The URL says the blog has been removed. Anyone have the skinny on this one?
EDIT: multiple posters indicate that the blog has been taken down due to alleged DMCA violations.
OT EDIT: First the thread was moved without notice (EDIT: then, bafflingly, moved back...), now I note that the title was changed seemingly without notice as well. The silent hand of Mod is quite active today. I write these words to advise that whatever written here may or not be my words or someone else's. You never can tell on this forum...
MOD EDIT: Oh take it easy lol, we had to confirm the news, you have to admit, it sounds like a joke. As for changing the title it was a clarification. Don't worry we are not going to put words in your mouth or make it seem like you are endorsing eating house pets or anything. I realize it is 'cool' to pretend Moderators are a mysterious and sinister group but come on lol, no need for a tin foil hat here I assure you.
EDIT: How can you know I don't endorse eating house pets? ;-)
MOD EDIT: Well, I didn't say you didn't, just that we wouldn't put the words in your mouth for ya lol. Btw try the Golden Retriever, I hear it is excellent
tastytaste wrote: I looked into and it is a google/blogspot problem hence why BoLS is down and a few other blogs. I am sure everything will be sorted soon...ish...
Dez wrote: BoLS missing too? The Inquisition is real...
Oh no! They'll be coming for DakkaDakka next. Batten down the hatches! Man the Montana bunker! Everybody PANIC!
The Inquisition will never take me alive!
They arent just on a crusade metal oxide, they are on a great crusade, to unite ALL websites to their cause and destroy any heresy! Dakka Dakka sure is next. Although hopefully sub sector Warseer is next, give us a bit more time to destroy all those posts about GW prices.
I am not sure if those DMCAs have anything to do with the current outage if you notice the day they at least a week old. Google would do an instant take down of the exact offending stuff and be done with it. They don't take down a site unless they keep on getting DMCAs not first offense or even second.
tastytaste wrote: I am not sure if those DMCAs have anything to do with the current outage if you notice the day they at least a week old. Google would do an instant take down of the exact offending stuff and be done with it. They don't take down a site unless they keep on getting DMCAs not first offense or even second.
I did a search through the DMCAs and there have been a handful this year. So, putting 2 and 2 together won't exactly get you 4 in this case.
I'll chalk this up to web outage until I hear otherwise.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
They're actually serving google with notice that a blogger using Google is infringing. I'm not a lawyer but I think the content on the site would be covered under fair use as it was put up as commentary. Pics of high elves from white dwarf... What a larf. Hey, let's prevent anyone from talking about our product; that'll surely result in people buying it!
tastytaste wrote: I am not sure if those DMCAs have anything to do with the current outage if you notice the day they at least a week old. Google would do an instant take down of the exact offending stuff and be done with it. They don't take down a site unless they keep on getting DMCAs not first offense or even second.
I did a search through the DMCAs and there have been a handful this year. So, putting 2 and 2 together won't exactly get you 4 in this case.
I'll chalk this up to web outage until I hear otherwise.
Anyone want to tell me how GW is not at war with its customers now? Instead of being a better company they are attempting to silence nay sayers and rumour sites, newsflash, thats what facists do.
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
We don't know if they nuked his blog. It might simply be a server issue. Lets wait to find out.
So you're saying that because his blog has been the target of 4 DMCA takedown notices in the last 6 months, and that belloflostsouls.net, who posted the same pictures, usually within hours of natfka, both being mysteriously unavailable within moments of each other is no reason to assume that his blog was actually removed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?
Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:
2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.
Description of the copyrighted work:
The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.
As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.
Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.
While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
That bothers me quite a bit.
Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!
Ravenous D wrote: Instead of being a better company they are attempting to silence nay sayers and rumour sites, newsflash, thats what facists do.
Considering the last Fascist Political Party died out shortly after WWII, one doesn't truly know what a Fascist Regime would do to an internet website posting images taken from a copy written publication.
Not that I'm saying that you're wrong about how they'd proceed, it's just that it's a hypothetical discussion.
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
We don't know if they nuked his blog. It might simply be a server issue. Lets wait to find out.
To be fair, they did ask for his account to be disabled in February:
This user has infringed Games Workshop's rights previously by posting pages of other editions of White Dwarf magazine [Google requests #1120928709 and #1142470480 and 3-8432000000251 and 8-4694000000377]. This user, 'Natfka', is a repeat infringer and I request that Google disable the account in accordance with Google's terms of service.
I don't agree with GW's strategy, but we know that this is what happens when you host copyrighted material. There's a reason that Dakka refuses to allow people to upload it to the gallery.
edit: In addition, if it is indeed against Google's TOS, then Natfka is SOL.
It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!
You may want to infer some form of sarcasm in that post, otherwise you just sound like an ass.
So you're saying that because his blog has been the target of 4 DMCA takedown notices in the last 6 months, and that belloflostsouls.net, who posted the same pictures, usually within hours of natfka, both being mysteriously unavailable within moments of each other is no reason to assume that his blog was actually removed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
It's certainly suspicious, and you're probably right, but let's not call for a crusade too hastily.
There's this little country called North Korea....officially fascist since they revised their constitution in 2009 and removed nearly all references to communism while stressing such fascist doctrines as "military first". Juche is dead.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?
Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:
2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.
Description of the copyrighted work:
The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.
As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.
Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.
While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
That bothers me quite a bit.
Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.
I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
I think they are loosing money with White Dwarf and are trying to stop that. But White Dwarf is getting less relative as the hobby grows. If GW wanted to make more money they should start making more online content. Maybe "White Dwarf Online" with daily Battle reports, tactic analysis, and more "painting tutorials". I am a vault member of miniwargaming but I would love "official" content from GW.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.
Mr Hyena wrote: Isn't it illegal to take a copyrighted magazine and post pictures of it online?
It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.
Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
agnosto wrote: There's this little country called North Korea....officially fascist since they revised their constitution in 2009 and removed nearly all references to communism while stressing such fascist doctrines as "military first". Juche is dead.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?
Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:
2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.
Description of the copyrighted work:
The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.
As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.
Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.
While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
That bothers me quite a bit.
Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.
Would you do the same and post a movie or videogame online?
It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.
Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.
I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.
Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them beforeGW released them.
alienvalentine wrote: Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.
Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!
You may want to infer some form of sarcasm in that post, otherwise you just sound like an ass.
It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.
Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?
Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:
2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):
The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.
Description of the copyrighted work:
The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.
As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.
Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.
While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
That bothers me quite a bit.
Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.
Would you do the same and post a movie or videogame online?
It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.
Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.
So its a full magazine with some comments.
My previous piratical proclivities aside, no. But that's not what natfka did, he posted the images as part of a news release or commentary, both of which are covered by US fair use rules.
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.
I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.
Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them beforeGW released them.
Was the movie already released? Then you're probably fine. We're talking about pictures of something that hasn't been released yet. i.e. Leaked pictures. That's kind of a problem. Him releasing before GW is exactly the problem. Just as you releasing before the Avengers 2 hits theatres is the problem.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.
Apart from the fact that "Dakka" may in fact be a trademarked term for GW. They went after warhammer.org.uk; so it's within their MO to do so.
I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.
I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.
Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them beforeGW released them.
Was the movie already released? Then you're probably fine. We're talking about pictures of something that hasn't been released yet. i.e. Leaked pictures. That's kind of a problem. Him releasing before GW is exactly the problem. Just as you releasing before the Avengers 2 hits theatres is the problem.
My point exactly, he's in trouble not because of what he posted but when he posted it.
You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.
Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
At this point if someone posted videos of Alan Merret water boarding a third party bits maker asking where he got his ideas from I don't know if I'd be shocked or not.
Now its just a constant reminder not to spend money on this company's product.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.
The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.
How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.
The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.
How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
I think it unlikely that GW will ask for every picture of a space marine on the internet removed. But feel free to rub my nose in it when they issue the C&D to dakka for having pictures of space marines.
As well, it would probably not be terribly difficult for Lego to shut down images on the site for any amount of time he needed to to keep operations running.
Palindrome wrote: Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?
Doesn't make it any less a crime.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""
It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.
Did you even read my post? I was talking about PRODUCT PHOTOS. I.e. pictures taken with the express intent of showing a product for sale. A movie is a finished media product that(granted subjectively) is generally considered art, the same as music or final product paintings, art etc.
That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.
Did you even read my post? I was talking about PRODUCT PHOTOS. I.e. pictures taken with the express intent of showing a product for sale. A movie is a finished media product that(granted subjectively) is generally considered art, the same as music or final product paintings, art etc.
That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.
The movie is designed to sell the movie. Its not designed to do anything else but to sell the movie (on dvd) and tickets. I don't see the difference? There is even trailers, snippets of the movie, for offering constructive criticism too.
Aerethan wrote: That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.
No but it still infringes on pre-release rights.
Just as if I host pictures of Avengers 2 stills on my blog as part of 'news' and 'criticism' a month before release. Guarantee a DMCA is on the way.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.
Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
.
I think the same.. I should stop keeping on being surprised by all of this kind of stuff really.
It's quite incredible how they manage to keep on finding new ways to shaft their fanbase - and those blogs have been some of the most ardent supporters of GW over the years (although BoLS had started to introduce other non-GW stuff onto their blog).
[assuming that GW requesting it is the reason why Faeit is down:]
Look everyone, let's not get bogged down in the technicality of copyright law here - I think it's pretty clear that releasing images of magazine early is both covered by and sensibly covered by legislation - but this is not the point.
The point must be that GW has made a move against man who almost never had a bad word for GW, was always talking up their releases with infectious genuine enthusiasm that you couldn't help but share, always increased my excitement and anticipation of each GW release - and this most likely increased the amount I would shell out on GW products (if my intangible excitement can be linked to my tangible financial output - which I think it can). GW must be kididng themselves if they think White Dwarf revenue will increase as a result of this - without Natfka getting me excited about White Dwarf I would probably forget about it, as the content is ususally so advert heavy and content light. I've never been one to beef about GW but this is so clearly stupid!
End of the day, this is a dick move by a company who clearly doesn't understand their own fanbase and is shooting themselves in the foot, big time.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.
Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
.
I think the same.. I should stop keeping on being surprised by all of this kind of stuff really.
It's quite incredible how they manage to keep on finding new ways to shaft their fanbase - and those blogs have been some of the most ardent supporters of GW over the years (although BoLS had started to introduce other non-GW stuff onto their blog).
That doesn't matter. Just because other people do it doesn't make it acceptable.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote:You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.
Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
At this point if someone posted videos of Alan Merret water boarding a third party bits maker asking where he got his ideas from I don't know if I'd be shocked or not.
Now its just a constant reminder not to spend money on this company's product.
...And yet they continue to grow at a steady and healthy rate.
I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?
Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.
The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.
How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.
The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.
People are somehow continuing to ignore the fact that it's not the pictures or articles that are the problem, but the TIMING of the pictures and articles.
Over-reaction (re: hatred) towards GW for the sake of it.
Palindrome wrote: Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?
Doesn't make it any less a crime.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""
It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.
No, not an image - the entire work. The leaked images might be a violation of an internal employment contract between the employee who manages to get the pre-release image and the company who owns the image...but that is not a violation on its own. The issue with it being a specific crime under Section 506 only if it is 1) Software/AV Works or 2) A Movie - and then only if it is a complete release, not a limited excerpt for purposes of review, new or criticism. That particular section is very limited in scope and relates to the criminal activity of releasing bootlegged videos (from prescreenings) and late Beta test software or other AV work:
(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
There is no inclusion for literary works - which is what books and magazines fall under. Regarding the Eldar Scrolls issue...lots of huffery goes into DMCA requests, and lots of sites will roll over on them as they either don't know the law or don't want to fight the fight. Just because something is taken down and people broadly comply - it doesn't actually mean that there are any grounds to do so.
Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."
While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.
So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?
See above, and further below...
In journalism, "journalists" receive broad protections under the law. If a journalist uses a leaked image they are not required to abide by laws and contracts which a company might implement in order to keep things confidential (See Johns-Byrne Co. v. TechnoBuffalo). It is quite common to have various prerelease leaks of all manner of products - from cars, to phones and even software and videos. These are all protected aspects of journalistic reporting. If they were posting a complete video or copy of software...or even somehow posting a 3D scan of a model - there might be some aspect with which GW could grasp at. However, the early posting of images from a magazine which is largely a product catalog does not amount to damaging to the product that GW is attempting to sell and is protected.
The illegal use by GW goes to this point here...quoted from their DMCA take-down request:
Sworn Statements
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]
Because of the nature of the DMCA, attorneys and companies who use it are expected to make a sworn statement that what they are targeting is in fact illegal - they also must sign the document under penalty of perjury that they have done their due diligence in ensuring that the law is actually being broken. The above quoted statutes (both the FAIR Act and the refutement of the pre-release issue) should make it clear that Nafka is a news site performing a news function - which is legal. Because it is authorized by law explicitly and does not infringe on any exclusive rights of GW...it would in fact be an illegal use of the DMCA. Either GW's legal team is not doing their due diligence in research or they are but are perjuring themselves - both of which are illegal uses.
GW clamping down on online rumors that are already effectively only coming out a pathetic few weeks before the codex release? I'm not surprised but I can't seem to work myself up into a tizzy either. I mainly stopped buying their stuff except for codex books a few years back so this doesn't really affect me much regardless. At least I've got X-wing and Heavy Gear in the meantime and Robotech coming up for Christmas.
That doesn't matter. Just because other people do it doesn't make it acceptable.
The free passage of information forms the very bones of the internet and the legality of data sharing means very little in the scheme of things given how widespread it is. Acceptable or not it is reality.
Palindrome wrote: Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?
Doesn't make it any less a crime.
No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.
But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""
It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.
I have him on ignore, so that's why I missed it, but in fairness, it's mistaken and irrelevant in any case. Had he actually followed the citiations in the article he quoted, he would have noted that the statute (17 USC § 506(a)(3)) specifies that it applies to;
(3) Definition.— In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
Emphasis mine.
