially 40k tactics and rules.

Thrax wrote:If GW doesn't want their stuff to be "spoiled" then they should learn to keep their house in order and hide it from the world until such time as they decide to share it with the rest of the world. It's not anybody but GWs fault for things becoming rumor and showing up online. They're tightening the grip on everything now, so you haven't much to worry about. It's not like BoW sneaks into their HQ and steals gak on a regular basis. GW allows people who leak things access to their upcoming product - they are aware they do this and it is either deliberate, or a calculated risk. 'Nuff said.

Sure, I agree with that for the most part, though sometimes during a production process it's unavoidable that third parties have an opportunity to be naughty and/or break trust. Sometimes it's your own fault something gets out early, but sometimes it is not.

For us it's very cool to get spoilers & leaks, of course, but if you are the company/person who has worked hard for a long time on something, and some hobo at the printers takes a picture and spoils it, then that sucks beyond belief. I can completely understand how they feel about that and that they are sick of it, whether it is GW, Mantic or some mucisian who'se video clip gets leaked.

And again, no hard feelings towards BoW at all. All the best wishes to them, and hopefully their videos are back online soon for all that enjoy them. I'm just not willing to call them a proper journalistic endeavor.

Thrax wrote:If GW doesn't want their stuff to be "spoiled" then they should learn to keep their house in order and hide it from the world until such time as they decide to share it with the rest of the world. It's not anybody but GWs fault for things becoming rumor and showing up online. They're tightening the grip on everything now, so you haven't much to worry about. It's not like BoW sneaks into their HQ and steals gak on a regular basis. GW allows people who leak things access to their upcoming product - they are aware they do this and it is either deliberate, or a calculated risk. 'Nuff said.

The problem with those people is that they have small parts and the only way they can feel bigger than everyone else is to break the rules that they agreed to. On topic, I cought a couple of their vids and wasn't impressed by some but I enjoyed others so I was fairly neutral on them. However I met them at Salute and off camera they seem to come out of themselves a bit more and they seem like great guys (for the 5 mins or so I had).

Lack of proof aside, there seems to be a lot of hacking at the moment especially of game based elements Warseer/PSN (not the same scale admittedly) and I can't see 'tube just pulling vids for no reason unless there is an issue or a complaint by someone was upheld.

-Qualities and know hows? No. The BoW staff are about as well qualified with 40k rules and tactics as someone who has been playing for a short time, still is mistaken on some rules, and has not been in any sort of tournament.

I was refering the quality of how they film things. Especially product review 's over head close up shot of the sprues

As for Mr Hyena's comment, he means quality as in production value. Despite the editing effects being good, the scripts are bad, they stand around saying "uhhhh" often, they do not talk professionally, and they are not well informed on many topics. Especially 40k tactics and rules..

Well personally i think they are great , i watch them every week as well as subscription. so its subjective.
But we can let their number of subscribers and view counts do the talk.

Ok , seems like everyone wont be happy unless i say the cons of BoW , then yes they do have something they should work on.
The glasses guy need to study up the product first. I find it cute and entertaining that he points to sprue parts and attempts to guess what its for.

But yes that part isnt professional.
Other then that..... nope , me like

I dont know BOW's chaps curricullums and to be honest it matters little to me if they have a PHD or not.

I find it a bit strange the fixations some of you have towards them... unless you know their particular formation why do you assume they have no qualification?
There are things there that could be changed for the better and thats a valid debate I guess... but people confusing deliberatly the tree for the wood just to try to belittle their efforts and their great utility to the community is kind of sad.

From what was said on Turn 8 I got the impression that BoW was started out of love for the hobby.

Of all the myriad of gubbins posted on Youtube BoW is pretty darned good imho.
It hasn't been going all that long afaik and they do a very good job.

Youtube have played silly sods with them before, though it was not as long as this before they got the videos back up.
I would be surprised if it was anything to do with GW.

I would just like to point out that people criticising BoW have no qualifications in literature or video production so their opinions are meaningless and should not be allowed to be heard.

See how that works?

[/sarcasm]

Journalism, good or bad is popullated by experts on many diferent fields that have little to no formation in journalism... there are tons of sports ex practicioners that cover sport events just to name one example... also I believe a good communicator is something you have to have some talent to do... even if you have all the formation and PHD if you dont have a talent to be a good communicator you kind of suck at communicating to a audience... ( and they had a big audience so )

And the ridiculous of all this qualifications debate is even so much bigger when you have a bunch of guys that have a passion for this hobby and open a channel and do a great job at delivering reports/reviews/promoting a wide range of games... totally free for us to enjoy and then you see some guys claiming "their not professionals", "they have no script"... talk about ridiculous prespective on things.

Im not saying if its free we have to swallow cr@p I'm saying Its a project pushed by the love for the comunity and tries to enhance that experience to all regardeless of if we like it or not and anyone trowing mud at them with lateral comments like - I dunt like it so I dont care ...or - they have no qualifications... should instead do something productive and say go paint something and shat up

Kilkrazy wrote:I would just like to point out that people criticising BoW have no qualifications in literature or video production so their opinions are meaningless and should not be allowed to be heard.

See how that works?

[/sarcasm]

Wait, does that mean I can be criticizing BoW? I have a journalism, video production and literature background. I also have production credits in some gaming products.

BoW is part of the "news media", therefore they are part of what journalism has become thanks to the web (and the quality of their web presence beats out quite a few of the more mainstream medias' web presences).

Beast of War. Not surprising I wouldn't have heard of them really. But I'm sure to take a look at them and I hope their productions are quickly put back up on YouTube.

People need to seriously calm down - the trouser tenting by GW hates is quite unbelievable

The BoW channel was taken down because Beasts used to use advertisments on their videos - youtube/google gets half and BoW gets half of the income payed by the advertisment set up.

Whether BoW realised the adds were annoying people or just recieved a better deal they changed their advertisment to other things but rather than the advert being the pre-scripted shampoo advert or w/e (we've all seen them) they just stuck on some kool graphics and pictures of models onto the front of their videos as effectivly a 20 sec intro to each video....

Obviously i'm assuming BoW arranged a deal with the company (infinity i think it was) Youtube/google recieved no money from this thereby infinging on the rules!!
It's not rocket science to work out...and i'm not even their biggest fan! Still it was nice to seen some Warhammer and wargames love from N. Ireland, that part of the UK need more Games workshops or wargames help.

.......Some of you people here really do think GW is the Evil Empire don't you.....?!

Nate.

well some people didn't know the nature of the reason for the removal. Not even the people who were most effected which were the creators.

But since you obviously do, care to share a link along with the boldtype underscore of your post?

Or are you just speculating like the rest of them?

Welsh_guy wrote:
.......Some of you people here really do think GW is the Evil Empire don't you.....?!

If it talks like an evil, huge empire and it walks like an evil, huge empire... then it probably is an evil, huge empire.

But then again, never assign to malice that which can easily be assigned to stupidity.

I guess that we'll have to wait and see if Mark Wells (CEO) and Tom Kirby (Chair) start building a Death Star model at their HQ in Nottingham.

I'm sure GW is just protecting their IP.

Welsh_guy wrote: talks out of his butt like he knows something.

Link/pics or STFU and GTFO.

Also, "the trouser tenting by _______" is pretty freaking funny. Consider that line stolen, sir!

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

Not that I personally mind what these guys are doing, btw, but I definitely don't consider them journalists.

I'd go with a more editorial standpoint instead of journalistic. Opinions and views etc.

misfit wrote:

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

Not that I personally mind what these guys are doing, btw, but I definitely don't consider them journalists.

I'd go with a more editorial standpoint instead of journalistic. Opinions and views etc.

With regards to fair use laws (at least in the US) this is a distinction without impact. Reviews are clearly within the scope of fair use of IP, and in fact are the primary reason the fair use exception exists. I would comment on TBD's "opinion", but since he asserts that the rules are different in some nebulous place, there isn't much to work with.

Note, the use to which the IP is put is what makes the use fair, not who is using it; as the US Government Copyright office explains "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."

Again, if someone wants to present non-US rules where the test is different, that would be one thing, but there seem to be fairly strong assertions that the UK is more of less in-line with the US on this matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No information about whether the situation with YouTube will be resolved, but BoW, at least for the moment, appears to be pressing on using an alternate video hosting service.

Beasts of War is publishing videos again but they are using "Blip.TV" now. A different video site.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/battletech/battletech-25th-anniversary-catalist/

It is a solution... for their web, but not being in Youtube makes their stuff reach less people and have less feedback.
I wish they could solve their problems with Youtube because I think that this is a mayor problem for them. They had about 25.000 youtube subscribers. This shut off makes them loose contac with lots of gamers.
It is not the same being in a website than being in the frontpage of Youtube.

I wish them the best... this hobby needs these kind of people and tools.