That said, it would be irrelevant anyway, because, if one were to read my post...
Mr Hyena wrote: Isn't it illegal to take a copyrighted magazine and post pictures of it online?
It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.
Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Fair use is fair use, even if something is unpublished.
Incidentally this differentiates from the Elder Scrolls example in two ways: first it's a motion picture or audiovisual work, and second, it's a simple reproduction, not a use that falls under the terms of the fair use exception.
If you were to have clips from that on your blog examining it, that would be fair use. Simply rehosting it? That fits under no fair use categories.
yeah methinks they are in a slow decline vs a steady rise
whatever I already "ragequit the hobby" just waiting for people to buy my cheap junk or trade yugioh for it
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
Did they copy the iPad version of it? Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects a particular expression of it. Copying from magazine is not the same as copying from iPad.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
Did they copy the iPad version of it? Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects a particular expression of it. Copying from magazine is not the same as copying from iPad.
And that would stop GW how exactly? We all saw what happened in the space marine case. Homer Simpson said it best:
That is GW's attitude. Facts are meaningless to them. Such things would not stop them from doing a bit of mental gymnastics to make sure you have infringed upon them.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
eBooks have been found to not be software but literary works in terms of determining legal protections since 1997 (would need to double check if that is by case law or statute...I remember the year, I don't recall the why though off the top of my head). I think it might be case law going towards some DRM issues of the time...but, that is a long time to be recollecting.
Yeah...I'm sure they actively seek out reasons to cause trouble. Just as they sit around thinking of ways to "screw over" certain armies, hate their customers, and purposely drive down sales.
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
To expound on that, the sworn statements which are made under the DMCA section 512 are done only in clear cut cases of the law. If there is any question regarding the applicable nature of the law (one image, one full page, 20 full pages or a 120+ page magazine...) fall into an area that is not clear cut as it is not the whole of the work. If Faeit 212 was posting complete issues of the White Dwarf it would be clear cut. However, the nature of White Dwarf would allow large swathes of it to actually fall into an area that you can repost them with little worry as although they are portions of a copyrighted work - they are in fact Facts...something that would be akin to posting a scan of a page from a Sears catalog. If they had posted complete copies of something that is somewhat more creative (the Heavy Metal articles for example) grounds for that being a clear cut violation could be made - however the entirety of the New/Upcoming release section is not a creative work, but a presentation of facts that are not given the same level of protection as creative works (gets complicated...but, that is what courts are for - not the DMCA).
Necros wrote: Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
For one, there are a lot of details missing in that story. I know phones with cameras aren't even allowed in most department store warehouses, for example, and LP/legal teams are frequently scouring the internet for images of their products appearing online without approval.
Two, there wasn't a photo or scan of copyrighted information made by Jeep; no competitor then proceeded to reproduce a vehicle modeled after that Jeep photo; and the guy who took the photo didn't claim he made the Jeep and tried to sell it as his own.
Pictures of models leak all the time. Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies. (Or so I imagine.)
Necros wrote: Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
Ironically, the way GW demonstrates they don't care how their customers perceive their brand is by obsessing over how their customers perceive their brand.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
To expound on that, the sworn statements which are made under the DMCA section 512 are done only in clear cut cases of the law. If there is any question regarding the applicable nature of the law (one image, one full page, 20 full pages or a 120+ page magazine...) fall into an area that is not clear cut as it is not the whole of the work. If Faeit 212 was posting complete issues of the White Dwarf it would be clear cut. However, the nature of White Dwarf would allow large swathes of it to actually fall into an area that you can repost them with little worry as although they are portions of a copyrighted work - they are in fact Facts...something that would be akin to posting a scan of a page from a Sears catalog. If they had posted complete copies of something that is somewhat more creative (the Heavy Metal articles for example) grounds for that being a clear cut violation could be made - however the entirety of the New/Upcoming release section is not a creative work, but a presentation of facts that are not given the same level of protection as creative works (gets complicated...but, that is what courts are for - not the DMCA).
Based on these circumstances, how effective would a DMCA Counter-Notice be and does Faeit have standing to sue GW?
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Hmm, I guess you may well be right in term of US law,
I keep thinking in UK terms where this is what the copyright office says
"iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
•The work has been made available to the public.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
brassangel wrote: Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies.
No - actually that is irrelevant (for the...10th or so time). Read the statutes which are linked to, they clearly do not apply to magazines and they clearly do not apply to magazines which are equivalent to a catalog. If you wanted to mesh it with your concept - it would be like someone in the printing office taking a picture of the sales brochure for the new Jeep. That brochure would be copyrighted, and pre-release - but still not a violation of the laws regarding pre-release of software, A/V works or movies...White Dwarf is none of those items. Even more importantly though, the specific product is even further removed being a toy gaming kit. The focus would be on that specific product and less about the White Dwarf issue should issue go to court (which hopefully Google will do their due diligence and tell GW to STFU).
Necros wrote: Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
For one, there are a lot of details missing in that story. I know phones with cameras aren't even allowed in most department store warehouses, for example, and LP/legal teams are frequently scouring the internet for images of their products appearing online without approval.
Two, there wasn't a photo or scan of copyrighted information made by Jeep; no competitor then proceeded to reproduce a vehicle modeled after that Jeep photo; and the guy who took the photo didn't claim he made the Jeep and tried to sell it as his own.
Pictures of models leak all the time. Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies. (Or so I imagine.)
So, you've been mysteriously struck blind and have been unable to read the multiple posts explaining in detail and with quotations from the relevant laws exactly why "the main issue" is no issue at all?
Just thought I'd chim in to tell Natfka, who is, I. Believe, gone to the valhalha event that I wish he will get his blog back.
He's has been feeding my 40k needs better than GW could or ever has. If I keep hooked and if I started playing DE, it was thank to him.
I think GW should give him money for everything he has done for them.
The direction the company is taking is saddening and I start to feel bad to support such blatant direspectful attitude.
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Hmm, I guess you may well be right in term of US law,
I keep thinking in UK terms where this is what the copyright office says
"iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
•The work has been made available to the public.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
Keep in mind that Section 30 has three parts. The first part which you quoted deals with criticism and review - Faeit 212 was not doing that...they were reporting on current events or news depending on how you want to word it. That would be covered under part 2 of section 30 which does not require that the work has been made available to the public...it only requires that:
Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
Basically, they just have to acknowledge that it is White Dwarf pimping GW products (which they do). Subsection 3 is an exemption for audio and video reporting that may make it difficult to acknowledge the copyright holder of the work.
Thanks to both Sean Obrien and Buzzsaw for those in-depth posts - learned something new from that.
I'm just a chemistry student, so I know nothing about the law. But it does seem strange to me that you can post whole parts of a magazine under a label of "critique" and it is fine. Especially the part where every picture of the section with new models is posted makes me wonder how it can be legal.
As Sean also mentions, if Faeit posted whole sections of the magazine about painting and what not, it could be a problem. But how does the presentation of the new models deviate from that section? I understand that the modelling section has more of a "follow this and get a result" composition, but essentially wouldn't it be the same as if I took every "Euroman" or "playboy" magazine, and post the featured interview or "bunny of the month" on my site?
In fact, the Playboy example is pretty close I would think. They make a magazine with pictures of pretty women for men to look at. WD is a magazine with pretty models for modeling enthusiasts to look at. Would it be allowed within the US copyright system for me to post a review of every picture of every woman in every months Playboy magazine? Because that is essentially what Faeit is doing with the WD scans.
But there is a second debate to this, and that is whether or not it was a good idea to DMCA BoLS and Faeit (if it did in fact happen and it isn't just some bizarre 40k related google mess up). And I gotta say that this seems... Drastic. Perhaps an overreaction on GWs part. I mean, I get that they want WD to be "exclusive" and have all the news, but perhaps they should have contacted them more formally instead of the sledgehammer approach- I'm sure BoLS would have listened to reason and while I don't know Faeit at all and haven't read his site in any way, he is always refered to as a generally enthusiastic about GW.
Oh well, just hope that both sites get through this without too much hazzle.
So you're saying that because his blog has been the target of 4 DMCA takedown notices in the last 6 months, and that belloflostsouls.net, who posted the same pictures, usually within hours of natfka, both being mysteriously unavailable within moments of each other is no reason to assume that his blog was actually removed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
It's certainly suspicious, and you're probably right, but let's not call for a crusade too hastily.
Somewhere in Poland 1939:
"Look honey, just because there are German Panzers rolling down mainstreet, doesn't exactly mean we are being invaded."
So you're saying that because his blog has been the target of 4 DMCA takedown notices in the last 6 months, and that belloflostsouls.net, who posted the same pictures, usually within hours of natfka, both being mysteriously unavailable within moments of each other is no reason to assume that his blog was actually removed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
It's certainly suspicious, and you're probably right, but let's not call for a crusade too hastily.
Somewhere in Poland 1939:
"Look honey, just because there are German Panzers rolling down mainstreet, doesn't exactly mean we are being invaded."
erewego86 wrote: I write these words to advise that whatever written here may or not be my words or someone else's. You never can tell on this forum...
How do I know if those words that are advising people your words may not be your words are in fact your words?
Gorlack wrote: Thanks to both Sean Obrien and Buzzsaw for those in-depth posts - learned something new from that.
I'm just a chemistry student, so I know nothing about the law. But it does seem strange to me that you can post whole parts of a magazine under a label of "critique" and it is fine. Especially the part where every picture of the section with new models is posted makes me wonder how it can be legal.
As Sean also mentions, if Faeit posted whole sections of the magazine about painting and what not, it could be a problem. But how does the presentation of the new models deviate from that section? I understand that the modelling section has more of a "follow this and get a result" composition, but essentially wouldn't it be the same as if I took every "Euroman" or "playboy" magazine, and post the featured interview or "bunny of the month" on my site?
In fact, the Playboy example is pretty close I would think. They make a magazine with pictures of pretty women for men to look at. WD is a magazine with pretty models for modeling enthusiasts to look at. Would it be allowed within the US copyright system for me to post a review of every picture of every woman in every months Playboy magazine? Because that is essentially what Faeit is doing with the WD scans.
But there is a second debate to this, and that is whether or not it was a good idea to DMCA BoLS and Faeit (if it did in fact happen and it isn't just some bizarre 40k related google mess up). And I gotta say that this seems... Drastic. Perhaps an overreaction on GWs part. I mean, I get that they want WD to be "exclusive" and have all the news, but perhaps they should have contacted them more formally instead of the sledgehammer approach- I'm sure BoLS would have listened to reason and while I don't know Faeit at all and haven't read his site in any way, he is always refered to as a generally enthusiastic about GW.
Oh well, just hope that both sites get through this without too much hazzle.
The difference between the Playboy comparison and White Dwarf is that you can not buy a Bunny. Posting the entirety of an interview would fall into a grey area - interviews are issues of fact and generally not protected (grey area which goes to the manner in which they are presented...see various lawsuits relating to phone books). The images from the article would be copyrighted on their own, and simply posting them to something like an online gallery would not be allowed. The difference of course is that the use of the copyrighted material by Faeit is to provide news of upcoming releases. Going back to your comparison - if you got notice of who would be the next Playboy Playmate of the year (or some other "news") and posted that information along with a copy of one of her images from the magazine - that would fall into the legal use of copyrighted material as you are doing it for purposes of news.
You could also do similar if you were actually critiquing the copyrighted works - either to show examples of lighting techniques, airbrushing or even doing a long dissertation on how the perceptions of beauty have changed over the decades (using example images from Playboy since the 1950s to the present). Although you might be using a substantial amount of copyrighted material which is owned by Playboy - the manner in which it is being used would be protected.
__________________
The second question is an old one. I recall many years ago I was talking to a fellow business owner who was involved in a bit of a legal issue (nothing too serious - but it made the papers). He had said at the time that the only thing worse for business than bad publicity is no publicity. It seems that GW would like to take their bad publicity (which at least adds to name recognition which might stick after people forget why they heard about GW) and replace it with no publicity and render themselves permanently to obscurity. Sort of a rephrasing of the old adage, but for the most part he was trying to make lemonade.
Not sure what GW's train of thought might be - it isn't like you have people picking up a copy of White Dwarf while standing in line at the grocery store - so the only ones who are getting their "GW News" in that manner are already customers anyway. Cutting off any other sources is just asinine from all schools of thought regarding business.
Once again, thank you for a very informative post. People new to this thread should really filter it and read your comments.
My next question is: do you (or anyone) know anything about how the process goes now for the sites affected? I mean, is it hard to get your blogger account opened up again after something like this or? And could there be consequences for any of the affected parties, both BoLS/Faeit but also GW? (except ofcourse loss of visitors and add revenue and general PR trouble - I'm specifically thinking legal trouble).
Kanluwen wrote: While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
It does sort of seem, though, that this should be an internal security matter for GW to sort out for themselves, rather than a reason to unleash the hounds on people whose 'crime' is ultimately just being interested in the product that GW is selling...
Gorlack wrote: Once again, thank you for a very informative post. People new to this thread should really filter it and read your comments.
My next question is: do you (or anyone) know anything about how the process goes now for the sites affected? I mean, is it hard to get your blogger account opened up again after something like this or? And could there be consequences for any of the affected parties, both BoLS/Faeit but also GW? (except ofcourse loss of visitors and add revenue and general PR trouble - I'm specifically thinking legal trouble).
Can't speak for GW specifically - but in general terms relating to the DMCA process...I can shed a bit of light (though I am not familiar with how Google has chosen to implement the process).
Basically GW sends a takedown request to Google.
Google reads the request and in order to qualify under the Safe Harbor provisions - they take down the offending material (either specific images or in this case, apparently the entire site).
Google then will contact Faeit 212 and tell them they took down the site because of the GW request.
If Faeit tells Google, the use was Fair Use (or the stuff wasn't copyrighted to begin with...which doesn't apply here) then Google will send a letter to GW telling them that Faeit believes the use is allowed under the law.
GW then has around two weeks to file an actual lawsuit in response to Faeit's claims of fair use. If they do not, then Google has to reinstate the removed content.
Now, it is possible that Google might (probably) have a clause in their Blogger terms of use which would allow them to skip on all that paper work and just cancel the account "just 'cuz" - but hopefully they will attempt to live up to things.
I've been model-buying free since 2012, I bought the DA codex and have regretted it. Tau isn't getting a cent from me.
I'm looking more and more forward to upcoming releases of Malifaux, Infinity, Blackwater Gulch, Deadzone and Mecha Front... I'm happy I'm kicking the habit.
The last time I saw a company hammer people this hard for putting out stuff before the "official" press releases was back in the days when Wizkids own MechWarrior. They weren't very good at coding web pages and some of us noticed that we could "guess" URLs that had stuff not yet released. When we started linking to them or posting their content in their (or other fan owned) forums, the BAN-3R Banhammer assault 'mechs quickly came out, guns ablaze. Yea, they were pretty tight about their IP, too. (and look where they are now)
Is the DMCA being abused? Arguably, which is why many people in tech circles have pointed out it's a terrible law for doing what it was actually needed. It's definitely a grey area on the overall scheme, but it seems too much of a stretch for those claims to stand up in a lawsuit. GW's complaints sound much more like a security issue with their printer than with bloggers.
However, I have a feeling the "blog offline" is more Google than GW; after X complaints they get tired of it and you become more trouble than you're worth. See also: why the DMCA kind of sucks; there could easily be 0 wrongdoing, but Google may have decided to pull the plug on TOS grounds just on the chance that there was something awry.*
* - this is pure speculation, all rights reserved. Anyone attempting to duplicate this speculation may face a DMCA notice.
Well, I didn't have the time to check every *single* post here, apologies if it's already mentioned. But I would like to point this out - a DMCA takedown is NOT proof of infringement. It's a request to remove potentially infringing material that the site owners can choose to act on in order to give themselves "safe harbour" if the material posted by users of the site is later proven to be infringing.
It's very rare for a site to refuse this, but there are lots of cases of the material being restored afterwards. Youtube is also known for taking down perfectly valid requests to remove videos found by software that only tracks music clips, and was being requested to take down by various music companies. ...I should know, I got one of my "offending" videos restored after the fact.
I cannot confirm that the removal of these sites is because of legal pressure by GW, but that pressure is very definitely real.
I am a minor painter/tournament organizer for GW, and I follow and regularly read blogs such as Faeit 212, Apocalypse 40k, etc. Personally, I love these types of sites, and I gleefully search for every rumor/leak that I can find. I am outraged at the prospect that these blogs will be shut down, because I believe that they are important to a large part of the online community, as well as being a beneficial source of advertising for GW. Heck, I had some kids come into the store earlier in the month that had learned about the hobby exclusively from online blogs like Faeit. I think that this latest up by GW is one that could have been averted with some more actual thought, and, god forbid, an actual interest in the thoughts and opinions of their customers. This being said, I have resigned myself to the fact that the corporate imbeciles running GW either do not recognize the needs of their player base, or more likely, just don't care.
However, when I hear people saying things like "GW is a company of fascist ", and that they won't be giving them any more money, I get pretty aggravated. There are large numbers of people in the upper echelons of GW that do want what's best for the hobby and don't just want to screw over the entire community. After hearing about the more recent lawsuits by Games Workshop, I was talking with someone (I will not reveal his, or her, name, but you will all recognize this person from the pages of white dwarf and the online newsletter), and they share many of the views that have been expressed about the way GW doesn't seem to care for its customer base, past simply taking their money in ever-increasing amounts. What I am trying to say is that the people who are actually involved with the hobby side of things are often of the same opinion as you, and have expressed their own concerns about the ways GW is running things, including things like their crackdown on third party bit makers and blogs. I do understand that they are required to protect their copyrights when faced with repeated infringement, and that what people like Natfka are doing related to leaks and posting images directly from white dwarf is illegal. But I don't think that this calls for GW to completely eradicate these blogs.
I will wait and see how this all turns out, but I expect this type of thing to become increasingly common in the future.
Interesting addition, though I would disagree with his conclusion of GW having standing...especially in the US, because of the journalistic nature and public interest issues related to the infringing material.
If the information regarding Faeit is correct it may be an issue with Google's Blogger demerit system for why it was taken down.
That doesn't actually change the specific underlying issues of GWs heavy handed and out of line use of the DMCA. Unfortunately, it would mean that one of the recipients would have to actually challenge the claims.
Ive gotten tempted a few times lately, then found someone elses stuff I like better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Guess it's time to show your support for your favorite non-GW product.
There is a lot of merit in this statement. For about a year now Ive been dabbling in the games make by the "little guys" like Ganesha Games...and Ive found that many are very good. Once someone finally gives other products a fair try, they will find that GW is very, very far from the end-all be-all of gaming.
seems to me that GW sent multiple letters to the site asking for him to stop posting UNRELEASED pictures of the magazine. It would be like if some how someone got a copy of the newest Hunger Game or Game of Thrones book, took copies of it and posted on there blog. Now they had the best intentions in mind. 1) its against the law. 2) he was warned multiple times. I have heard 4 to 20 times (from earlier posts in this thread). GW wants you to spread the photos ITSELF releases on pre-order release day and have no problem if you post those all over your own blog, but when you release photos of COPYRIGHTED material before there time your in the wrong, your even more in the wrong when they have given you multiple warnings to stop. Would you be upset if you spent Hundreds of thousands of dollars developing a product, Hundreds of thousands of dollars more producing the product, and thousands more prepping the item to be released, and suddenly someone scoops you by posting on there site. Well Gw was upset the first time, the second time they got madder......see where I'm going with this. Finally GW said enough and had his cord (internet) yanked.
Apocalypse40K is up and running. I just spoke to Larry, did a little research, and posted an article.
Alec
Huh...
So effectively GW are trying to crush avenues of rumours?
I understand the purpose of them cutting the rumours back, because they want the initial release numbers to be as high as possible because they drop like a brick quickly after but this is fethed, this is adding to their reputation as "Gestapo Workshop". Do they really not realize that attacking harmless fan sites is what toppled other companies in the past?
Sean_OBrien wrote: Interesting addition, though I would disagree with his conclusion of GW having standing...especially in the US, because of the journalistic nature and public interest issues related to the infringing material.
If the information regarding Faeit is correct it may be an issue with Google's Blogger demerit system for why it was taken down.
That doesn't actually change the specific underlying issues of GWs heavy handed and out of line use of the DMCA. Unfortunately, it would mean that one of the recipients would have to actually challenge the claims.
Here is the thing though. As a civil lawsuit, it would make no sense for someone like Faeit to challenge GW in court. He doesn't make money of his blog and would have to find pro-bono representation. Somebody like the EFF might be willing to do so, but the out of pocket legal expenses such as filing fees would still make it very expensive for no gain (except to get his blog back up).
tree667 wrote: seems to me that GW sent multiple letters to the site asking for him to stop posting UNRELEASED pictures of the magazine. It would be like if some how someone got a copy of the newest Hunger Game or Game of Thrones book, took copies of it and posted on there blog.
Not really, it would be like posting the cover or the picture of the book.
If rules and everything was posted then it would be piracy, but as is its just free advertising for a model that no one knows what it does.
tree667 wrote: seems to me that GW sent multiple letters to the site asking for him to stop posting UNRELEASED pictures of the magazine. It would be like if some how someone got a copy of the newest Hunger Game or Game of Thrones book, took copies of it and posted on there blog. Now they had the best intentions in mind. 1) its against the law. 2) he was warned multiple times. I have heard 4 to 20 times (from earlier posts in this thread). GW wants you to spread the photos ITSELF releases on pre-order release day and have no problem if you post those all over your own blog, but when you release photos of COPYRIGHTED material before there time your in the wrong, your even more in the wrong when they have given you multiple warnings to stop. Would you be upset if you spent Hundreds of thousands of dollars developing a product, Hundreds of thousands of dollars more producing the product, and thousands more prepping the item to be released, and suddenly someone scoops you by posting on there site. Well Gw was upset the first time, the second time they got madder......see where I'm going with this. Finally GW said enough and had his cord (internet) yanked.
All nice and good that you feel that way...but irrelevant. Those issues are issues for GWs internal security and have no bearing on the issues at hand, or any basis in the law.
So, how long until Faeit 213 is launched with the exact same content and the only meaningful result from all of this is that, once again, GW gives themselves bad publicity for abusing the legal system to give themselves "rights" that don't exist in the actual law?
Mohoc wrote: Here is the thing though. As a civil lawsuit, it would make no sense for someone like Faeit to challenge GW in court. He doesn't make money of his blog and would have to find pro-bono representation. Somebody like the EFF might be willing to do so, but the out of pocket legal expenses such as filing fees would still make it very expensive for no gain (except to get his blog back up).
He could do it as a matter of principle, and it's plausible that he could find someone to take the case for free. The whole DMCA thing is not exactly popular, and there are a lot of people with an interest in fighting back against people who abuse the system to suppress information they don't like.
Sean_OBrien wrote: Interesting addition, though I would disagree with his conclusion of GW having standing...especially in the US, because of the journalistic nature and public interest issues related to the infringing material.
If the information regarding Faeit is correct it may be an issue with Google's Blogger demerit system for why it was taken down.
That doesn't actually change the specific underlying issues of GWs heavy handed and out of line use of the DMCA. Unfortunately, it would mean that one of the recipients would have to actually challenge the claims.
Here is the thing though. As a civil lawsuit, it would make no sense for someone like Faeit to challenge GW in court. He doesn't make money of his blog and would have to find pro-bono representation. Somebody like the EFF might be willing to do so, but the out of pocket legal expenses such as filing fees would still make it very expensive for no gain (except to get his blog back up).
While I agree in principle, their is actually a fairly substantial sized group of lawyers who are looking to get involved in a case just like this...and will do so on a pro bono basis. There is basis for filing a countersuit and winning large sums of money for false claims (See OPG v. Diebold). Not to mention lawyers who want to fight this particular fight, or those who are simply interested in checking a box for pro bono hours.
Peregrine wrote: So, how long until Faeit 213 is launched with the exact same content and the only meaningful result from all of this is that, once again, GW gives themselves bad publicity for abusing the legal system to give themselves "rights" that don't exist in the actual law?
Mohoc wrote: Here is the thing though. As a civil lawsuit, it would make no sense for someone like Faeit to challenge GW in court. He doesn't make money of his blog and would have to find pro-bono representation. Somebody like the EFF might be willing to do so, but the out of pocket legal expenses such as filing fees would still make it very expensive for no gain (except to get his blog back up).
He could do it as a matter of principle, and it's plausible that he could find someone to take the case for free. The whole DMCA thing is not exactly popular, and there are a lot of people with an interest in fighting back against people who abuse the system to suppress information they don't like.
I think what really adds to GWs bad publicity is that GW have never gone after anyone the same size or bigger (probably cause they steal ideas like no tomorrow but whatever) but instead pick on no name randoms that actually do more in promoting the hobby if anything. Im waiting for GW to sue that guy that made the terminator armour because he makes costumes for money using GW designs.
I said it a few months back, "White Dwarf is DEAD"
The ONLY reason for a magazine is......
TO SELL ADVERTISING. PERIOD.
When you sell ZERO ad space, you generate ZERO income.
The fact the GW is trying so hard to hang onto the dying media called PRINT is just sad. Im willing to speculate that the fan based websites are generating more money than WHite Dwarf is and that just burns the guys in corporate.
I'm still surprised how much air time GW (and its antics) get. So glad I dropped buying GW stuff and I figured more people would have done the same by now.
I have a suspicion that almost all of this gak over the last few months is just more to do with the GW legal division getting some sort of autonomy, and since all they care about all this legal nonsense, they don't even bother to stop and think about the consequences to sales and marketing.
Kanluwen wrote: While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.
It does sort of seem, though, that this should be an internal security matter for GW to sort out for themselves, rather than a reason to unleash the hounds on people whose 'crime' is ultimately just being interested in the product that GW is selling...
I think it might be at this point that GW has caught whiff of the bloggers potentially being part of the internal security problem.
This is just completely speculative on my part, but considering the things which consistently are getting "leaked" relate to White Dwarf or Codices--it might be someone not directly at the company but rather at one of the printers.
I want to say that the plastic Eldar Farseer that we saw recently is one of the few models we've had leaked far in advance and not in a format where the leak is a photo of a photo type situation.
Even if the writer of Faeit worked in the print house GW uses to print the White Dwarf that would not change that the applicationof the DMCA here is invalid. If they believe that they have an internal leak (which they do) they should handle it using internal security methods, not attempt to use the law as a cudgel (else they end up paying out $125k in damages as Diebold did).
Sean_OBrien wrote: Interesting addition, though I would disagree with his conclusion of GW having standing...especially in the US, because of the journalistic nature and public interest issues related to the infringing material.
If the information regarding Faeit is correct it may be an issue with Google's Blogger demerit system for why it was taken down.
That doesn't actually change the specific underlying issues of GWs heavy handed and out of line use of the DMCA. Unfortunately, it would mean that one of the recipients would have to actually challenge the claims.
Here is the thing though. As a civil lawsuit, it would make no sense for someone like Faeit to challenge GW in court. He doesn't make money of his blog and would have to find pro-bono representation. Somebody like the EFF might be willing to do so, but the out of pocket legal expenses such as filing fees would still make it very expensive for no gain (except to get his blog back up).
While I agree in principle, their is actually a fairly substantial sized group of lawyers who are looking to get involved in a case just like this...and will do so on a pro bono basis. There is basis for filing a countersuit and winning large sums of money for false claims (See OPG v. Diebold). Not to mention lawyers who want to fight this particular fight, or those who are simply interested in checking a box for pro bono hours.