Hope people can make the move over to the BoW site
Good luck to the BoW team with BoW TV

Also there are some useful vids they did on Youtube, which I hope are not going to be lost.
Assume the rights are with BoW so it should be okay.
Seems like there is still no word from youtube but the new host is only temporary

As long as BoW kept their original project files they can easily re-render the old videos for their new site.

They might do better off with their own site. The bandwidth costs will be higher, but they won't have to share the ad revenue.

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

Yeah, I agree totally. I mean, all they do is review stuff. Anyone can do that! Like a movie reviewer... no way are those guys journalists. Any idiot can watch a movie, and you don't see those guys getting pulitzer prizes, right?

By the way, I'm curious. What precise licensing do you think it would take to be a journalist? Who should license them? What schooling? Clearly a college dropout would not pass muster, right? No one ever gonna give a Nobel Prize to some dropout nursemaid. What degree must they have, in your mind? Something vague and fake like "public affairs" or "speech"? What is that even, right? Nah. What about a bachelor's degree in history or English? Hah, history? Any substitute teacher needs that. What about experience as a debt collector? Hah, how crazy would that be?

So, wondering what would be appropriate.

Ouze wrote:

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

Yeah, I agree totally. I mean, all they do is review stuff. Anyone can do that! Like a movie reviewer... no way are those guys journalists. Any idiot can watch a movie, and you don't see those guys getting pulitzer prizes, right?

By the way, I'm curious. What precise licensing do you think it would take to be a journalist? Who should license them? What schooling? Clearly a college dropout would not pass muster, right? No one ever gonna give a Nobel Prize to some dropout nursemaid. What degree must they have, in your mind? Something vague and fake like "public affairs" or "speech"? What is that even, right? Nah. What about a bachelor's degree in history or English? Hah, history? Any substitute teacher needs that. What about experience as a debt collector? Hah, how crazy would that be?

So, wondering what would be appropriate.

Ouze wrote:

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

Yeah, I agree totally. I mean, all they do is review stuff. Anyone can do that! Like a movie reviewer... no way are those guys journalists. Any idiot can watch a movie, and you don't see those guys getting pulitzer prizes, right?

By the way, I'm curious. What precise licensing do you think it would take to be a journalist? Who should license them? What schooling? Clearly a college dropout would not pass muster, right? No one ever gonna give a Nobel Prize to some dropout nursemaid. What degree must they have, in your mind? Something vague and fake like "public affairs" or "speech"? What is that even, right? Nah. What about a bachelor's degree in history or English? Hah, history? Any substitute teacher needs that. What about experience as a debt collector? Hah, how crazy would that be?

So, wondering what would be appropriate.

Despite the suspected high % of smartpantsery it looks like you did a good amount of spending time & looking stuff up on this reply, so it must be very important to you (and I'm bored at work, so here we go)

...

A list of people who have done extraordinary work to earn special accreditation... cool?

Needless to say, for every each one of these exceptional cases there are 1000.000 unworthy bums with a website and/or a video camera.

If anyone who watches and reviews movies can be called a journalist, then in principle any random bum = Roger Ebert. I'm sure that is not what you want to state here. Now, can any random bum possibly ever become a Roger Ebert? Certainly. Nobody claims otherwise.

A college dropout can be an excellent movie reviewer, but in general and until further notice he should still be called a movie reviewer and not a journalist. Walter Cronkite probably doesn't agree that Bubba Joe @ BoW should be viewed as a legit colleague, and I'm sure there are random people out there who never went to law school who know more about the law than the average lawyer, but they still don't have the right to call themselves lawyer.
If legislation attaches special treatment to a certain name tag, then there damn better be a proper distinction of that specific name tag and who gets to wear it. That has been the whole point throughout. I don't see how that is so hard to understand and/or (apparently) upsetting to some.

As far as qualifications go, other fields of profession have certain requirements. Just add similar ones to journalism. Figure it out. Normally there would be nothing wrong with, among others of course, a bachelor's degree in English or History as a starting requirement, at least not down here. I can't comment on the specifics and quality of the US educational system and how these particular degrees compare to their supposed equivalents elsewhere (you seem to not think very highly of them & substitute teachers though?).

In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with granting honorific titles to people who have done extraordinary work to deserve such special consideration.

It would be very nice if I could review some movies of boxes of plastic sprues on Youtube and put "journalist" on my resume. However when you put some more thought into it that is not very realistic now is it? Most potential employers would raise an eyebrow at that at a minimum. Some will definitely laught in your face.

I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

Anyway, this post has become way too long already. Again, what I have been saying is that not every random hobo with a website and a videocamera should be called a journalist, because if everyone is then nobody truly is, and the word would be meaningless (which it unfortunately seems it has become a long time ago already). If that opinion offends anyone then that is too bad, but I honestly don't give a rat's arse




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw for some reason your new avatar gave me the idea to dig out some of my old G.I. Joe vehicles and look at possible ways to convert them into Ork battlewagons.

Like this one for example:

That particular vehicle looks practically ready to go...

Balance wrote:That particular vehicle looks practically ready to go...

Yeah, just trash it a bit more.

As for people refering to BOW folks as bums with a camera its kind of surprising... I mean have you guys really followed the vids and reports? have you guys seen the Steve Jackson ( if you dont know who he is you dont deserve to be in wargamming ) interview at salute carried by BOW? If thats not journalims and GOOD one I dont know what is...
Something tells me you guys watched one unboxing vid and drawed some generic conclusions based on personall intuition rather than the facts.

Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

Ah, that's not really fair, is it?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to BoW's triumphant return...

Just go on their website

Knowing what I know about video production, they do a great job and have a pretty professional quality .. compare them to most internoobs on youtube and you can see the difference. They're reviews and interviews are done well, but I think the unboxing videos aren't really needed. I mean, it's a guy opening a box with sprues in it.. why? I'd rather just see high res good quality photos of the sprues alone.

Glad they got a new host for their videos though. YouTube is great because it's so common, but all the other video providers are just as good IMO.

$10 says that after all the GW bashing, it's something to do with some kind of marketing technicality where Youtube wasn't getting it's money.

I enjoy their videos. Their "news" is generally a few days older than what I see here, but I really like the in-depth un-boxings they do.

Even for miniature games I don't play. Their un-boxing of Mantic's zombees convinced me to go out and buy a box of 30. I'll use them for D&D.

Their "tips and tricks" and "beardy tactics" are interesting, although I don't always agree with a certain BoW's rules interpretations. Good for a laugh, at any rate.

You can't deny that their camera work is better than half of the crap that is out on the interwebs, though. Good quality, there. I hope they are back, soon.

Alpharius wrote:

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

Ah, that's not really fair, is it?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to BoW's triumphant return...

How is that not fair? Their manner of speech (particularly the pace) irritates me and I don't want to listen to it... so I don't. I'm not hating on the guys, I just don't like them. Where is the lack of fairness in that?

Same thing with the PP-themed Guts & Gears podcast. They usually have tons of content and interview developers all the time, but I struggle to get through it because the host is some Aussie that speaks so slowly and swallows so many vowels, I suspect he has a concussion.

It's not fair because instead of saying you find the Irish accent hard to understand due to your upbringing in the US -- which is perfectly understandable -- you say you find them annoying because they have marbles in their mouths.

They don't have marbles in their mouths. They are not difficult to understand for people who are familiar with a wider range of accents.

I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Formal education or attention to language will often mean you have a better technical understanding, this does not make regional variations and dialects "wrong", though you are of course free to dislike listening to it. Pretty much the same as the posters who said they liked it because of the accent, in my view.

TBD wrote:

Ouze wrote:

TBD wrote:But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

Yeah, I agree totally. I mean, all they do is review stuff. Anyone can do that! Like a movie reviewer... no way are those guys journalists. Any idiot can watch a movie, and you don't see those guys getting pulitzer prizes, right?

By the way, I'm curious. What precise licensing do you think it would take to be a journalist? Who should license them? What schooling? Clearly a college dropout would not pass muster, right? No one ever gonna give a Nobel Prize to some dropout nursemaid. What degree must they have, in your mind? Something vague and fake like "public affairs" or "speech"? What is that even, right? Nah. What about a bachelor's degree in history or English? Hah, history? Any substitute teacher needs that. What about experience as a debt collector? Hah, how crazy would that be?

So, wondering what would be appropriate.

Despite the suspected high % of smartpantsery it looks like you did a good amount of spending time & looking stuff up on this reply, so it must be very important to you (and I'm bored at work, so here we go)

...

A list of people who have done extraordinary work to earn special accreditation... cool?

Needless to say, for every each one of these exceptional cases there are 1000.000 unworthy bums with a website and/or a video camera.

"unworthy bums"? So, in addition to offering commentary on the fair use laws (without any demonstrated familiarity with them) you're the merit police, are you?

TBD wrote:If anyone who watches and reviews movies can be called a journalist, then in principle any random bum = Roger Ebert. I'm sure that is not what you want to state here. Now, can any random bum possibly ever become a Roger Ebert? Certainly. Nobody claims otherwise.