Oh, I don't mean to say (s)he could not find pro bono representation. The question would be for him/her if the whole thing is worth the aggravation, or maybe to just restart the blog on a new service. From personal experience, a lot of lawyers that work pro bono do not cover things such as filing fees, though your mileage may vary. Most of my experience in that regard comes from working with the National Lawyers Guild and political activists.
Sean_OBrien wrote: Even if the writer of Faeit worked in the print house GW uses to print the White Dwarf that would not change that the applicationof the DMCA here is invalid. If they believe that they have an internal leak (which they do) they should handle it using internal security methods, not attempt to use the law as a cudgel (else they end up paying out $125k in damages as Diebold did).
I can agree with this. I think companies end up going kind of heavy handed on leaks and punishing the fanbase/customers more than the leaks personally.
BioWare/EA did this with Mass Effect 3's multiplayer component and it irked me to no end.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: As an employee, not sure how I feel about this. Seems really harsh. I understand the need to protect your IP but I dont see how this hurts GW.
At least you are honest about being a GW employee. I can respect that.
I just don't understand how people can read this crap and then, in good conscience, go spend money on their products. Every time I look at something GW has produced, I get a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach and know that there is no way I could support them as a company, no matter how much I love the art or the sculpt.
Not a lot of people are aware of this. I am the only member of my gaming group that surfs forums. They all plead kids and life, and they just want to play a simple game that they can coax me into assembling/painting the minis for.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The problem with Faeit claiming fair use is that his releasing pictures/scans of what White Dwarf is claiming as a "first look" at new models/rules before the work is published is negatively impacting "the potential market value of the copyrighted work," the copyrighted work in this case being White Dwarf. Using copyrighted material in "news reporting" or "criticism" does not magically give someone free reign to used the material however they see fit.
puma713 wrote: I just don't understand how people can read this crap and then, in good conscience, go spend money on their products. Every time I look at something GW has produced, I get a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach and know that there is no way I could support them as a company, no matter how much I love the art or the sculpt.
Because GW is simply protecting themselves from the big bad bloggers that wanted to preview their upcoming products. Everyone knows that previews kill excitement for products, so if GW wants to even sell a single box of new High Elves, then everything needs to be taken down until GW releases it.
I don't really comment on it anymore - I don't play GW games or buy GW products - but I have to say, it's semi-sickening seeing the same people cry out against GW's actions, and then 'ooh' and 'aah' over the new releases. Any money you put towards GW models helps to fund actions like these. I suppose we can excuse those who aren't aware of these events, but those of you who are on these forums and know of these events should reflect on what you're helping to support.
puma713 wrote: I just don't understand how people can read this crap and then, in good conscience, go spend money on their products. Every time I look at something GW has produced, I get a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach and know that there is no way I could support them as a company, no matter how much I love the art or the sculpt.
Probably because for most people, life is not black nor white. Is GW wrong? On the letter of the law perhaps, but it can't be argued that Faeit 212 was doing anything other than going against the express wishes of the company who produced the material he was sharing. Is it dumb that GW tries to be so secretive? You can certainly believe so, but it is their right to do as they please with the things they create. This blog intentionally and repeatedly violated that right, and so GW took action. There is a logical cause-and-effect here and while you can argue the technical points of law, and probably find out that GW has no legal leg to stand on outside of a courtroom that's completely irrelevant.
To say that GW is evil, which is what you seem to be implying, for doing stupid things is grossly underestimating what "evil" truly means. GW is heavy-handed, short-sighted and overzealous, but they are looking out for what they perceive to be their best interests and are using legal remedies (again, likely improperly) to do so. This is not a situation where Faeit was taken into the back room and had his kneecaps shattered, nor should it really come as a shock to them if there were as many previous incidents as people have related.
Granted, I agree that people should avoid buying whatever they can from GW, especially directly, to send a message that these behaviors are NOT in their best interest. However to paint the situation as moralistically black-and-white is a bit of an oversimplification. Neither party in this equation are completely angels, just one undertook their actions with far less malice than the other.
entropolous wrote: The problem with Faeit claiming fair use is that his releasing pictures/scans of what White Dwarf is claiming as a "first look" at new models/rules before the work is published is negatively impacting "the potential market value of the copyrighted work," the copyrighted work in this case being White Dwarf. Using copyrighted material in "news reporting" or "criticism" does not magically give someone free reign to used the material however they see fit.
But it doesn't have any effect on the market at all, since (supposedly, I don't care enough about WHFB to have read it myself) we're talking about the catalog images, not copies of the entire article text, or the painting guides/special missions/whatever else WD might include. Nobody buys WD to get access to some thumbnail pictures that are worse than what GW's own website offers for free, the sole value of the scans is getting to see what GW is going to release before they make an official announcement.
This isn't them scanning WD issues into their computers, turning 'em into PDF's, and unleashing them unto the world. It's a few bad iPhone photos of some ultra-dippy flying chariots.
Krinsath wrote: On the letter of the law perhaps, but it can't be argued that Faeit 212 was doing anything other than going against the express wishes of the company who produced the material he was sharing.
So what? If you disagree with GW's decisions you have no obligation to obey their preferences. Just like, for example, I could post quotes from a book by a politician I hate even though their wish is that I don't criticize them.
To say that GW is evil, which is what you seem to be implying, for doing stupid things is grossly underestimating what "evil" truly means.
No, it's an entirely appropriate use of the term 'evil'. They're abusing the legal system to gain IP protection that doesn't exist in the actual law, purely because of their target's inability to afford to defend themselves in court.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The problem with Faeit claiming fair use is that his releasing pictures/scans of what White Dwarf is claiming as a "first look" at new models/rules before the work is published is negatively impacting "the potential market value of the copyrighted work," the copyrighted work in this case being White Dwarf. Using copyrighted material in "news reporting" or "criticism" does not magically give someone free reign to used the material however they see fit.
All factors are taken into account when determining if something is fair use. The impact on the value of White Dwarf is negligible. At the same time that White Dwarf is released, the same images and information is available in spam folders across the world as well as on the GW website, free of use. If White Dwarf were released earlier than the online images...then they might have grounds to claim that it devalues the White Dwarf magazine...though that isnt the sole factor to determine if it is fair use.
Keep in mind, if I review a product, and say it is utter crap...that would in fact devalue the product. If I use images of one of the wonky GW releases to show that it is a cheap knock off of a Cylon Raider only rather expensive, that would be fair use, regardless of whether or not it cost GW to never sell a knock off Cylon Raider.
Krinsath wrote: On the letter of the law perhaps, but it can't be argued that Faeit 212 was doing anything other than going against the express wishes of the company who produced the material he was sharing.
So what? If you disagree with GW's decisions you have no obligation to obey their preferences. Just like, for example, I could post quotes from a book by a politician I hate even though their wish is that I don't criticize them.
His goal was not to post it as some sort of protest, it was to fill a void in the market that GW (stupidly) created. However, it was at the end of the day a commercial event to drive up his own readership, not an altruistic public service or else he could have easily waited until the White Dwarf was on the shelves, but that doesn't pull in the readers does it?
Was it effective? Sure, and GW have nobody but themselves to blame for creating that void. However, if I decide to go to your house and take some sort of IP from you and share it, I would expect you to in turn use every tool you could possibly use outside of criminal activity to stop me. That's all that has happened here. To paint it as angels versus demons is, as I said, oversimplifying.
To say that GW is evil, which is what you seem to be implying, for doing stupid things is grossly underestimating what "evil" truly means.
No, it's an entirely appropriate use of the term 'evil'. They're abusing the legal system to gain IP protection that doesn't exist in the actual law, purely because of their target's inability to afford to defend themselves in court.
If that's your definition of evil, you live in a very sheltered world. GW has abused a bad law, and in doing so has opened the door to have that bad law challenged. As many have pointed out, there are firms chomping at the bit to go toe-to-toe over this law, and while it would be aggravating and time-consuming, any US-based website would probably benefit from it (assuming GW is, in fact, wrong...obviously if the courts somehow side with them then the whole issue is moot). However, as we established natfka wasn't in this to make the world a better place; he was trying to get people to read his blog. He does not have an inability to defend himself, he likely just wouldn't want the hassle (as is his right, as the legal process isn't known for being fast).
Evil isn't taking advantage of a bad law; that's how bad laws are uncovered and fixed which in the long run is an unquestionably good thing. GW helped take down a blog (as I believe Google actually pulled the trigger on that) and earned themselves a huge helping of ill-will from the people they depend on. That too is self-correcting and will result in a punishment of a sort. Evil is perpetuating human suffering for your own gain. Blood diamonds, for example, are evil. Products made without regard for the fact they will kill their users is evil. Doing something that will intentionally put others in harm's way because it's cheaper for you to do it that way is evil. What GW has done is thoughtless, which is in a whole category below that sort of thing.
puma713 wrote: I just don't understand how people can read this crap and then, in good conscience, go spend money on their products. Every time I look at something GW has produced, I get a sickly feeling in the pit of my stomach and know that there is no way I could support them as a company, no matter how much I love the art or the sculpt.
Probably because for most people, life is not black nor white. Is GW wrong? On the letter of the law perhaps, but it can't be argued that Faeit 212 was doing anything other than going against the express wishes of the company who produced the material he was sharing. Is it dumb that GW tries to be so secretive? You can certainly believe so, but it is their right to do as they please with the things they create. This blog intentionally and repeatedly violated that right, and so GW took action. There is a logical cause-and-effect here and while you can argue the technical points of law, and probably find out that GW has no legal leg to stand on outside of a courtroom that's completely irrelevant.
To say that GW is evil, which is what you seem to be implying, for doing stupid things is grossly underestimating what "evil" truly means. GW is heavy-handed, short-sighted and overzealous, but they are looking out for what they perceive to be their best interests and are using legal remedies (again, likely improperly) to do so. This is not a situation where Faeit was taken into the back room and had his kneecaps shattered, nor should it really come as a shock to them if there were as many previous incidents as people have related.
Granted, I agree that people should avoid buying whatever they can from GW, especially directly, to send a message that these behaviors are NOT in their best interest. However to paint the situation as moralistically black-and-white is a bit of an oversimplification. Neither party in this equation are completely angels, just one undertook their actions with far less malice than the other.
No, I wasn't making a profound statement about GW or their practices (whether they are evil or not, etc.), I was literally confounded by the fact that people will read through the decisions that they're making and still spend money to support the company. If you spend money on their product then, by statement of action, you are supporting these decisions. But if these types of things get under your skin - whether it is a piece of crap cast, a price increase, a snub at your favorite FLGS, or a legal notice that seems petty or unfounded - then think about how you felt when you read about it the next time you pick up that new box of terminators or email your online vendor (because you're not allowed a shopping cart. . .).
Krinsath wrote: His goal was not to post it as some sort of protest, it was to fill a void in the market that GW (stupidly) created. However, it was at the end of the day a commercial event to drive up his own readership, not an altruistic public service or else he could have easily waited until the White Dwarf was on the shelves, but that doesn't pull in the readers does it?
Who cares? There is no obligation, other than the ones specifically given in the law, to respect the desires of an IP owner. The fact that GW didn't want the material released is irrelevant.
However, if I decide to go to your house and take some sort of IP from you and share it, I would expect you to in turn use every tool you could possibly use outside of criminal activity to stop me.
Of course I would make every effort to stop you because you would be guilty of various crimes. There's a difference between breaking into someone's property and stealing IP that they had not released and someone getting a copy of a magazine early and posting pictures of it. GW might be able to take action against the person who sold the magazine early, depending on their contracts, but isn't entitled to do anything about the bloggers who re-post the material.
If that's your definition of evil, you live in a very sheltered world.
No, I just don't assume that only the very worst acts can possibly be called "evil". The fact that GW's actions aren't as bad as mass torture and genocide don't change the fact that "evil" is still a very appropriate description.
He does not have an inability to defend himself, he likely just wouldn't want the hassle (as is his right, as the legal process isn't known for being fast).
Or he just can't cover the legal costs (which are not necessarily 100% covered if a lawyer donates their time). Can you really not see the problem with a legal system where people who have lots of money can trample the rights of people who don't and make abusive legal demands that the target can't fight back against because they don't have as much money to spend on lawyers?
puma713 wrote: No, I wasn't making a profound statement about GW or their practices (whether they are evil or not, etc.), I was literally confounded by the fact that people will read through the decisions that they're making and still spend money to support the company. If you spend money on their product then, by statement of action, you are supporting these decisions. But if these types of things get under your skin - whether it is a piece of crap cast, a price increase, a snub at your favorite FLGS, or a legal notice that seems petty or unfounded - then think about how you felt when you read about it the next time you pick up that new box of terminators or email your online vendor (because you're not allowed a shopping cart. . .).
Fair enough. As Mathieu pointed out though most people simply don't care; they just want a game that they can play and has a pretty widespread audience.
A blog got taken down for showing things that GW made before GW released it? Heck, most people would probably think that the law actually allows them to do this (Look no further than this thread on that point). GW wants to hide what they're releasing? Whatever, I didn't pay attention before anyway and just found out what was new at the beginning of the month. Prices go up? So has everything else of late, and GW is still in line with many hobbies. Some random novel got taken down because of trademark infringement? That was dumb, but that novel probably ended up selling more copies than it ever would have otherwise.
And you can find similar "just don't care" arguments for pretty much all the dumb things that GW has done over the past couple years. Some people just can't find it in themselves to get indignant over toy soldiers, and as long as they outnumber the people who go onto forums and get worked up, GW will continue to be bull-headed. However, evangelizing about how awful GW is probably isn't going to win any converts so we just have to decide what to do with our own selves. GW's annual price hikes are probably going to solve the problem for us anyway.