Can they become Roger Ebert? Like, invasion of the body snatchers style? Of course not. Can anyone become a movie reviewer? Yes, of course. Claiming otherwise is preposterous.

TBD wrote:A college dropout can be an excellent movie reviewer, but in general and until further notice he should still be called a movie reviewer and not a journalist. Walter Cronkite probably doesn't agree that Bubba Joe @ BoW should be viewed as a legit colleague, and I'm sure there are random people out there who never went to law school who know more about the law than the average lawyer, but they still don't have the right to call themselves lawyer.
If legislation attaches special treatment to a certain name tag, then there damn better be a proper distinction of that specific name tag and who gets to wear it. That has been the whole point throughout. I don't see how that is so hard to understand and/or (apparently) upsetting to some.

Your points would go over much better if you understood what you are talking about: a movie reviewer is, for all considerations of fair use law, a journalist as we are using the term here.

TBD wrote:As far as qualifications go, other fields of profession have certain requirements. Just add similar ones to journalism. Figure it out. Normally there would be nothing wrong with, among others of course, a bachelor's degree in English or History as a starting requirement, at least not down here. I can't comment on the specifics and quality of the US educational system and how these particular degrees compare to their supposed equivalents elsewhere (you seem to not think very highly of them & substitute teachers though?).

Yeah... you realize you've now ventured straight into fantasy land, right? That is, you're not saying that a relevent standard has been breached, but that the one that you wish existed applied to this real life situation.

TBD wrote:In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with granting honorific titles to people who have done extraordinary work to deserve such special consideration.

It would be very nice if I could review some movies of boxes of plastic sprues on Youtube and put "journalist" on my resume. However when you put some more thought into it that is not very realistic now is it? Most potential employers would raise an eyebrow at that at a minimum. Some will definitely laught in your face.

Well, with iron-clad reasoning like that...

Let me put it this way: you keep using the word journalist as if it were freighted with meaning, and it simply isn't. Let's be concrete here: is the defense of fair use for purpose of criticism, commentary or news reporting available for the material produced by Beasts of War? All signs point to "yes".

Is there an accreditation requirement for the fair use defense to copyright infringement? Nope.

As for putting it on your resume.. I dunno, if you're applying for a position as a reviewer of, say, stereo systems or cars or whatnot, I would imagine that the existence of reviews you did previously (which demonstrate your on camera presence and analytical capacity) could hardly be a negative. If you're applying for a position as a foreign war correspondent... well, let's just say, if the bar is Geraldo Rivera, the bar ain't all that high.

TBD wrote:I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

And yet if you put a review on the web of a movie you saw, you've acted in a journalistic capacity. Do it enough and you're, gasp! a journalist.

Beasts of war is a business engaged in disseminating news, reviews and commentary; they even have corporate sponsors. What, exactly, is the difference between BoW and, say, Motorweek? Or MaximumPC? Or Cook's Illustrated? Note, this is a rhetorical question, there is no legal difference in terms of rights and privileges between these entities.

TBD wrote:Anyway, this post has become way too long already. Again, what I have been saying is that not every random hobo with a website and a videocamera should be called a journalist, because if everyone is then nobody truly is, and the word would be meaningless (which it unfortunately seems it has become a long time ago already). If that opinion offends anyone then that is too bad, but I honestly don't give a rat's arse

Well, I suppose you can rest assured that at least you held firm in this round of the fight against free expression. Or something.

withershadow wrote:I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Even if you were born on the Moon, it's pointless to say you don't like someone's accent, it's rude to say they have a mouth full of marbles, and it's unfair because they are only speaking their natural accent.

So now it's unfair for me to not like something and therefore not want to listen to it? Am I to be put in stocks and forced to watch it whether I like it or not?

Don't stick him in with the rest of America. I've never had a problem with an accent. It's really easy if you pay attention to the conversation.

Surtur wrote:Don't stick him in with the rest of America. I've never had a problem with an accent. It's really easy if you pay attention to the conversation.

Hurray for selective reading.

Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

Kilkrazy wrote:

withershadow wrote:I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. English is my third language, yet I speak it better than most Americans (and Brits too, for that matter).

Their accents and way of speaking annoys me. There is no lack of comprehension. I can understand l33t-speak, it doesn't mean I like it. I can understand the [edited by Moderator] on Jerry Springer (or whoever the daytime talkshow hosts are these days), it doesn't mean I want to listen to them. I know what is meant when someone says "irregardless", it doesn't mean I don't want to murder them with a shovel.

edited for less and

Even if you were born on the Moon, it's pointless to say you don't like someone's accent, it's rude to say they have a mouth full of marbles, and it's unfair because they are only speaking their natural accent.

QFT.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not fair because instead of saying you find the Irish accent hard to understand due to your upbringing in the US -- which is perfectly understandable -- you say you find them annoying because they have marbles in their mouths.

They don't have marbles in their mouths. They are not difficult to understand for people who are familiar with a wider range of accents.

+1 And the Irish sense of humour is good too

Maybe someone needs their ears checked? I've been brought up in the USA and have no trouble understanding them, and not one of them sounds like they have "marbles in their mouth".

withershadow wrote:So now it's unfair for me to not like something and therefore not want to listen to it? Am I to be put in stocks and forced to watch it whether I like it or not?

Where ever it was that you learned to speak engrish (jk) you need to see if they run anger management courses as well......

No one is trying to dictate what you like or don't like, they're just politely suggesting you DON'T be an ass while talking about it.

I watched the video where they had to record it live on Justin.tv or something and what annoyed me the most is the guy on the left wouldn't shutup. He would go on and on and then look at the guy to his right, who would basically say "Yep" and then the guy on the left would go on again.

If the show was just that guy then that is ok, but the should try to get a 2nd co-host who can hold his own weight

I know.
Poor John in the camo suit couldn't get a word in edgewise!

Then ... erm ... there is ... erm ... another problem ... erm
But I guess the quality of BoW videos is not the topic here.

I'm biting back a few of the comments that I really want to say, but to address that toolish comment that these guys arn't journalists...

As an independent podcast, D6 Generation, BOW, and any number of sites that want to put together a commentary and discuss a subject while having a good discussion on the subject qualify as news.

The need is being filled by a couple of gamers that are discussing what they know. Are they out there spouting the party line from f!@#'s news? No. They are discussing and presenting pov's and discussion. ALBET, sometimes they go off the deep end, ( Orgy's,,, ) but to be honest, Journalism as YOU want it has been dead since the beginning of the radio.
News services are diametricly biased to the point of view of thier advertisers, backing, and political puppetstrings they are being directed by.

These guys are gamers, they know what they are talking about, and they have something to say. You want to do something better? You are welcome to.

Thats one of the things about the internet, and why some people have such an issue on it.

You don't like it, your welcome to the party line and read WD for your lickies and chewies, but I don't see GW discussions going any farther then "Oh, you have GOT to get one of these! It's the bee's knees! Paint it up with GW paints, and glue it with GW patented paste! "

What is it about them that isn't journalistic? They need to go to Harvard or something? WTF?

The show is rough, the guys have thier moments, but on the whole at the grass roots level, They are doing a fine job at discussing thier subject, have done it in a unbiased, (To a point)
and are giving you information.

I saw that show and find it fine.

Withershadow, you just need to not post what your thinking... It wasn't what you said, it was how you came across with how you said it. Honestly, you just need to hold what you have and let the subject go, because you come across like your being a tool and looking down on people just becauuse they have a accent.

Its fine if you don't like it, that wasn't the thing. It was calling them on something they really don't have a choice on. It's ok to not say why you don't like it, or even not even comment on reason at all, but to go out and call someone on all things an accent...

Bad form, bro. Bad form indeeed.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

I'm sorry you don't value proper diction. I added the comment about the marbles, because to me some of them sound like they have marbles in their mouth. Just because I think Hanna Montana sounds like a harpy being castrated, doesn't mean she's actually a winged mythological being or has anything to castrate in the first place. It's called a simile, with perhaps a touch of hyperbole for comedic effect. I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor either.

I understand them fine, I just don't care to take the time because they annoy me. And it's not even all of them, but just a couple of the commentators are enough to turn me off the show. Likewise there are podcasts I don't listen to because they will have one guy I find grating, or some mouth-breather that sounds like he's about to die of emphysema. All that is my personal choice, I'm not getting paid to listen/watch fan shows. I'm sure they wouldn't really care either that some random donkey-cave thousands of miles away doesn't like how they sound, so you can bring them down from the cross now.

But fine, if it makes you all feel better, omit the portion about marbles. Or you can continue raging about it, getting that blood pressure nice and high. I make my money off of bad tickers, so I thank you for your future business. I agree with Grot 6 that the best thing to do is just bow out of this. For the sake of those that do enjoy Beasts of War, I hope they come back soon.

withershadow wrote:Tried to watch the video, couldn't get into them. The accents annoyed me... get those marbles out your mouth!

'Out of your mouth!'...

I can't understand what you're typing, type in English you colonial scum.

I am sorry for you that you feel the need to defend yourself on this, when an apology would be far better than continually digging a hole.
Maybe you don't understand the expression of talking with something in one's mouth. It is usally applied in a mocking and derisory manner.

I value the diverse range of accents and cultures we are fortunate to have in the British Isles.

As for not having a sense of humour, I will let fellow Dakkanauts be a judge of that.

btw Harpies are female, so it would be difficult to castrate them.

Surtur wrote:Don't stick him in with the rest of America. I've never had a problem with an accent. It's really easy if you pay attention to the conversation.

QFT. I work overnight in the US at a helpdesk supporting, in order as the world spins and my night goes, Australia, the UK, South Africa, and then other employees from all over the place (US based but not US born) - so I spend about 7 of my 10 hours a night listening to various accents. Occaisionally, I'll get an Irish one, and those are far and away my favorite, though I also do love Australia.


So, uh, on an unrelated topic...

DID WE EVER FIND OUT WHY THE VIDEOS WERE TAKEN DOWN?

There has been no announcement as yet from BoW

withershadow wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

I'm sorry you don't value proper diction. I added the comment about the marbles, because to me some of them sound like they have marbles in their mouth. Just because I think Hanna Montana sounds like a harpy being castrated, doesn't mean she's actually a winged mythological being or has anything to castrate in the first place. It's called a simile, with perhaps a touch of hyperbole for comedic effect. I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor either.

I understand them fine, I just don't care to take the time because they annoy me. And it's not even all of them, but just a couple of the commentators are enough to turn me off the show. Likewise there are podcasts I don't listen to because they will have one guy I find grating, or some mouth-breather that sounds like he's about to die of emphysema. All that is my personal choice, I'm not getting paid to listen/watch fan shows. I'm sure they wouldn't really care either that some random donkey-cave thousands of miles away doesn't like how they sound, so you can bring them down from the cross now.

But fine, if it makes you all feel better, omit the portion about marbles. Or you can continue raging about it, getting that blood pressure nice and high. I make my money off of bad tickers, so I thank you for your future business. I agree with Grot 6 that the best thing to do is just bow out of this. For the sake of those that do enjoy Beasts of War, I hope they come back soon.

The hatchet is buried..but we will always know where it is buried.

Sort of off topic, but does anyone know what happened to John? Did they have a fight or something? They've never offered an explanation as to why he's gone (or at least I have not seen one.)

EDIT: And as far as I know, the Wood Elves have not received any news either about BoW. : P

John is at Uni but was good to see him on the chat.
Also has been restoring a WWII tank!

Wuyley wrote:I watched the video where they had to record it live on Justin.tv or something and what annoyed me the most is the guy on the left wouldn't shutup. He would go on and on and then look at the guy to his right, who would basically say "Yep" and then the guy on the left would go on again.

If the show was just that guy then that is ok, but the should try to get a 2nd co-host who can hold his own weight

The guy on the left is like Jay. The guy on the right is like Silent Bob.

The game in the background was distracting at first, then I remembered that it was a webcast about gaming and I started laughing. What else would you have people in the background doing?

John is at Uni but was good to see him on the chat.
Also has been restoring a WWII tank!

Oh. Well that's good I guess!

TBD wrote:
I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

If you can drive a race car, then you're anrace car driver. If you can cook, then youre a chef. It just doesnt mean your a successful ormeven nessisarily good one. You bring up big names and seem to equate official journalists as being successful journalists.

We get an update on this? I need more of Darrel's cheese!

Still no news posted as yet.
It is taking rather longer than expected.

This is curious indeed, isn't it?

I can't imagine why they wouldn't post something by now!

I wonder if YouTube got handed a complaint / takedown notice from a company that didn't like how BoW was making money from their IP or similar.

I'm also very curious about them not saying anything about finecast since the initial announcement. I thought after the O & G week and all the Grey Knight stuff they were well in with GW but they haven't been pulling their punches since the price hike. While I think a strong independent voice is good for the community I wonder if someone had enough and put the boot in on YouTube because it's common knowledge that YouTube will pull down anything that violates copyright if the rights owner gives the word.

Having said all that I dont know how review shows work, wether companies supply their product free to be reviewed (it seemed they got some O & G stuff early) or do they go out and buy the stuff and then talk about it?

(edit: I didn't know that this theory had already done the rounds. I just pulled it out of my head earlier this evening. Like other fans of the BoW site, I hope to find out more this week.)

I think this 'GW DID IT' business is somewhat unfair, the videos could have been taken down for any number of reasons. But I suppose we shall see.

edit: removed erroneousness speculation

the post below showed me I was wrong. Thanks for the info Lord Solaar.

From http://www.beastsofwar.com/groups/warhammer-40000/forum/topic/what-happened-to-the-bow-youtube-site/?topic_page=3&num=15

Warren – BOW Team397p said 2 days, 11 hours ago:
@mercedes308 said:
@warren Have you been told why they pulled your videos yet ?.

We have been assured on what didn’t cause it, but getting details on the actual cause (in detail) is proving to be quite a process (much to our surprise and that of our contacts in youtube – as all of this is quite unprecedented apparently).

We’ll probably dedicate a portion of Turn 8 to This Next Week

Also:

@raciid To once and for all put this nonsense about ads to bed have a read over this…

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=154235

This in conjunction with the approvals we had should hopefully be enough to put this advertising thing to rest.

Is Turn 8 on Tuesday or Thursday? I forget.

Goddard wrote:Is Turn 8 on Tuesday or Thursday? I forget.

Thursdays.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I am sorry for you that you feel the need to defend yourself on this, when an apology would be far better than continually digging a hole.
Maybe you don't understand the expression of talking with something in one's mouth. It is usally applied in a mocking and derisory manner.

I value the diverse range of accents and cultures we are fortunate to have in the British Isles.

As for not having a sense of humour, I will let fellow Dakkanauts be a judge of that.

btw Harpies are female, so it would be difficult to castrate them.

withershadow wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Hmmm
.
If you had simply said that the accent was annoying to you personally, then fair enough. So why add the comment about the marbles?

The accent will have been the result of their cultural background and intrinsic to the way they speak. They have no need to apologise for not having received pronounciation. There are no marbles to remove.

I'm sorry you don't value proper diction. I added the comment about the marbles, because to me some of them sound like they have marbles in their mouth. Just because I think Hanna Montana sounds like a harpy being castrated, doesn't mean she's actually a winged mythological being or has anything to castrate in the first place. It's called a simile, with perhaps a touch of hyperbole for comedic effect. I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humor either.

I understand them fine, I just don't care to take the time because they annoy me. And it's not even all of them, but just a couple of the commentators are enough to turn me off the show. Likewise there are podcasts I don't listen to because they will have one guy I find grating, or some mouth-breather that sounds like he's about to die of emphysema. All that is my personal choice, I'm not getting paid to listen/watch fan shows. I'm sure they wouldn't really care either that some random donkey-cave thousands of miles away doesn't like how they sound, so you can bring them down from the cross now.

But fine, if it makes you all feel better, omit the portion about marbles. Or you can continue raging about it, getting that blood pressure nice and high. I make my money off of bad tickers, so I thank you for your future business. I agree with Grot 6 that the best thing to do is just bow out of this. For the sake of those that do enjoy Beasts of War, I hope they come back soon.

You guys arguing sounds ridiculous! You were both apologizing for there ways, (I.E, Im sorry you dont have a sense of humor, or Im sorry you feel the need to defend yourself), anyway this place is a place for sharing news, not insulting others. This post was not suposed to offend you, and my regrets if it did.

Calling someone ridiculous is hardly any better now is it?
And why drag this back up after it had settled
and go back off topic?

Sounds like you are stirring the ashes with your poker to reignite the flames.

It does sound a bit like that...

Please keep on topic here - news of what happened to BoW and, hopefully, their return to YouTube.

There is a rumour that the CIA took them to Guantanamo Bay.

I could post my source, but he would probably get assassinated, so I won't

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Calling someone ridiculous is hardly any better now is it?
And why drag this back up after it had settled
and go back off topic?

Sounds like you are stirring the ashes with your poker to reignite the flames.

Im saying what your doing is ridiculous, the arguing bit. And I didnt realise that it was so far back, sorry my bad .

Very sorry if it's been mentioned sometime back in the thread or if the discussion has moved on, but maybe it's because BoW read out many point values down to the minute details including upgrades etc. That would no doubt piss off GW and bring on this kind of thing.

Must admit that I have wondered when they mention the points value.
Don't see as it does a lot of harm as I would rather fork out for a codex than trawl through every video hoping for a tid bit of info.

Well I guess you Brits can find out tomorrow, as the time difference prevents me from watching Turn 8

Oppl wrote:Very sorry if it's been mentioned sometime back in the thread or if the discussion has moved on, but maybe it's because BoW read out many point values down to the minute details including upgrades etc. That would no doubt piss off GW and bring on this kind of thing.

I don't think anyone had mentioned that.

It would be all right to mention a certain amount of detail if necessary to describe a unit for purposes of criticism and review. You couldn't get away with reading out the entire codex.