No, I wasn't making a profound statement about GW or their practices (whether they are evil or not, etc.), I was literally confounded by the fact that people will read through the decisions that they're making and still spend money to support the company. If you spend money on their product then, by statement of action, you are supporting these decisions. But if these types of things get under your skin - whether it is a piece of crap cast, a price increase, a snub at your favorite FLGS, or a legal notice that seems petty or unfounded - then think about how you felt when you read about it the next time you pick up that new box of terminators or email your online vendor (because you're not allowed a shopping cart. . .).
Lots of words passed back and forth, but ultimatley the point of whether the actions of GW is right or not is moot. The law is what it is, you violate it repeatadley what do you think is going to happen?
You and I might not agree with the practice but if your instructed to cease and desist over and over again, and continue to ignore it, then you have to face the consequences. Personally, I believe this was the wrong way to do it, but as a former cop and now GW employee, you violate the law and you suffer the penalty. I think we as a community complain, cry foul, gnashing of teeth and lots of rage; but at the end of the day GW (the info provided) tried to be cool about it. These websites had a chances but chose to ignore, so who really is at fault.
At the end of the day I am already missing the leaks faeit 212 provided, I hope that an alternative arises to continue to provide us info and leaks, within the law.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: Lots of words passed back and forth, but ultimatley the point of whether the actions of GW is right or not is moot. The law is what it is, you violate it repeatadley what do you think is going to happen?
Apparently not enough words, because you still don't comprehend that what Faeit did was not against the law; what GW did, on the other hand, is.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: Lots of words passed back and forth, but ultimatley the point of whether the actions of GW is right or not is moot. The law is what it is, you violate it repeatadley what do you think is going to happen?
You and I might not agree with the practice but if your instructed to cease and desist over and over again, and continue to ignore it, then you have to face the consequences. Personally, I believe this was the wrong way to do it, but as a former cop and now GW employee, you violate the law and you suffer the penalty. I think we as a community complain, cry foul, gnashing of teeth and lots of rage; but at the end of the day GW (the info provided) tried to be cool about it. These websites had a chances but chose to ignore, so who really is at fault.
At the end of the day I am already missing the leaks faeit 212 provided, I hope that an alternative arises to continue to provide us info and leaks, within the law.
No laws were broken.
A C&D has no legal basis as a letter and only holds weight following a judges order as the result of a lawsuit.
The only thing which it appears Faeit might have done was violated Google's terms of use by reposting articles without responding to the DMCA complaint.
Who cares? There is no obligation, other than the ones specifically given in the law, to respect the desires of an IP owner. The fact that GW didn't want the material released is irrelevant.
However, if I decide to go to your house and take some sort of IP from you and share it, I would expect you to in turn use every tool you could possibly use outside of criminal activity to stop me.
Of course I would make every effort to stop you because you would be guilty of various crimes. There's a difference between breaking into someone's property and stealing IP that they had not released and someone getting a copy of a magazine early and posting pictures of it. GW might be able to take action against the person who sold the magazine early, depending on their contracts, but isn't entitled to do anything about the bloggers who re-post the material.
The poorly-written and understood DMCA disagrees with you, hence we are here. I agree in principal that GW is in the wrong, but I also see where natfka isn't flitting about with a halo and wings while strumming a harp.
No, I just don't assume that only the very worst acts can possibly be called "evil". The fact that GW's actions aren't as bad as mass torture and genocide don't change the fact that "evil" is still a very appropriate description.
GW's actions are "Profoundly immoral and malevolent."? Hardly, as we established the morality here is far from clear-cut (legality and morality being completely unrelated at the end of the day). GW didn't want things released, but natfka did anyway knowing this. GW acted much as would be expected, and had acted in the past. They believe they are right, and as the unquestioned rights-holder the burden of proof was shifted to natkfa to prove otherwise. He did (I assume this was the case) and Google decided he was too much trouble, in which case the fault is Google's for deciding to ditch him. The other option is he simply ignored the past DMCA notices in which case he is just as culpable for this happening; just because you think something is baseless/stupid doesn't give you leave to ignore it.
Or he just can't cover the legal costs (which are not necessarily 100% covered if a lawyer donates their time). Can you really not see the problem with a legal system where people who have lots of money can trample the rights of people who don't and make abusive legal demands that the target can't fight back against because they don't have as much money to spend on lawyers?
If such a legal system existed, it'd be the fault of the society who created it and allowed it to persist, not those who worked within its framework. However, that too is over-simplifying. There are plenty of avenues out there if one truly desires to avail themselves of them. Again, the DMCA in particular is a target many entities have an interest in finding a challenger for. If a music pirate who 1) actually knew they stole the songs and was 2) shockingly the right person can get legal representation, natfka probably can too (let's not delve into the RIAA's similarly stupid lawsuit campaign).
Jordanandrew249 wrote: Lots of words passed back and forth, but ultimatley the point of whether the actions of GW is right or not is moot. The law is what it is, you violate it repeatadley what do you think is going to happen?
You and I might not agree with the practice but if your instructed to cease and desist over and over again, and continue to ignore it, then you have to face the consequences. Personally, I believe this was the wrong way to do it, but as a former cop and now GW employee, you violate the law and you suffer the penalty. I think we as a community complain, cry foul, gnashing of teeth and lots of rage; but at the end of the day GW (the info provided) tried to be cool about it. These websites had a chances but chose to ignore, so who really is at fault.
At the end of the day I am already missing the leaks faeit 212 provided, I hope that an alternative arises to continue to provide us info and leaks, within the law.
Here is the thing though: Natfka was operating within the law. GW send a bunch of DMCA notices that claimed otherwise and Google killed his account. There is nothing ethical in what GW did. Websites like Natfka are news sites protected by copyright law. GWdeliberately circumvented this by abusing the "take down first, ask questions later" provision of the DMCA.
1) If GW does anything at all to protect it's product, research, ip, sale, shareholders......=BAD
2) if anyone does anything illeagal to GW = Good
I Love Faeit site. Almost every morning I log see whats going on and get giddy once or twice a month about whats coming down the pipeline next. This fact of my enjoyment does not change the fact that he had received multiple warnings to stop posting pictures of scanned white dwarf pages BEFORE the release date of the magazine. Yes some of you will say "but it not a magazine it's an advertisement for there stuff.....guess what EVERYTHING IS AN ADVERTISMENT" ....forums...banner advertisement....tv -commerical advertisements and product placement.....movie advertisements, product placements....radio...advertisement.....hell you can make your house an advertisment.
Btw think of the economic losses a simple picture a couple of weeks could do. It takes month's to design just a single model. they gotta make sure it safe and little timmy's mommy won't think it too bad, focus groups, testing, Multiple goverments to appease there standards..blah blah blah. This cost money. That's even before you make a single one. That's allll rolled into the cost. Now lets take that one picture/video of the leaked eldar I saw a few weeks back. Now some guys in china/arizona/chile/etc etc could study the photo make a copy(or change the size slightly...you know to call it original). well this guys from that one photo/drawing/video just cut out alot of the r/d cost and now makes money on GW back. Now this isn't an attack on chapterhouse or any other company GW has gone after. Just something to think of before you just roll your eyes and saw...pssst GW just being a bully.
This is by far the dumbest thing I have seen Games Workshop do recently. Sure it was overstepping their bounds with Space Marine and Chapter House, but at least you could see why there were trying that, even if you don't agree with the tactic.
This is like they are trying to make people less aware of their own products and squash their (free) marketing. Sure a low quality page from a rule book gets posted, but it isn't the whole book, nor is it high enough quality usually for people to be able to read it in detail. It takes nothing from their sales saves for get people more interested.
I normally find that when a company begins to cannibalize their own fan sites for posting rumors, even leaks, it is usually because the company is panicking for some reason.
I suspect it has something to do with the Chapter House suit and their sales number, but I have been wrong in the past.
tree667 wrote: I couldn't be bothered to actually read this thread, so instead I'll post my own opinion that's based on conjecture, stereotypes, and poorly thought out reasoning.
How is it people can read this entire thread and after several clear and concise posts about how the use of the DCMA was incorrectly applied still think that GW did everything right and the rest of the forum posters are completely insane to think otherwise? It simply boggles the mind.
jlong05 wrote: How is it people can read this entire thread and after several clear and concise posts about how the use of the DCMA was incorrectly applied still think that GW did everything right and the rest of the forum posters are completely insane to think otherwise? It simply boggles the mind.
Pick any or all
1) They only read the posts they agree with
2) They don't understand what they are reading
3) They didn't read anything but the first post
4) GW is always right, even when they are wrong
5) They think this is clear cut, because GW says so
jlong05 wrote: How is it people can read this entire thread and after several clear and concise posts about how the use of the DCMA was incorrectly applied still think that GW did everything right and the rest of the forum posters are completely insane to think otherwise? It simply boggles the mind.
Pick any or all
1) They only read the posts they agree with
2) They don't understand what they are reading
3) They didn't read anything but the first post
4) GW is always right, even when they are wrong
5) They think this is clear cut, because GW says so
All of the above. My favorite answer to multiple choice questions.
ok since some people can't understand what I meant by my first statement.
so after reading every word written by everyone formed by there unbiased views of either parties i have as(S)certained That
1) on a 61.8734% to 38.1266% negative to postive view that Game workshop, when it decides to do anything it see in it best interest and the interest of it stockholder it is deemed as negative action
2) if anyone decides that there allowed to use,copy or take liberties with Games Workshop I.P. then it is deemed that said company is "the man" and it is ok.
Who cares? There is no obligation, other than the ones specifically given in the law, to respect the desires of an IP owner. The fact that GW didn't want the material released is irrelevant.
However, if I decide to go to your house and take some sort of IP from you and share it, I would expect you to in turn use every tool you could possibly use outside of criminal activity to stop me.
Of course I would make every effort to stop you because you would be guilty of various crimes. There's a difference between breaking into someone's property and stealing IP that they had not released and someone getting a copy of a magazine early and posting pictures of it. GW might be able to take action against the person who sold the magazine early, depending on their contracts, but isn't entitled to do anything about the bloggers who re-post the material.
The poorly-written and understood DMCA disagrees with you, hence we are here. I agree in principal that GW is in the wrong, but I also see where natfka isn't flitting about with a halo and wings while strumming a harp.
No, I just don't assume that only the very worst acts can possibly be called "evil". The fact that GW's actions aren't as bad as mass torture and genocide don't change the fact that "evil" is still a very appropriate description.
GW's actions are "Profoundly immoral and malevolent."? Hardly, as we established the morality here is far from clear-cut (legality and morality being completely unrelated at the end of the day). GW didn't want things released, but natfka did anyway knowing this. GW acted much as would be expected, and had acted in the past. They believe they are right, and as the unquestioned rights-holder the burden of proof was shifted to natkfa to prove otherwise. He did (I assume this was the case) and Google decided he was too much trouble, in which case the fault is Google's for deciding to ditch him. The other option is he simply ignored the past DMCA notices in which case he is just as culpable for this happening; just because you think something is baseless/stupid doesn't give you leave to ignore it.
Or he just can't cover the legal costs (which are not necessarily 100% covered if a lawyer donates their time). Can you really not see the problem with a legal system where people who have lots of money can trample the rights of people who don't and make abusive legal demands that the target can't fight back against because they don't have as much money to spend on lawyers?
If such a legal system existed, it'd be the fault of the society who created it and allowed it to persist, not those who worked within its framework. However, that too is over-simplifying. There are plenty of avenues out there if one truly desires to avail themselves of them. Again, the DMCA in particular is a target many entities have an interest in finding a challenger for. If a music pirate who 1) actually knew they stole the songs and was 2) shockingly the right person can get legal representation, natfka probably can too (let's not delve into the RIAA's similarly stupid lawsuit campaign).
Although the DMCA is poorly written - that is not why we have gotten here. We are at this point because large companies know that they can use the legal system and scary sounding documents to scare small companies and individuals to "shut up and color". There is even a term for it which is used quite often...SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation). As I had already mentioned above - the DMCA is actually written (in theory at least) to help prevent SLAPPs and the general chilling effect of DMCA takedown notices (though most people probably will not have read the course work...so let me go ahead and quote things here for simplicity):
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Under the DMCA, if a company like GW were to misrepresent the facts and file fraudulent DMCA takedown complaints - a group (individual) like Faeit could say prove it. GW then has to put up or shut up in court. If the court finds that the original filing was fraudulent (as many of the GW takedown orders are and they are clearly examples of fair use as in the OPG v Diebold case) - then the violator who misrepresents the signed and sworn to takedown order has to pay legal fees and related costs of the alleged violator (Faeit).
The problem that we come to is that many people are ignorant to the law. They are ignorant to what steps can be taken. This ignorance is further perpetuated by companies like GW who put up a big legal sounding front regarding things like their claimed trademarks and send out rather intimidating C&D letters (a big difference between a letter and an order). That has a stifling effect on the free exchange of ideas - so much so that other sites...like this very site put terms in place that would prevent someone from posting the same images here that are found on sites like Faeit. That stifling is a very evil thing to do.
That is of course unless you really do think for some reason that what Faeit was doing was not providing news (which several of the supporters of GW in this very thread have stated clearly that they went their looking for news) and thereby not protected use of copyrighted material - regardless of whether or not it was leaked ahead of the release of the White Dwarf (which as I already stated since the images are available online before the magazines ship destroys any claim to financial damages to the sales of White Dwarf - not to mention that the sections in question are presentation of fact and generally not afforded the same level of protection as a creative work...).
tree667 wrote: Now some guys in china/arizona/chile/etc etc could study the photo make a copy(or change the size slightly...you know to call it original). well this guys from that one photo/drawing/video just cut out alot of the r/d cost and now makes money on GW back.
Sorry, but that's just nonsense. We're talking about small, often poor-quality, pictures that are leaked shortly before the official release date. So not only will that supposed "guy in China" have no problem getting a copy of those pictures they'll have better pictures (for free) directly from GW's own website. And of course soon after that the "guy in China" will have the actual model which can be used to make the molds for an exact copy. The absolute most anyone could get from it would be a small head start on making their competing model (while GW's product is sitting in the warehouse ready to ship), and that's not even close to a meaningful advantage. Chapterhouse only succeeded because they got started months/years before GW, while GW didn't make any effort to produce models for certain popular units. Arguing that getting WD scans a week early would have the same result just shows your own ignorance of the design and production process.
tree667 wrote: ok since some people can't understand what I meant by my first statement.
2) if anyone decides that there allowed to use,copy or take liberties with Games Workshop I.P. then it is deemed that said company is "the man" and it is ok.
It isn't that we can't understand you - it is that you are wrong. No one was supporting Brian Beal in GW v Beal. He was a recaster and GW was entirely within their rights to pursue their legal position against them. However, that is not the case here. If you read that actual statutes in question, it is clear that Faeit's use of copyrighted material was legal. GW filed the takedown order in a manner which was not consistent with their rights or the law - for really no practical reason at all (really - there is no reason for it...other than someone thinks they should).
In the CHS case, you have a company making compatible parts - not at all illegal and common place with almost every other consumer good you can find.
In the BW case, things are more grey - but there is plenty of meat on that bone as well should you feel that BW was using an idea (which can not be protected) to create a product of their own making.
In the Spots case, GW attempted to make a claim for a long standing and highly generic science fiction term that predates them as a company by some 40 years and 40K as a property by 60 years. Not only that, but it was against an author who is about as far from competition for GW's market as you can get while still writing science fiction.
What you have is people thinking that when GW do dumb things to protect what they claim as their IP - people think it is dumb. If they do smart things to protect what IS their IP, people don't care.
tree667 wrote: sorry ....infinite_array .....I guess forming an an opposing view isn't allowed. Oh i'm sorry your from phillie....explains everything.
It's not that you can't form an opposing view. It's just that your opposing view is coming from the inside of your own bowels.
And I'm not sure what me being from Philly has to do with anything. It's not like I have a pile of D-batteries stockpiled in case someone needs a good pelting, no siree. Unless you take offense at the way I pronounce water, and that's just a low blow.
tree667 wrote: I never stated GW is doing a good business move, just I understand there actions, big difference
Except you don't understand their actions. This has nothing to do with paranoia about someone using the WD images to make a competing model, it's about GW's obsessive need to control all information about upcoming products until release day and avoid any chance of potential customers having time to think about their purchases and maybe decide that they don't want to buy it after all. Leaking the WD images means that potential customers have information that isn't under GW's direct control, potentially including criticism of those products.
Ok...breathe. Just saying Games Workshop is acting like a business....a large business. It worried about every piece of it's IP. Anything released early or without a model is a scary thing to them. What happened with chapterhouse was a wake up call for them which forced them change a busy models. Changing business model in a major company is not as easy as saying " you know bob we should ship this package UPS instead of FedEX." It's takes years, changing timetables, designs, production timetables, workshifts, hell down to what time the worker show up and leave. If anything Chapterhouse studio probally saved Games workshop. Now I don't agree that chapterhouse 100% is innocent in there case and that another whole thing, but it causing GW to attack like a GIANT wounded animal. it is lashing out at anything it sees as a threat. There trying to get through this change. Also add on the pressure forums like this add on to it with instant feedback or the fact there is so many other gaming companies out there trying to do the exact same thing Games Workshop does.
Chances are everything we have said in this forum is wrong,right, close all at the same time. Chances are the guy who said google just took the site because of so many letters from GW is probally the guy who wins the prize. I'm just trying to show a different point of view
Sean_OBrien wrote: A nicely stated and laid out post that's too long to quote
That the DMCA can be used to further something it has safeguards against is simply further evidence that it's a bad law that needs re-working. I strongly believe that naftka should avail himself of these remedies because you never stop bullies by letting them have their way, and bad laws never get fixed if they're not challenged. I would understand if he chose not to, but someone will have to stand up at some point for anything to change.
That said, I also do not view GW's actions as "evil." Unethical I'd agree with all day long, but there is a huge gulf between those terms, and it is there for a reason. To misapply "evil" here serves only to cheapen the word for when its use would be warranted, which does a disservice to all parties. Also, GW is not stifling the exchange of ideas, the people who wrote and educated about the law poorly did that, and they along with those in power that let the travesty continue are far more guilty on a much grander scale than GW could fathom. Again though, to characterize something as evil implies malice to do something immoral, and they set out with good intentions when they wrote the law, as you point out.
We're just getting to see where those paving stones lead...
ok H.B.M.C that actually made me laugh....it an inside joke, thanks I needed a laugh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: btw peregine I agree a scan from a white dwarf a week ahead isn't going to lead to a gult of models coming. That was more in reference to any leaked item week(s) in advance. You be surpised how much money is spent in corporate security. Doesn't mean that isn't what going on through GW brain.
@ Sean. Ya can't talk reason to some of the people in here that I believe are brain dead. Sorry just had a thought run through my mind as logical folk of reason running for their lives as hordes of GW Zombie loyalists shambling forward.
Screaming out phrases like:
"Expensive codex.... Must buy!!!" "GW goooood... Internet baaaad!!!" and also add the obligatory terms in between... "Braaaains" ...Heresy!!!" and "The H-H-Hobby.... The H-H-Hobby!!!!"
Though I do appreciate those people with reason (and of course common sense) in here to shoulder on because they are the ones I listen too.
Adam LongWalker wrote: @ Sean. Ya can't talk reason to some of the people in here that I believe are brain dead. Sorry just had a thought run through my mind as logical folk of reason running for their lives as hordes of GW Zombie loyalists shambling forward.
Screaming out phrases like:
"Expensive codex.... Must buy!!!" "GW goooood... Internet baaaad!!!" and also add the obligatory terms in between... "Braaaains" ...Heresy!!!" and "The H-H-Hobby.... The H-H-Hobby!!!!"
Though I do appreciate those people with reason (and of course common sense) in here to shoulder on because they are the ones I listen too.
steals the translator
got it.
you'll listen to anyone who agrees with you and ignore anyone who disagrees.
tree667 wrote: Chances are the guy who said google just took the site because of so many letters from GW is probally the guy who wins the prize. I'm just trying to show a different point of view
I doubt that Google took the site down because of all the letters (total of I think 5 were linked to here...but lets make that 500 DMCA takedown notices just for giggles).
Each month, Google receives over 12,000,000 DMCA takedown notices. 500 for one site mean nothing to them - especially when it is only one or two a month. What got him in trouble and appears to have gotten his blog account deactivated was ignoring Google's messages and reposting the articles in question. As opposed to ignoring the messages - he should have sent Google a reply, stating - Nope, those images are perfectly legal...I am a journalist and they are news items.
Some interesting stats from Google regarding their DMCA requests... About 57% of them are from companies attempting to stifle competition. Another 37% are not valid copyright claims (such as this one). That leaves only 6% of the requests that actually are somewhat valid - and even those might not stand up to scrutiny.
Adam LongWalker wrote: @ Sean. Ya can't talk reason to some of the people in here that I believe are brain dead.
Just don't follow blindly. When I remember to - I cite the law and the case law so that others can read for themselves. Sometimes of course, there seems to be a need to chop it up into tiny pieces so that it isn't choked upon.
Sean_OBrien wrote: A nicely stated and laid out post that's too long to quote
That the DMCA can be used to further something it has safeguards against is simply further evidence that it's a bad law that needs re-working. I strongly believe that naftka should avail himself of these remedies because you never stop bullies by letting them have their way, and bad laws never get fixed if they're not challenged. I would understand if he chose not to, but someone will have to stand up at some point for anything to change.
That said, I also do not view GW's actions as "evil." Unethical I'd agree with all day long, but there is a huge gulf between those terms, and it is there for a reason. To misapply "evil" here serves only to cheapen the word for when its use would be warranted, which does a disservice to all parties. Also, GW is not stifling the exchange of ideas, the people who wrote and educated about the law poorly did that, and they along with those in power that let the travesty continue are far more guilty on a much grander scale than GW could fathom. Again though, to characterize something as evil implies malice to do something immoral, and they set out with good intentions when they wrote the law, as you point out.
We're just getting to see where those paving stones lead...
That ends up being an issue of semantics. The laws are written by lobbyist groups - no doubt the DMCA was formulated by a group who GW supports in one way or another (most corporations donate to slush funds which support their business framework). I don't think they had as large a part as a company like Disney or the RIAA did - but that still doesn't make them innocent.
Even so, if you were to take this and travel into a different realm...say a country where stoning someone for having premarital sex was legal - would that make the stoning evil or just sort of bad? After all - it wouldn't be the fault of the zealot that they through the stone...it is legal after all. No, I say that just because a law is poorly written...it doesn't make it OK to abuse it. Especially given that the sworn statements are demonstrably false to even a first year law student. The end result is a stifling of the free flow of ideas - something which GW chooses to do, not because they are forced to (as they might claim due to a misunderstanding of something like trademark law) but they had to actively choose to seek this out and stifle it. They had to choose to ignore the fair use exemptions that exist for news services. They had to choose to put in place policies that caused a source like Faeit to exist. All of those things make what they are doing more than just unethical. While you might not consider it evil - I consider attempting to control public discussions the highest form of evil.
I am not surprised by this at all. I just wish that GW would read some of this and make changes to help the community and themselves. Last week I played in an 1850 tournament, I came in second, but it felt hollow because of the heavy handed and just bad policy's GW has made. All of the players felt this way, the only reason we play at all is the effort we put into our models. If they do not listen to there fans they will fail. We after all, are the ones who drive their company.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, Is BOLS gone forever?
Or will they have to agree to not host the leaked images?
Still up in the air. As others have mentioned - the forum is still up. However, if they had received previous takedown notices and not responded - Google might be placing them in time out for a bit. They may end up looking to make the rebuttal claim of being journalists and protected fair use - which would be a good thing IMO. We won't find out though till he decided to share the outcome and inner details of the goings on between the BoLS blog and Google.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, Is BOLS gone forever?
Or will they have to agree to not host the leaked images?
A reply from Bigred:
Bigred wrote:Hi guys,
A formal heads up.
We are working with Blogger to figure out what's up with the frontpage.
The domain is fine, and the Lounge is (obviously) in fine shape.
We are still proceeding under the impresison that we are dealing with an internal Google IT issue.
We have received no takedown requests, or any emails from any parties regarding any IP related issues.
We are treating this outage as out top priority and working on it round the clock.
I can not speak to the outages of any 3rd party sites, or the timing involved with them.
Thanks and feel free to visit the Lounge even more in the hours ahead.
-Larry
It seems... a little suspicious? Maybe? I dunno. Occam's Razor and all that, but the refusal to speak about Faeit and the 'impression' of it being an internal Google issue doesn't really inspire any confidence.
well here something I just read on another forum/blog. It seem faeit had pictures of pages of ia12? like 29 of them. I remeber seeing em but not how many pages there were.
Bell of Lost Souls and Faet212 have both gone down. The question is why.
First, this blog, as well as Faeit212, both got Digital Millennium Copyright (DMCA) Act notices served to Google, the host of Blogger, the blogging software we both use. You can see Faet212's DMCA notice here and the Apocalypse40K one, which was filed last week, here.
Now that was the second such notice I know of. Interestingly, when I went to the offending URL the article was not up, but all that happened was the offending article was reverted to draft in my control panel. I then deleted it because, though I find Games Workshop legal overbearing and meglomaniacal, if I step over the IP line, I am happy to comply. And of course, the fact is I am an attorney by training (I don't practice) so I know when they have a case (here) and don't (Chapterhouse mostly).
Jordanandrew249 wrote: Lots of words passed back and forth, but ultimatley the point of whether the actions of GW is right or not is moot. The law is what it is, you violate it repeatadley what do you think is going to happen?
You and I might not agree with the practice but if your instructed to cease and desist over and over again, and continue to ignore it, then you have to face the consequences. Personally, I believe this was the wrong way to do it, but as a former cop and now GW employee, you violate the law and you suffer the penalty. I think we as a community complain, cry foul, gnashing of teeth and lots of rage; but at the end of the day GW (the info provided) tried to be cool about it. These websites had a chances but chose to ignore, so who really is at fault.
At the end of the day I am already missing the leaks faeit 212 provided, I hope that an alternative arises to continue to provide us info and leaks, within the law.
Here is the thing though: Natfka was operating within the law. GW send a bunch of DMCA notices that claimed otherwise and Google killed his account. There is nothing ethical in what GW did. Websites like Natfka are news sites protected by copyright law. GWdeliberately circumvented this by abusing the "take down first, ask questions later" provision of the DMCA.
If Natfka was operating within the law, then there would not have been a problem. If gw sent previous request to stop/remove, etc and he didnt, causing a violation of DMCA, a copyright law, and Googles own policies then fault lies with him unfortunately. Im sure the corporate lawyers found all violations to be within the law and Google reviewed before blatantly nuking the sight. If there is some violation on GW and Googles part then it will be dealt with. At the end of the day, everything was done legally as it should to protect copyright, etc. on the other hand, was it the right thing to do? I dont know, I dont believe so but unless you are Natfka, GW and Google legal department then we should probably wait and see whats going to happen. I realize thats not likely to happen.
So a fellow on another site says 'I'm a trained attorney and these are the facts' with no back up, and you post that as if it's supporting your point without a doubt, and a fellow on this site posts the exact codes and what not that are relevant to this case, and you don't acknowledge it at all, let alone have it affect your argument?
Also,
tree667 wrote: well here something I just read on another forum/blog. It seem faeit had pictures of pages of ia12? like 29 of them. I remeber seeing em but not how many pages there were.
That is your least brain hurting sentence I've seen you type so far. Try it like this;
Well here's something I just read on another forum/blog. It seems faeit had pictures of pages of IA12? Like 29 of them. I remember seeing them but not how many pages there were.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just readable. Please.