Everyone knows of course that codexes can be found on torrent sites in PDF format, so it would be ridiculous to read one out as a video.

I am still waiting for the truth of the whole story to emerge, if it ever will.

if you think about how popular BoW was, they maybe got hacked by a less popular war-gaming channel?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goddard wrote:Sort of off topic, but does anyone know what happened to John? Did they have a fight or something? They've never offered an explanation as to why he's gone (or at least I have not seen one.)

EDIT: And as far as I know, the Wood Elves have not received any news either about BoW. : P

john went off to university, somthing like that

Kilkrazy wrote:
I am still waiting for the truth of the whole story to emerge, if it ever will.

Yeah at this point things dont look that transparent. To bad, I was hoping for a fast recovery but its just not going to happen I guess.

This is sad!

I'd hate for BoW to wither away, or fade into the shadows...

http://www.beastsofwar.com/turn-8/turn-8-tonight/

We’ll also have news about YouTube, so you can speculate if you like… you’ll get your answers tonight…

They also say that Ronnie Renton (Mantic) and Alessio Calvatore will be making guest appearances.

I think I'll watch this one.

Alpharius wrote:This is sad!

I'd hate for BoW to wither away, or fade into the shadows...

I just wanted to take a second and point out that they have still been posting new content on their site, it's just hosted on a different video provider at the moment.

That said, their extensive backlog of stuff is still inaccessible, so I do hope that either they are able to determine what is going on with YouTube, or are able to repost the old material on their new provider.

I guess I should have been a bit more clear - I was worried that the lack of major exposure via YouTube would cause them to wither or fade into the shadows, but I suppose they could find a new way back into the hearts and minds of gamers!

Mantics have sent out a newsletter linking to BoW for tonight's big reveal
Should help a bit to get people's attention

I hope that BoW has a big enough following and their presence will see them through.

Tell the rest of us what happend!

There is a" Back stage Pass" now available for a subscription.

Wondering if they will go back to Youtube now.

I don't understand why they are steadfastly refusing to tell anybody about what happened.

This page is 7 threads long---and everyone is anticipating tonight's show. I think that's probably your answer .

The whole site seems to have gone down at the moment

Yeah, I can't seem to get on to their site either....me thinks these guys need to sort themselves out or give it up

Shame about tonight's show. It seems to be the season for hyping yourself up and getting egg on your face.

Site got overloaded I think

Watch on Justin TV
http://www.justin.tv/beastsofwar
which looks like is still fine touch rabbit's foot

So it will carry on regardless

On the "Firing up" video, they mention that their entire datacenter has been fried by the overload...

The mighty power of the beast!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Site got overloaded I think

Watch on Justin TV
http://www.justin.tv/beastsofwar
which looks like is still fine touch rabbit's foot

So it will carry on regardless

Thanks for the link.

Hmm, well, Allessio Cavatore and Ronny Renton have shown up. Dunno who Ronny is...

It's started...

Buzzsaw wrote:Hmm, well, Allessio Cavatore and Ronny Renton have shown up. Dunno who Ronny is...

He's the guy behind Mantic Games.

I fully expect this to be mantic's big sci-fi game announcement (with accompanying bow backstage pass beta).
Hopefully we get the full scoop on the youtube issue as well.

Subscribed!

Haha! They just mentioned us on Turn 8, and the head speaker revealed his certification of Journalism.

Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Edit: it's a reference to the exchange that started with this.

Edit 2: Oh, thank goodness... they will be re-uploading all the stuff that was taken down off youtube. I can sleep easier now (not even kidding, they had some great vids).

I believe Ronnie is the main guy behind Mantic, Buzzsaw.

OK so they say they either got banned for suspicious activity or a bot detected something suspicious and banned them automatically.

And here's the link to the new channel:

http://www.youtube.com/TheBeastsofWar

I was interested when he hinted at a legal letter.

I don't have the nerve to watch this mix of Wayne's World and Blair Witch Project, with the moderator drinking beer to prepare for the great show. Someone please sum up the facts, thanks.

Kroothawk wrote:I don't have the nerve to watch this mix of Wayne's World and Blair Witch Project, with the moderator drinking beer to prepare for the great show. Someone please sum up the facts, thanks.

Mantic Games big announcement... Warpath

New Sci-fi game to be released in October.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
28mm with vehicles, units, big battles, round bases...

Sounds like a direct challenge to 40K. Hopefully they will make viable alternative models as they are much cheaper than GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Great show! Lots of news to digest. Glad to see them still going strong, to bad for the youtube thing.

Yes and 8 races as well

warren hinted at a letter, been the reason the vids were removed

Great fun

New races coming out for KoW
New DKH game with orcs and Elves
and some stuff about fishmen in spaaaaace

Sounds like Youtube are being a bunch of bottomholes.
Also glad they won't lose the back catalogue of videos.

loki old fart wrote:Yes and 8 races to as well

warren hinted at a letter, been the reason the vids were removed

I'm not sure that's how I would classify it... my impression was that it could be one of a few things, and apparently YouTube sees no need to expend any energy in figuring it out. It either was an automated shut-down, or it could have been a letter, or some other things, but what's most interesting to me is the fact that YouTube has a policy to not inquire as to the legitimacy of a letter, if they get a letter from a lawyer, they just close the account.

Even if, as the lads point out, they are entirely entitled to the material.

Before anyone goes claiming censorship, remember that YouTube pays for that bandwidth; they have no more obligation to publish legitimate material then DakkaDakka does.

Buzzsaw wrote:

loki old fart wrote:Yes and 8 races to as well

warren hinted at a letter, been the reason the vids were removed

I'm not sure that's how I would classify it... my impression was that it could be one of a few things, and apparently YouTube sees no need to expend any energy in figuring it out. It either was an automated shut-down, or it could have been a letter, or some other things, but what's most interesting to me is the fact that YouTube has a policy to not inquire as to the legitimacy of a letter, if they get a letter from a lawyer, they just close the account.

Even if, as the lads point out, they are entirely entitled to the material.

Before anyone goes claiming censorship, remember that YouTube pays for that bandwidth; they have no more obligation to publish legitimate material then DakkaDakka does.

It does not matter who pays, if you claim to be free and open (like all Google products claim to be), then censorship is censorship, do they have the right to do it? that is a different issue, but it is still censorship.

You know all the past weeks talks about finecast, BOWyoutube etc all a bit to depressing IMO but the last vid with news for a new scifi game news about some new gobbos and a new dungeon crawler etc it was really refreshing to see what news about wargamming should all be about... fun times

xxvaderxx wrote:It does not matter who pays, if you claim to be free and open (like all Google products claim to be), then censorship is censorship, do they have the right to do it? that is a different issue, but it is still censorship.

I think it's less a case of censorship (as that implies a conscious decision to block/remove something) and more a case of Youtube just being very reactive and knee-jerk-y. They remove anything at the slightest hint that a hat might drop sometime in the future, without any real thought to what they're removing. That's what happend with the Channel Awesome stuff, and if someone was to complain about copyright violations on, say, justsomerandomguy's Marvel/DC parodies tomorrow you can bet good money that Youtube would take it all down without ever investigating it.

Maybe they should talk to Chapterhouse - I hear they found good representation...

They mentioned us, haha, that's awesome.

That makes us celebrities, right?

I defended their right to be called Journalists. Glad they noticed. lol

I am so ridiculously pumped Mantic is directly challenging GW and 40k. This can only be good for the hobby.

Now Mantic just needs to upgrade their website..

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

So who gets to regulate who is or is not a journalist?

To me, it's clear that this is a journalistic endeavour, albeit a small-scale one.

Also, I find their rebuttal of your position in their video most entertaining, even if you don't

Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.
This automatically gives Youtube the right to shut them dowm with no prior warning.

Don't know TBD
For starters the BoW presenters' T-shirts look clean to me.
Can't speak for your Grandmother. Sounds like she is being neglected.

Opinion as to the quality or otherwise of the videos is subjective as you rightly imply. But you really lost the plot.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

OK, please stop!

Slinky wrote:So who gets to regulate who is or is not a journalist?

To me, it's clear that this is a journalistic endeavour, albeit a small-scale one.

Also, I find their rebuttal of your position in their video most entertaining, even if you don't

Quite

What do they do?

Bring news of latest releases and events
Review gaming products and services

This looks suspiciously like providing information which is what journalism is supposed to do afaik

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.

That is not what it says at all now is it?

Also this whole discussion isn't particularly about BoW or the enjoyability of their videos, as I've already clearly said before. It's the whole current legal situation that is whack.

So how does that work with the amateur video footage that gets used by the mainstream media? If Joe Blogs films something that would be classed as intrusion, due to not being a journo, how does it then become legit when used in mainstream news?

Unless I'm missing something here?!

So, just to be sure, the lot of you would consider this guy a journalist too:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbGfENA-jHc

TBD wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Let me get this right, the BoW guys have no right to call themselves journos because they have unwashed T-shirts.

That is not what it says at all now is it?

Also this whole discussion isn't particularly about BoW or the enjoyability of their videos, as I've already clearly said before. It's the whole current legal situation that is whack.

The legal situation is quite clear.

Anyone who wants to and has the technical capability can publish comment, opinion, criticism and/or review of products.

Modern publishing is so easy that anyone can do it via blogs, You Tube and so on.

The "Fair Dealing" provisions in modern copyright law allow people to do this with other people's products.

There is no legal requirement to be a journalist to get on the Internet, or to publish a newspaper, or to use "Fair Dealing" in the preparation of reviews.

There are various legal statutes that publishers and broadcasters have to follow. For example, a publisher of a magazine on paper in the UK must file two copies of every issue with the British Library. You may not make radio or TV broadcasts in the UK on particular frequencies without a licence. This isn't to do with journalism, it is to do with preventing interference of the spectrum.

If all the above enable some bunch of Irish guys to ruin GW from their secret garage lair, then GW are fethed, because that is the way it is.

All the above also allows some bunch of other Irish guys to power GW's shares to the moon, if they can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You Tube are in a difficult legal situation since it is not clear if they are a common carrier or a broadcaster. They have come down on the side of being a broadcaster, and they 'curate' their site and remove videos that infringe IP.

They invite public participation and make money from the advertising gained by the visitors attracted by the content provided by the public. This gives them an ethical obligation to properly examine claims of IP Infringement.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!

Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

The certificate is 100% legit man and good sport of them to report that, a good piece of journalism with humour right there To funny.

Anyone who wants to and has the technical capability can publish comment, opinion, criticism and/or review of products.

The "Fair Dealing" provisions in modern copyright law allow people to do this with other people's products.

There is no legal requirement to be a journalist to get on the Internet, or to publish a newspaper, or to use "Fair Dealing" in the preparation of reviews.

Yes, it's clear that the legal situation is clear.

However that doesn't mean this clear situation can't be considered whacky, aka wrong/inadequate/outdated/flawed/lacking/etc, and that it shouldn't be changed, which I am sure it will at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet. In the meantime the double standard on/in(?) ethics* can continue because people can justify it by pointing to said whacky law and use that as a way to comfort themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong.

Hence the chaos that is Youtube. The impression I have right now is that Youtube can get into trouble for allowing certain infringements, and therefor remove stuff to prevent trouble, but can't be held accountable if people want to force them to put their removed video back online when they disagree about the validity of the removal. They simply impose their own rules in an unclear situation, to which I say "good for them !".

Interesting discussion nevertheless, Imo.



(* note that these aren't necessarily my standards/ethics)

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!



Really, you and whatever his name is in the video both never did get the actual point. It's rather tiring to have to repeat myself just because some others have reading comprehension issues and go on and on arguing additional technical trivialities that weren't even a problem in the first place.

"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

But here is the catch: anybody with a camera and Youtube gets to be a journalist. Party time!

Do you honestly still not see what is wrong with that situation?

There was no argument about whether or not specific parts of the law apply, but about the quality of that law and whether or not it should apply and which exact name should apply to which puppet.
If you make an exception, but everybody gets to be that exception whenever they choose, then why even bother having this legislation in the first place. It doesn't apply to anybody anyway. Needless to say this is a lacking, flawed and outdated steaming pile of nonsense (somebody else also explained this earlier on).

Any legislation related to this should be adjusted accordingly. So that is why I said to limit the official use of the term "journalistic endeavour" or "journalist" to people with actual acceptable credentials, whatever those would then be determined to be.

And yes, that is an opinion as it has been all the way through.

Something else that is funny: on one hand I've seen many on here getting all riled up because it's soo dishonest to take a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, but on the other hand they are perfectly fine with any random Cheetofingers taking a camera to show & spoil some company's yet unreleased hard work of many months.
Because the letter of the law says that should be their opinion, and nobody wants to be a bad boy/girl? I don't know, but this sure appears to be a case of some very fine sheeple right there!

Anywayz, right now my grandmother can sit in a chair wearing an unwashed t-shirt, drinking beer wit a couple of buddies and ramble about miniatures & whatever. Put it on the internet and she becomes a journalist! Even though that would be so incredibly cool it would obviously also be a bity of a joke really.

But at least she would make backups of all her broadcasts, because you know, that is what any professional journalists would do

Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

TBD wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

The question has to be asked of armchair critics like yourself, who can find nothing constructive to say about a group of people who invest their own time and money to bring us entertaining news and features about our hobby....what have YOU done to bring the community anything near what these guys bring us?.....I'll be honest, and I really don't want to clash with rule number one, but your prattling on about qualifications and the such like, makes me sick.....who the hell are you to judge anyway? If you don't like what they do, then don't watch.....but why do you feel the need to dregde up these weak ass justifications aimed purely at persuading others to agree with your assessment of the show or it's legal standing? Why?

I don't have many Dakkites on Ignore, but you sir are probably more deserving of that status than most.

Too oppressive a definition of "Journalist" limits the freedom of information to move. If only the "official recognise journo" gets to say anything, we run the risk of a Volkischer Beobachter situation, where the only news we ever see is controlled by whoever decides what a "journo" is.

Anyone can be a journalist these days...not everyone can be a professional journalist

Aduro wrote:

TBD wrote:
I can race a car, but that doesn't make me a legit racecar driver. I can also make myself dinner, but that doesn't make me an official cook. Etc.

If you can drive a race car, then you're a race car driver.

And your name might just be Jerry. In which case, you need to get a friend names Wynona and start a Primus themed family.

If you can cook, then youre a chef. It just doesnt mean your a successful ormeven nessisarily good one.

False. The term "Chef" is actually awarded upon completion of an actual culinary education. A "chef" without an education in the (ever so tasty) gastronomic arts is just a cook, unfortunately.

You bring up big names and seem to equate official journalists as being successful journalists.

The job title "Journalist" is kind of like the job title "Writer", "Photographer", "Bouncer" or "Professional bum". These describe the function, not the quality of the work, whereas "Doctor" refers to someone with a Doctorate degree in any field, and "Lawyer" refers to someone who has passed the bar exam in their state.

That being said, BoW isn't a bad source, but I find that MWG is a more amusing pace for me, and BTP, on most days, is just alot more fun. Kinda curious, tho. Any word from them, yet?

Delephont wrote:Words of angryness

Why so angry

Nobody is having an angry conversation and you are being angry. Anger leads to the Dark side and causes health issues like headaches and impotence, so it would be better to not be angry.

TBD wrote:

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

OK This is true

Bubblecast sounds a bit like me in the bath

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Haha, this very thread has been mentioned... and certificates of Journalistic merit have been presented.

Yes, isn't it great? Just so the people who didn't watch the video know: he holds up some piece of crap paper that nobody can read and tells us that it is a certificate from the University of Huddersfield-Games, and that the long form is in Hawaï, but they don't give it out.

What a funny guy this is!

Pauze.... not!

Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Btw what actually is a little bit funny is that the faces in the grapes look like the face of the BoW dude. Very nice find indeed!

TBD wrote:Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Aww... that's so sweet that you think enough of me to leave a condescending remark like that. Truly, an honor.

Be sure to let us all know how your job at a cross dressing night club dressed as "The Queen Of De Nile" works out for you.

The reason that BOW was taken down was because it did not have the alotted number of cat shots in the films. The man behind the grassy knoll took the shot that knocked out the receiver, and the antenna fell and hit someone, hence added a lawsuit that fell into the artistic integrity realm that qualified them as journalists.

You Tube didn't know how to deal with infringing on BOW's journalistic integrity, so they did the only thing they could do. Pull the plug.

This roving reporter went on the quest for the truth and found this discovery, bringing the story to you at great risk to life and limb! I have a legion of angery samoans after me now for breaching the super secret You Tube HQ on Greyskull Mountain in the Dr Evil Lair.


Now the moral of the story is.... SHOW MORE CATS IN YOUR YOU TUBE VIDEOS!

Hellfury wrote:

TBD wrote:Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Aww... that's so sweet that you think enough of me to leave a condescending remark like that. Truly, an honor.

Be sure to let us all know how your job at a cross dressing night club dressed as "The Queen Of De Nile" works out for you.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You darn kids and that interwebby thingie!!

Get off of my lawn!

Grot 6 wrote:You darn kids and that interwebby thingie!!

Get off of my lawn!

I'll see our curmudgeonly old man, and raise you a curmudgeonly futuristic old man....

Damn n00blets.... get offa mah interwebz! Yer blockin' mah toobz!

TBD wrote:"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

Just to get this straight, you're saying that a government should regulate who is a journalist, and who should benefit from allowances afforded to journalists? This doesn't sound like advocating state enforced censorship to you?

I believe that the ability for the public to express its criticism (whether positive or negative) has been well demonstrated as a key component of a free society. This criticism can be directed at the government itself, public figures, and corporations. In the most fundamental examples, it allows the public to bring attention to wrong-doing. In a less dire example, it allows the public to inform itself on note-worthy topics, such as a small community informing itself about novel miniatures. It is up to the consumer of that journalism to decide its merit for themselves.