To chime in, I checked Faeit today before it went down (between noon and 1pm EST) and Natfka had posted about 10-20 images of the High Elves army book.
I understand posting WD pics is one thing, but army book/codex pics is another. Not that I'm taking GW's side, just shining a light on why Faeit is down.
That ends up being an issue of semantics. The laws are written by lobbyist groups - no doubt the DMCA was formulated by a group who GW supports in one way or another (most corporations donate to slush funds which support their business framework). I don't think they had as large a part as a company like Disney or the RIAA did - but that still doesn't make them innocent.
Even so, if you were to take this and travel into a different realm...say a country where stoning someone for having premarital sex was legal - would that make the stoning evil or just sort of bad? After all - it wouldn't be the fault of the zealot that they through the stone...it is legal after all. No, I say that just because a law is poorly written...it doesn't make it OK to abuse it. Especially given that the sworn statements are demonstrably false to even a first year law student. The end result is a stifling of the free flow of ideas - something which GW chooses to do, not because they are forced to (as they might claim due to a misunderstanding of something like trademark law) but they had to actively choose to seek this out and stifle it. They had to choose to ignore the fair use exemptions that exist for news services. They had to choose to put in place policies that caused a source like Faeit to exist. All of those things make what they are doing more than just unethical. While you might not consider it evil - I consider attempting to control public discussions the highest form of evil.
Given that murder is generally agreed to be immoral, I would saying stoning someone to death is immoral and therefore evil, even if legal. As I previously said legality and morality are, at the end of the day, separate concepts. One certainly informs the other at the best of times, but they aren't interchangeable terms. A better example would be putting a convicted mass-murderer to death where it's a murky issue on what is and isn't moral, and reasonable people can disagree on that point and many more because life isn't always black-and-white as much as lawyers wish it was. You have your thoughts on why it's immoral and therefore evil; I disagree that there's enough of a moral facet to the case to use that descriptor. GW is using whatever they can get away with to protect their business interests, which many companies do and will continue to do until they are told to stop. Unethical is, in my opinion, the proper term. I think that's where that particular points ends, because we each have our views and have laid out our reasons and I don't see a preponderance of evidence favoring either one of us and it is a debate mainly over semantics. We can agree in principle that GW has done something stupid that they shouldn't have even if we don't agree on the severity,
However, as you point out, the takedown was probably prompted by ignoring DMCA warnings from Google and not directly by GW. This could be plain ignorance of the proper conduct under the law, but if we're going to hold GW accountable then some level of accountability needs to be assigned to Faeit as well since this wasn't their first. I doubt Google would not explain what needed to happen as when you reportedly receive almost 150 million takedown notices annually, I'm pretty sure you know the process and how to explain it.
Also, even if each takedown notice only costs a dollar to process, what a fantastic waste of time and money, and that's just with Google...
ummm motyak ...i know it the cool thing to jump all over what ever I say, but the guy i was quoting there was the owner of one of the 3 sites that went down......going to go with him on this one.
Also I am sorry that my lack of grammer is bothering you, but I'm 3 sheets to the wind and really enjoying it. Have another tim tams (btw really good btw)
However, as you point out, the takedown was probably prompted by ignoring DMCA warnings from Google and not directly by GW. This could be plain ignorance of the proper conduct under the law, but if we're going to hold GW accountable then some level of accountability needs to be assigned to Faeit as well since this wasn't their first. I doubt Google would not explain what needed to happen as when you reportedly receive almost 150 million takedown notices annually, I'm pretty sure you know the process and how to explain it.
Also, even if each takedown notice only costs a dollar to process, what a fantastic waste of time and money, and that's just with Google...
Part of the rage right now appears to be everyone up in arms against corporate goons and not looking to see if the victim is innocent or guilty of the declared violations. We tend to forget that there are two parties in the wrong here....three if you want to count Google.
So a fellow on another site says 'I'm a trained attorney and these are the facts' with no back up, and you post that as if it's supporting your point without a doubt, and a fellow on this site posts the exact codes and what not that are relevant to this case, and you don't acknowledge it at all, let alone have it affect your argument?
Also,
tree667 wrote: well here something I just read on another forum/blog. It seem faeit had pictures of pages of ia12? like 29 of them. I remeber seeing em but not how many pages there were.
That is your least brain hurting sentence I've seen you type so far. Try it like this;
Well here's something I just read on another forum/blog. It seems faeit had pictures of pages of IA12? Like 29 of them. I remember seeing them but not how many pages there were.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just readable. Please.
Probably best to leave the character attacks and snarky comments out of this, stay on track with what the thread is about. Its a good thread about who is right and wrong here and i would hate to see mods step in and regulate.
dude its cool, actually he was right my grammer could be better and I agree. He probally didn't realize the quote I made was directly from Loken, who is the owner of the 3rd site that was taken down.
tree667 wrote: ummm motyak ...i know it the cool thing to jump all over what ever I say, but the guy i was quoting there was the owner of one of the 3 sites that went down......going to go with him on this one.
Also I am sorry that my lack of grammer is bothering you, but I'm 3 sheets to the wind and really enjoying it. Have another tim tams (btw really good btw)
Just because he owns one of the sites doesn't automatically make him legally correct, especially when you haven't a clue as to his reasoning behind it. But I guess there isn't much point discussing this since you are pissed, so...
tree667 wrote: You be surpised how much money is spent in corporate security. Doesn't mean that isn't what going on through GW brain.
I know that companies have a strong interest in security. GW has every right to attempt to improve their internal security if they're tired of suffering leaks. For example, things they are perfectly entitled to:
*Fire employees who break NDAs or leak information.
*Stop doing business with magazine printers who can't keep copies from leaking.
*Sue their printer for breaking a "no leaks" contract and leaking information.
*Limit access to pre-release material to as few people as possible.
*Put pre-orders up on the website earlier, before WD leaks can happen.
They are NOT entitled to abuse the legal system to silence anyone who posts perfectly legal leaked information just because they didn't want it to happen.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: If Natfka was operating within the law, then there would not have been a problem.
Nonsense. There is a long and ugly history of companies with lots of money to spend on lawyers abusing the legal system to silence people who are acting entirely within the law but doing something the company doesn't like. "But I'm not doing anything illegal" doesn't protect you unless you can afford to hire your own lawyers and fight the abuse in court.
If gw sent previous request to stop/remove, etc and he didnt, causing a violation of DMCA, a copyright law
That's not how the law works. You only have to take down material as demanded in a DMCA notice if the material is illegal. If you're legally allowed to post the material you have every right to tell the person making the demand to off with their illegitimate demands.
Im sure the corporate lawyers found all violations to be within the law and Google reviewed before blatantly nuking the sight.
That's not how it works. There is clear precedent that content hosts often have a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy when dealing with DMCA notices and will not make any real effort to find out if it's legitimate before taking action.
At the end of the day, everything was done legally as it should to protect copyright, etc.
Except, as stated multiple times already in this thread, the information in question was NOT protected by copyright law and Faeit 212 had every right to post it.
Krinsath wrote: Also, even if each takedown notice only costs a dollar to process, what a fantastic waste of time and money, and that's just with Google...
And then some. I know that with my small business we generally had legal fees of $50-75K a year...and that was when we weren't involved in any form of litigation. A company like Google is likely spending more on their legal staff than GW makes in a year.
One thing of note (and a potential path forward for Faeit...should they be listening). Create a blogger.ru account instead of a blogger.com account. GW can huff and puff - but they can not blow your house down...as scene here:
(Mods feel free to edit links if you feel that it is outside your comfort zone).
While it isn't the best manner in dealing with issues like this (I would go to the EFF and get them involved...yesterday - especially given that the Guardian article which was linked to in General Discussions was written by an EFF Fellow).
While I am thinking of it - reading the complaints against Apocalypse40K - they might have longer legs than the WD image leaks. In those, it appears (not actually being able to see though) that their were significant number of rules pages photographed. That is not to say that that alone would be enough to break the journalistic application of fair use (after all - you have to mention and show rules before you can critique them) but it would depend on the extent of the rules and how that might further impact the sales of the Forge World book. I say this, because no doubt someone will point to them admitting that GW might have had grounds with them...but there is a big difference between rules pages from a rulebook and pictures of upcoming releases from a magazine.
Sean_OBrien wrote: but there is a big difference between rules pages from a rulebook and pictures of upcoming releases from a magazine.
Actually, there's a big difference between the two: you can't copyright game rules, period. It would be entirely legal to post the entire rules from IA12, as long as you posted them in your own words.
tastytaste wrote: I am not sure if those DMCAs have anything to do with the current outage if you notice the day they at least a week old. Google would do an instant take down of the exact offending stuff and be done with it. They don't take down a site unless they keep on getting DMCAs not first offense or even second.
I did a search through the DMCAs and there have been a handful this year. So, putting 2 and 2 together won't exactly get you 4 in this case.
I'll chalk this up to web outage until I hear otherwise.
Anyone want to tell me how GW is not at war with its customers now? Instead of being a better company they are attempting to silence nay sayers and rumour sites, newsflash, thats what facists do.
in a perfect world I would 100% agree with you, GW is throwing it's immense size around bullying people, but that's not the world we live in. Faeit is a Blog that covers a small niche market. GW knows it can send a letter right or wrong and get Google to apply its will. DMCA is the law of the land, companies have figured out the in's and outs of it and use it too it's advantage. Hell everyone has gamed one system or another to get what we want.
Peregrine...I agree mostly with what you said after reading more about DMCA. However, it seems that it must have fallen within the law for action to be taken. There is more to what those posted notices from Google then what we understand or are seeing. Unless there is a lawyer here or someone intimate with copyright law to pick this apart, we should consider it was done within the law. Allow BoLS and Faeit212 time to pick apart what is legal and not, then let them respond.
GW might be the big bad, but we are attacking them for being a company that protects its IP (ruthlessly sometimes) and that tries to make a profit off its product. God forbid that someone protects whats theirs or tries to prosper. Btw this last paragraph is not directed at you but to us all.
Think on this, will we attack Privateer Press when...WHEN...they are in the same darn position? Unless you are a time traveller, seer or future seeing psychic dont tell me it cant or wont happen.
tree667 wrote: in a perfect world I would 100% agree with you, GW is throwing it's immense size around bullying people, but that's not the world we live in. Faeit is a Blog that covers a small niche market. GW knows it can send a letter right or wrong and get Google to apply its will. DMCA is the law of the land, companies have figured out the in's and outs of it and use it too it's advantage. Hell everyone has gamed one system or another to get what we want.
GW protects it IP because it makes a ton of money off it....video games, books, art, etc etc....P.P will be selling it's I.P. soon enough. Seriously a warmahcine video game would be pretty cool.
tree667 wrote: in a perfect world I would 100% agree with you, GW is throwing it's immense size around bullying people, but that's not the world we live in. Faeit is a Blog that covers a small niche market. GW knows it can send a letter right or wrong and get Google to apply its will. DMCA is the law of the land, companies have figured out the in's and outs of it and use it too it's advantage. Hell everyone has gamed one system or another to get what we want.
What does not being in a perfect world have to do with anything? Even in an imperfect world GW is still abusing the legal system to get away with illegitimate demands against someone that can't afford to contest them in court.
There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: However, it seems that it must have fallen within the law for action to be taken.
I don't think you understand how this works. The fact that someone has sent a DMCA notice does not mean that it's legal, it just means that they've sent a DMCA notice. For example, I could send one to dakkadakka claiming that the post I just quoted is a copy of a post that I wrote (and therefore I own the copyright) and demanding that they take it down. This would be blatantly abusing the system and I'd be subject to legal penalties if dakkadakka contested the claim and I lost in court (which I would), but dakkadakka's owners don't want to pay for lawyers so they'd just delete the offending post.
GW might be the big bad, but we are attacking them for being a company that protects its IP (ruthlessly sometimes) and that tries to make a profit off its product.
No, we're attacking them for abusing the legal system. They're entitled to protect their IP, just like anyone else is. They are NOT entitled to demand protection beyond what the law says and use legal threats to silence anyone who disagrees.
And so, in the near future, no blog will ever speak again about GW stuff, or show pictures of their miniatures. After all, they can be shutted down for that...
And obviously, that is great for GW economical health... We are just costumers, we dont really understand the beauty behind their genial plan to control the market...
Jordanandrew249 wrote: If Natfka was operating within the law, then there would not have been a problem. If gw sent previous request to stop/remove, etc and he didnt, causing a violation of DMCA, a copyright law, and Googles own policies then fault lies with him unfortunately. Im sure the corporate lawyers found all violations to be within the law and Google reviewed before blatantly nuking the sight. If there is some violation on GW and Googles part then it will be dealt with. At the end of the day, everything was done legally as it should to protect copyright, etc. on the other hand, was it the right thing to do? I dont know, I dont believe so but unless you are Natfka, GW and Google legal department then we should probably wait and see whats going to happen. I realize thats not likely to happen.
You are missing a big step in the process of applying laws...actually having a trial.
If I say you killed my puppy, that doesn't mean you killed my puppy. If I get a new puppy, it dies and I say you killed that one too - that still doesn't mean you killed my puppy. The way it would actually work is a bit like this (longer form than the earlier one):
GW files a DMCA takedown notice with Google for the Faeit website posting images of the White Dwarf High Elf releases (and lets say every release for the past 20 years...just to give them some meat).
Google disables the offending images and contacts "Bob the Blogger" proprietor of Faeit 212.
Faeit responds saying I am a journalist.
Google forwards that response to GW.
GW files a lawsuit citing Google and John Doe as defendants (John Doe being "Bob the Blogger" as at this point - GW might not have access to the real identity of Bob).
Google goes on over to the district court with legal lackey #845 to deliver the evidence that their safe harbor provisions were fulfilled. The court notifies John Doe that they are being sued and they evaluate any specific privacy concerns (whistle blower statutes and the like) that would prevent them from being named.