Games Workshop is protected from a journalist's malicious actions, in many nations, through laws pertaining to slander and libel. All Games Workshop has to fear from journalists is their ability to convince the public that there are better places to spend their money.

In the end, anyone who is engaged in journalism, is a journalist, just as anyone who plays football is a footballer, or anyone who paints is a painter.

If you'd like to protect yourself from being informed by a free society, or don't believe you possess sufficient faculties to make your own judgements, please continue to advocate your stance. I think you'll find that not many people agree with you.

The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

Seriously, this triteful poking is like a man with a Virginia Ham under his arm, crying about not having a loaf of bread.

These guys are presenting you with information about wargaming and presenting it in a clear and thoughtful manner? Would you just say !@#$ it and let William Bentley or Racheal Maddow do it for you instead?


We're talking about reviews interviews and information about of all things, wargaming. What seems to be the issue here?

I could see if they were telling a bunch of false information,or here say, but I'm really not seeing any with these guys. A few extra fart jokes, and the level of fingerpulling that you would expect, but I am not seeing anything harmful, hurtful, or misleading.

"In the conduct of my newspaper I carefully excluded all libeling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press — and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place — my answer was that I would print the piece separately if desired, and the author might have as many copies as he pleased to distribute himself, but that I would not take upon me to spread his detraction, and that having contracted with my subscribers to furnish them with what might be either useful or entertaining, I could not fill their papers with private altercation, in which they had no concern, without doing them manifest injustice. Now many of our printers make no scruple of gratifying the malice of individuals by false accusations of the fairest characters among ourselves, augmenting animosity even to the producing of duels; and are, moreover, so indiscreet as to print scurrilous reflections on the government of neighboring States, and even on the conduct of our best national allies, which may be attended with the most pernicious consequences. These things I mention as a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily; as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not on the whole be injurious to their interests."- Ben Franklin



Yeah, I'm going to have to pass. BOW did a good job with thier material, now your !@#$ing because they didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it? I'm going to have to agree with Mr Franklin and say that BOW is doing a good job and printing what they have- information about wargaming, and an interview with some guys... about wargaming.

If we were trying to sell you a chicken, and you bought a duck, I could see why you had issue to complain. I'm not seeing anything other then a couple of Jay and Silent Bob types talking to you about wargaming.

Maybe I'm the one missing something about the issue? If I am, please enlighten me.

Imagine a world where only GW is allowed to review GW models. Only Apple gets to tell you about the I-phone..and...

Actually, don't. Its gak.

Delephont wrote:

TBD wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

The question has to be asked of armchair critics like yourself, who can find nothing constructive to say about a group of people who invest their own time and money to bring us entertaining news and features about our hobby....what have YOU done to bring the community anything near what these guys bring us?.....I'll be honest, and I really don't want to clash with rule number one, but your prattling on about qualifications and the such like, makes me sick.....who the hell are you to judge anyway? If you don't like what they do, then don't watch.....but why do you feel the need to dregde up these weak ass justifications aimed purely at persuading others to agree with your assessment of the show or it's legal standing? Why?

I don't have many Dakkites on Ignore, but you sir are probably more deserving of that status than most.

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

Buzzsaw wrote:As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You know Buzzsaw, I am starting to wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose, or if you really are not able to understand.

Just keep attributing nonsense to me like in the first and last part of your post. It's a pretty good way to avoid the actual core point of the discussion isn't it? It is also a very weak way of debating.

- uninformed: we have already established that everybody understands the relevant laws, but that this is not the point discussion. So why mention this yet again?

I have made clear that I know what applies, but that I think it sucks arse and is a lacking piece of crap legislation. It can't be put any more bluntly than that. I don't need people to then repeatedly respond by saying things like "but they are doing nothing wrong because the relevant law applies, you don't understand what you are talking!". It makes me question people's intelligence when they argue like that. If you don't understand what I am saying here it immediately proves my point and there is no further hope.

- un-serious: what "intolerable consequences" exactly are you talking about? Many of you outrage at the thought of downloading a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, so I can hardly imagine it is "intolerable" if rules were adjusted so that a company's hard work would be actually adequately protected from unwanted spoiling by third parties. Otherwise this pretty big double standard I already mentioned pops up it's big double head again.

- unhinged: to step away from the opinionated side of things for a second, it is not an opinion, but fact, that legislation hasn't kept up with the rapid evolution of the internet and all the new problems that came along with it. New internet laws have been and are being developed as we speak to clear up grey areas and deal with entirely new issues. In other words, legislation is catching up with the internet, and we'll only see more of it in the future. It is quite silly to deny this or pretend it is not so.

Now answer this last question if you will:

There is this law which states that everyone is prohibited from publicly peeing in the street unless your name is Bob. At the same time everyone can be Bob whenever they choose to.

Does this sound logical to you? And if yes, why?

Good point

In that case, could the mods please remove anything remotely resembling a review from the Dakka Archives, unless posted by a fully qualified journalist?

redstripe wrote:

TBD wrote:"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

Just to get this straight, you're saying that a government should regulate who is a journalist, and who should benefit from allowances afforded to journalists? This doesn't sound like advocating state enforced censorship to you?

I believe that the ability for the public to express its criticism (whether positive or negative) has been well demonstrated as a key component of a free society. This criticism can be directed at the government itself, public figures, and corporations. In the most fundamental examples, it allows the public to bring attention to wrong-doing. In a less dire example, it allows the public to inform itself on note-worthy topics, such as a small community informing itself about novel miniatures. It is up to the consumer of that journalism to decide its merit for themselves.

Games Workshop is protected from a journalist's malicious actions, in many nations, through laws pertaining to slander and libel. All Games Workshop has to fear from journalists is their ability to convince the public that there are better places to spend their money.

In the end, anyone who is engaged in journalism, is a journalist, just as anyone who plays football is a footballer, or anyone who paints is a painter.

If you'd like to protect yourself from being informed by a free society, or don't believe you possess sufficient faculties to make your own judgements, please continue to advocate your stance. I think you'll find that not many people agree with you.

I completely agree with all of this except perhaps the part where everyone who paints is a painter, but that depends and isn't important right now.

There is a big difference between censoring criticism expressed by the public (this is clearly NOT what I have been advocating) and increased limitation of the liberties third parties have concerning work created and owned by company/person X. The first is not desirable, the latter very desirable IMO.

I have also never said there is only one way to accomplish this goal, but that a way to possibly accomplish it is by creating stricter guidelines/rules to distinguish posers from professionals.

In this day and age, anyone can be a reviewer. Just set up a blog, get all your friends to share it on facebook and tweet it left and right. Then get an advertiser or 2 and the next thing you know you'll be the guest judge on Iron Chef pretending you actually enjoy the taste of foie gras & octopus soup, or something else equally nasty.

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

The only one who has been a troll in this thread is you. I have been having a valid discussion related to the topic of the thread while all you have done is attack me without adding anything to the conversation.

If you don't agree with something try taking part in the debate next time. You'll get a serious response then instead of the one you got last time.

Well TBD, not only are you starting to belabor the point, you're also beating a dead horse and defending a rather inane position!

So, what gives already?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Good point

In that case, could the mods please remove anything remotely resembling a review from the Dakka Archives, unless posted by a fully qualified journalist?

My stance has been that it is perfectly fine to review, but let's call the person doing so a reviewer instead of a journalist.

Apparently that opinion insults a lot of people.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You know Buzzsaw, I am starting to wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose, or if you really are not able to understand.

Just keep attributing nonsense to me like in the first and last part of your post. It's a pretty good way to avoid the actual core point of the discussion isn't it? It is also a very weak way of debating.

- uninformed: we have already established that everybody understands the relevant laws, but that this is not the point discussion. So why mention this yet again?

I have made clear that I know what applies, but that I think it sucks arse and is a lacking piece of crap legislation. It can't be put any more bluntly than that. I don't need people to then repeatedly respond by saying things like "but they are doing nothing wrong because the relevant law applies, you don't understand what you are talking!". It makes me question people's intelligence when they argue like that. If you don't understand what I am saying here it immediately proves my point and there is no further hope.

- un-serious: what "intolerable consequences" exactly are you talking about? Many of you outrage at the thought of downloading a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, so I can hardly imagine it is "intolerable" if rules were adjusted so that a company's hard work would be actually adequately protected from unwanted spoiling by third parties. Otherwise this pretty big double standard I already mentioned pops up it's big double head again.

- unhinged: to step away from the opinionated side of things for a second, it is not an opinion, but fact, that legislation hasn't kept up with the rapid evolution of the internet and all the new problems that came along with it. New internet laws have been and are being developed as we speak to clear up grey areas and deal with entirely new issues. In other words, legislation is catching up with the internet, and we'll only see more of it in the future. It is quite silly to deny this or pretend it is not so.

Now answer this last question if you will:

There is this law which states that everyone is prohibited from publicly peeing in the street unless your name is Bob. At the same time everyone can be Bob whenever they choose to.

Does this sound logical to you? And if yes, why?

Hold on there, chief.


First things first, YOU are either being intentionally flim-flam, or your just arguing here for arguments sake.

What exactly are you saying with this speal?

They are calling it citizen journalism these days. We're seeing it across the world from China to Timbuctu, and YOU have a problem with it? Seeing people discuss things that they are going through and it isn't polished with a fine wiff of advertising? Are you seriously saying that it is mainstream albeit "Advertising marketed" news spins, and that makes it "Official"?
Hey there chief, Too bad that you don' like it, but it is making the rounds from everywhere from Twitter, to the internet, to the local PBS station. Then your spouting off about some sort of offhanded Leglase B.S. and that your waiting for the law to catch up?

What exactly is that about?

I thinks that you need to step back and reexamine the world in which you live. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't there.

TBD wrote:
Yes, it's clear that the legal situation is clear.

However that doesn't mean this clear situation can't be considered whacky, aka wrong/inadequate/outdated/flawed/lacking/etc, and that it shouldn't be changed, which I am sure it will at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet. In the meantime the double standard on/in(?) ethics* can continue because people can justify it by pointing to said whacky law and use that as a way to comfort themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong.

Hence the chaos that is Youtube. The impression I have right now is that Youtube can get into trouble for allowing certain infringements, and therefor remove stuff to prevent trouble, but can't be held accountable if people want to force them to put their removed video back online when they disagree about the validity of the removal. They simply impose their own rules in an unclear situation, to which I say "good for them !".

Interesting discussion nevertheless, Imo.
(* note that these aren't necessarily my standards/ethics)

I get what you're saying but quality has nothing to do with it; if there were a quality bar that everything were required to meet to be labeled something then McDonalds wouldn't be allowed to call itself a restaurant and Spam couldn't be called food nor hot dogs be called meat or most of the black library novels books (most of them tend to be little better than fan spank in my opinion).

Fox news gets to call itself news and the people that work there Journalists; however, they frequently misrepresent facts or only relate parts of news that jive with their particular world views. How is that any different than a few people making a show about an extremely niche market?

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.

To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

You now seem to suggest that journalists should be licensed and prevented from reporting stuff by law, while the general public should be allowed to criticise as they like.

Do you now regard the BoW people as journalists? Earlier you seemed to believe them to be not capable of proper reporting and not worthy to be journalists. This seems to conflict with your new position.

TBD wrote:

Delephont wrote:The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

The only one who has been a troll in this thread is you. I have been having a valid discussion related to the topic of the thread while all you have done is attack me without adding anything to the conversation.

If you don't agree with something try taking part in the debate next time. You'll get a serious response then instead of the one you got last time.

I am more than happy to hold a discussion with anyone, that's why I come here (to the forum).....however, I fail to see your "point". You're arguing over whether the BoW guys should be classed as Journalists or Reviewers, and you then go on to attack them for not taking your argument (or others who seem to share your opinion) seriously.....yes you might not have found their joke funny, but the point behind their sketch was simple.....they don't care....he clearly has no journalist qualifications, and he was showing his contempt for the idea that you believe he needs one just to discuss wargaming miniatures, by showing a parody of a journalism degree.

In the grand scheme of things, why is this important? This pedantic itch you seem to be scratching is clouding your view of the woods......why can't you see BoW as a group of gamers discussing gaming issues? Have you seen Reaper T.V.? it's a guy giving us his opinions and reports about Reaper miniatures.....is that any different?

I for one welcome as many reviews of products as I can get....I want to know what's out there, and I'd rather not have to purchase everything that seems nice to me, in order to be make a judgement on whether that investment was worth it or not. The BoW guys and "reviewers" like them sacrifice their time and money so that I don't have to....the least I can do is to show them a little courtesy and respect by 1) giving them my time to watch their efforts, and 2) Not being overly critical of their work, when I am clearly not in the mind to try to do something better.....

A man waving a half empty bottle of beer in front of the camera before the main show needs no other credentials for serious journalism

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.

If you utilize any sort of media to distribute any mix of fact or opinion in a narrative format, you're a journalist, whether you claim to be or not. get off of your high horse and stop pushing for the supression of thoughts and ideas contrary to your own.

Alpharius wrote:Well TBD, not only are you starting to belabor the point, you're also beating a dead horse and defending a rather inane position!

So, what gives already?

Maybe that is because people keep misquoting me? I have to say it is quite annoying to repeatedly read words and intentions attributed to me that I quite clearly never wrote, and even additional people responding to those misquotes thinking that I actually said what I didn't say

But you are right that it has become quite a useless conversation by now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

You now seem to suggest that journalists should be licensed and prevented from reporting stuff by law, while the general public should be allowed to criticise as they like.

Do you now regard the BoW people as journalists? Earlier you seemed to believe them to be not capable of proper reporting and not worthy to be journalists. This seems to conflict with your new position.

No I don't consider them proper journalists, but that doesn't mean that they can't review stuff or that people can't like what they do.

And nobody should be allowed to take unwanted liberties with another's property unless there are exceptional circumstances. Spoiling of yet unreleased material is cool for us, but not for GW, Mantic, PP, etc. Is that really such an invalid opinion?

Psst tbd just going to let you in on a secret. spoiling gw product launches ( which is what you seem to be refering to now) or any companys for that matter generates iterest in said products.

I would like to pose the question: Why do you all care so much about what TBD thinks? It's not like it matters?

He's one (albeit in my opinion misguided) individual, belaboring a rather tired and thoroughly refuted point.

People ought to leave him to his fantasy and move on. The delusional seldom serve fact or reality. If he wants to toot on his autocratic, totalitarian anti-journalistic-freedom-slanted horn, let him. It's not like people have to care or listen to his tune, yes?

People should leave him to his sunk cost fallacy and focus on what is actually news, I should think.

...just sayin'.

Kroothawk wrote:A man waving a half empty bottle of beer in front of the camera before the main show needs no other credentials for serious journalism

Stay thirsty My Friends....

I honestly think the whole "BoW Journalist" issue was overinflated on Dakka afterlast week's Youtube fiasco.

I have nowhere, to the best of knowledge, heard the chaps on BoW say, "We are (professional) journalists."

As I understand it the designation only gets used by them in reference to what they did while on Youtube, because of some of the terms and conditions. It is that which has labelled the guys as journalists and is not how they refer to themselves.

I stand to be corrected on the above but the issue is frankly an utter waste of time and a distraction as to the real purpose of the thread, ie What The Flip are Youtube doing and for Mat Ward's sake why?

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

In two sentences, you manged to succinctly state the point it took me three paragraphs to get to. I must applaud.

If you went behind the scenes at every magazine, website, and blog that reviews products put out by companies - you'd find only the top handful of staff in the largest groups have any serious, formal journalistic education. Most staff will be people, while educated, that have extensive experience and interest in the field in which they work.

Yet, we still consider Car and Driver a journalistic endeavor, yes? How about IGN? Gamespot? PC Gamer? Think of them all, those are but a few examples. Your EIC and a few other scrubs like associate editors, will be the only people that worry about the hardcore journalistic aspects of a publication - and that's because they do the editing and in some cases marketing and so forth, so it makes sense that they would. A writer that produces an article needs no vast amount of polish if his EIC is good at his job. The editors will make the rest look like they're pros, even if they're not.

Live shows, like Turn 8, are slightly different, in that the guys have to bring their game to the front and show people a reasonable amount of polish to be taken seriously. In that respect, what BOW is doing actually requires a bit more skill than many other types of journalism in that they have to establish and maintain the overall quality of their craft over the course of many episodes. There is little, I doubt, if any post production editing done by their staff to polish their videos.

That said, nobody, including BOW has claimed they are the pinnacle of hardcore, formal journalism. They probably don't want to be. Who'd watch them if it was all canned anyways? Part of the fun of watching turn 8 is that it's somewhat akin to hanging out and listening to a discussion at a buddy's house. You get the news you want, reviews, some humor (whether your taste for it is applicable, is up to you), and you also get some interesting opinion pieces from time to time that are worth watching.

I think they're doing a fantastic job and I think people need to lighten up on this whole "OMFGZ journalism!?!?" debate. It's ridiculous and a waste of time.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

Exactly.

This thread seems to have slowly morphed so far away from where it started that I have no idea what's going on.

Let me clue you in.

TBD announced his cross.
TBD carried his cross.
TBD nailed himself to his cross.
The crowd rioted.

Thrax wrote:Let me clue you in.

TBD announced his cross.
TBD carried his cross.
TBD nailed himself to his cross.
The crowd rioted.

You forgot the part where TBD had to deal with certain members of that crowd who are unable to read correctly, thus making a huge deal out of nothing and giving him the strong urge to whack them in the head with said cross

If you guys want me to stop responding then stop giving me reason to, lol.