The court verifies that Google dotted their "I"s and crossed their "T"s - and then dismisses claims against Google and pencils in Bob the Blogger in place of John Doe.
The lawyer for John Doe presents an affirmative defense to the judge saying, "Yes, my client used copyrighted material from GW in order to disseminate news". The judge looks at the evidence. He than looks at the impact that that evidence might have on the commercial value of White Dwarf (little to none - remember, all the information regarding product releases is posted on the website for preorder prior to the release of the White Dwarf that has it).
The judge issues a summary judgment telling GW to leave Bob alone and be happy that he is providing news for the company.
The judge than asks Bob's legal counsel to add up how much was spent defending the case and awards that as damages to Bob and his legal team.
Now, you could have the case drag on a bit further - but there would be little in terms of discovery that might happen other than GW possibly seeking to find out the source of the pictures. Journalistic sources are considered to be sacrosanct - and if you want to create a martyr and really get some bad press...try to be a company who is attempting to force a journalist to give up the name of their confidential informant. Not only would the various Geek news outlets cover that story - but you will be spit roasted by regular media as well, and the defense fund for "Bob the Blogger" would bloat to numbers that would make GW's legal budget wilt in shame and embarrassment.
In the end though, a drawn out case would still have the same end result - the only difference is that instead of having to pay $50,000 in legal fees for Bob, GW might have to pay half a million in legal fees.
puma713 wrote: There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
This. How far in advance does PP give us info? Usually 2-3 months? To be honest, knowing how much I need for something months in advance gives me the ability to save a little out of every paycheck for it.
Jordanandrew249 wrote: However, it seems that it must have fallen within the law for action to be taken.
I don't think you understand how this works. The fact that someone has sent a DMCA notice does not mean that it's legal, it just means that they've sent a DMCA notice. For example, I could send one to dakkadakka claiming that the post I just quoted is a copy of a post that I wrote (and therefore I own the copyright) and demanding that they take it down. This would be blatantly abusing the system and I'd be subject to legal penalties if dakkadakka contested the claim and I lost in court (which I would), but dakkadakka's owners don't want to pay for lawyers so they'd just delete the offending post.
GW might be the big bad, but we are attacking them for being a company that protects its IP (ruthlessly sometimes) and that tries to make a profit off its product.
No, we're attacking them for abusing the legal system. They're entitled to protect their IP, just like anyone else is. They are NOT entitled to demand protection beyond what the law says and use legal threats to silence anyone who disagrees.
Ahh gotcha. So what should probably happen soon is the first post should be adjusted to include all relevant information, what the thread is about, etc. I fell victim to not undestanding all the relevant points and went on a rant concerning gw right to protect themselves, etc vs. all the people attacking the big bad GW. I pretty much fell victim to picking sides, while trying to sift through the truths and rage rants...how many more of the posters are just ranting and raging off topic I wonder.
Sean_OBrien wrote: but there is a big difference between rules pages from a rulebook and pictures of upcoming releases from a magazine.
Actually, there's a big difference between the two: you can't copyright game rules, period. It would be entirely legal to post the entire rules from IA12, as long as you posted them in your own words.
Yes - but not pictures of the rules page...
That goes back to the whole copyright/phonebook issue. In the linked to Russian site - their text segment is likely legal (haven't read fully - but it looks like paraphrasing the rules as opposed to copying word for word). Photocopies or pictures of the rules pages though could amount to significant commercial harm. While the content itself might not be copyrightable, the manner in which it is presented can be. That is why I made the point of specifying the pictures as opposed to just the stat lines (which GW also complains about in the DMCA).
I'm not sure how on board I am with GW's policy of controlling the release of info on upcoming products but hey; if its good enough for Apple I'm sure it's good enough for them.
In terms of its legal right the law being quoted appears to have provision to consider the effect of copying the material on the sales of the product. If you post a bunch of pictures of a magazine before it's released it's an easy argument for GW to make to say that it would negatively affect sales (which it no doubt does).
On a broader point I've never seen a community of such entitled people. You don't have the legal right to get access to images of a company's product before they're ready to release them. why on Earth shouldn't they be able to act to protect not only their legal right to release their own material but the profits generated by it ? Also it's utterly ignorant and offensive to bandy words like fascist around in this context.
I used to enjoy the blog as much as the next man and I hope the guy gets something back up soon, fair to say that if he does so with copyrighted pictures from upcoming products GW will have home taken down again and they've got every right to do so.
Married a lawyer. Ran a software development company for 12 years and dealt with IP law (copyright, trademark and patent) on a daily basis. Involved with several lawsuits directly. Still play golf with my IP attorney and we discuss things at length on a regular basis.
ithilmere wrote: I'm not sure how on board I am with GW's policy of controlling the release of info on upcoming products but hey; if its good enough for Apple I'm sure it's good enough for them.
To paraphrase someone...I knew Apple, and GW is no Apple.
Secrecy only works if anyone really cares. GW is a niche within a niche within a niche. Secrecy for them amounts to the kid saying "I have a secret" - but nobody really cares what the secret might be. OK, so maybe one other person cares - but in the grand scheme of things...GW does not have annual press events where they roll out the latest and greatest - that are attended by thousands looking to find out what the new iThing might be.
ithilmere wrote: In terms of its legal right the law being quoted appears to have provision to consider the effect of copying the material on the sales of the product. If you post a bunch of pictures of a magazine before it's released it's an easy argument for GW to make to say that it would negatively affect sales (which it no doubt does).
Sure, if you ignore that the pictures would have already been released online for...what, 4 days (that is the current schedule now right?). If GW feels safe to post the pictures in their online preorder section a week before they are released and the WD only comes out 3 days before they are released...GW has already shot themselves in that financial foot.
ithilmere wrote: On a broader point I've never seen a community of such entitled people. You don't have the legal right to get access to images of a company's product before they're ready to release them. why on Earth shouldn't they be able to act to protect not only their legal right to release their own material but the profits generated by it ? Also it's utterly ignorant and offensive to bandy words like fascist around in this context.
They are able to protect things within the scope of the law. If their employees who print the magazines snag some cell phone pictures from the new releases and leak them to a blogger - that is now outside of GW's right to control under the law. If they have a book like Imperial Armour 12 on display at Games Day - and someone snaps a few pictures of it there before Forge World posts it online - that is outside the scope of the law. Lots of companies legally control their product news and development. However, even with Apple - leaks happen and stories get out. However, once the story gets out - you don't file a false claim in order to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
It isn't an issue of entitlement. I could really give a rat's butt about what the next GW release might be. The issue is abuse of copyright laws (in this case) against those who apparently do care enough to track down a source and procure images to share with the world.
ithilmere wrote: I used to enjoy the blog as much as the next man and I hope the guy gets something back up soon, fair to say that if he does so with copyrighted pictures from upcoming products GW will have home taken down again and they've got every right to do so.
Only if he doesn't actually follow through with the steps I outlined above (though I should have thrown a declaratory judgment phase in as well...but alas, it is late and I am old).
ithilmere wrote: If you post a bunch of pictures of a magazine before it's released it's an easy argument for GW to make to say that it would negatively affect sales (which it no doubt does).
Actually it's an impossible argument to make, since they just posted pictures and not the article text/painting guides/etc. Nobody buys WD for the pictures because better pictures will be freely available on GW's own website before WD arrives in stores. The impact on sales, to anyone who isn't a GW lawyer, is zero.
You don't have the legal right to get access to images of a company's product before they're ready to release them.
You're right. I'm not entitled to break into GWHQ and steal copies of the new releases just because I want to see what they are. But if someone accidentally sells me a magazine before the official release date I have every right to post limited pictures from it in the process of writing a news post about the new releases.
why on Earth shouldn't they be able to act to protect not only their legal right to release their own material but the profits generated by it ?
Because according to the actual laws involved Faeit 212 had every right to post what they posted, and GW is abusing the legal system to shut it down.
fair to say that if he does so with copyrighted pictures from upcoming products GW will have home taken down again and they've got every right to do so.
See previous posts explaining why they don't have the right to take it down.
YouTube post by Naftka here. Not much information in the video, but he did say he would be posting to video in the future. In the comments he states that they instructed him to remove one post, but nothing about removing the whole site. Of course, that was 7 hours ago.
Supposedly this may have been one big misunderstanding?
-Natfka
the notices I have received from Blogger are for individual posts, and declares that those particular posts are removed to draft status. Nothing from either Games Workshop or Blogger about the removal of the blog itself.
I will continue posting, and things will continue. so stay tuned.
until then I will be posting up on my YouTube channel.
i have always felt that the best way to deal with an spoiled unruly turd is a firm slap down .
GW did this , and will CONTINUE to do this kind of thing because they know they can . they know they peeve the players off , but they also know that those customers ........most of those customers will continue to buy their products no matter hpw childish and geedy GW acts , because they have been doing this kind of thing for a long time now , and people are still buying their products .
if players really wanted to flex their muscles , and get GWs attention , they would unite , and boycotthe company for a week or 2 . haveing their sales drop to zero for a week would hit them where they hit the customers . sadly though , we all know that players wont do that ; instead being content to be abused and treated like the enemy , as they always have been
GrandInquisitorOrdoXenos wrote: i have always felt that the best way to deal with an spoiled unruly turd is a firm slap down .
GW did this , and will CONTINUE to do this kind of thing because they know they can . they know they peeve the players off , but they also know that those customers ........most of those customers will continue to buy their products no matter hpw childish and geedy GW acts , because they have been doing this kind of thing for a long time now , and people are still buying their products .
if players really wanted to flex their muscles , and get GWs attention , they would unite , and boycotthe company for a week or 2 . haveing their sales drop to zero for a week would hit them where they hit the customers . sadly though , we all know that players wont do that ; instead being content to be abused and treated like the enemy , as they always have been
No, they haven't always been. Some of us remember a GW that was collaborative and supportive, or at least did a much, much better job of appearing to be. Sadly, that is a long time ago, and possibly in a galaxy far, far away.
Personally, I think this continued heavy handed litigation on GWs part smacks of desperation. They can see the walls closing in on their market share, but, for whatever reason, aren't able to innovate and capitalise on their market position and so thrash around like a dying moose, trying to damage 'the enemy' with no regard for the harm they do themselves.
GrandInquisitorOrdoXenos wrote: i have always felt that the best way to deal with an spoiled unruly turd is a firm slap down .
GW did this , and will CONTINUE to do this kind of thing because they know they can . they know they peeve the players off , but they also know that those customers ........most of those customers will continue to buy their products no matter hpw childish and geedy GW acts , because they have been doing this kind of thing for a long time now , and people are still buying their products .
if players really wanted to flex their muscles , and get GWs attention , they would unite , and boycotthe company for a week or 2 . haveing their sales drop to zero for a week would hit them where they hit the customers . sadly though , we all know that players wont do that ; instead being content to be abused and treated like the enemy , as they always have been
No, they haven't always been. Some of us remember a GW that was collaborative and supportive, or at least did a much, much better job of appearing to be. Sadly, that is a long time ago, and possibly in a galaxy far, far away.
Personally, I think this continued heavy handed litigation on GWs part smacks of desperation. They can see the walls closing in on their market share, but, for whatever reason, aren't able to innovate and capitalise on their market position and so thrash around like a dying moose, trying to damage 'the enemy' with no regard for the harm they do themselves.
Agreed. This may have been a misunderstanding, or even technical error, but the reputation that GW has built for themselves has everyone immediately whispering in dark corners about what is going on. I mean, think about how this would have been viewed if GW acted like a normal company: previewing their own releases, advertising their products, spreading the word about their upcoming events. This incident may have been passed over as a fleeting headline.
"Oh look, BoLS and Faeit are down. Eh, big deal."
But no, they have shrouded themselves in bad publicity and poor PR so that now, even a pedestrian story such as this one (if it turns out to simply be a matter of removing a post) can rattle the cages of the niche media. GW doesn't even have to do anything to get bad press now - their long list of achievements is doing that for them.
Ravenous D wrote: Anyone want to tell me how GW is not at war with its customers now? Instead of being a better company they are attempting to silence nay sayers and rumour sites, newsflash, thats what facists do.
Thank you for not invoking godwin's law
Technically, he didn't. It was the Italians who set up the facist regime. He is, however, misusing the word.
Back on topic, I wonder if some "Robin Hood" type is going to post those pictures on a non-Google hosted site and set them loose on the internet just to spite GW? Won't be me because I don't have copies of said pictures, but given the attituted of some people and the anonymity of the internet...
puma713 wrote: YouTube post by Naftka here. Not much information in the video, but he did say he would be posting to video in the future.
And who owns YouTube?
Get your own hosting and build a website you own, would be my advice. With the following he has, he'd be a top-blog back in no time at all... free from the whims of Google (Tumblr, whatever).
puma713 wrote: There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
I would like to see this
I understand GW wanting to protect their work. They have that right, and I won't blame them for exercising it.
However, I do think this is hurting GW more than helping them. I currently do not play Fantasy, though have been thinking about it. A good while back I bought some HighE figures cheap, and was considering buying more on there imminent release, now Faeit gave me news, hyped up the release and generally got me interested, without this GW has not done anything to entice me to buy this army.
Really, these sites really hype up GW products and I’m sure help sales. IMO I would go as far as massively helping sales - In the case of Tau how many less pre-orders would there have been if people didn't hear rumors about how good/ bad they could be? I would not preorder a expensive model with no idea on potential (Unless it looked really awesome).
ForCalth wrote: Hello everyone who has commented on this thread.
...
However, when I hear people saying things like "GW is a company of fascist ", and that they won't be giving them any more money, I get pretty aggravated. There are large numbers of people in the upper echelons of GW that do want what's best for the hobby and don't just want to screw over the entire community. After hearing about the more recent lawsuits by Games Workshop, I was talking with someone (I will not reveal his, or her, name, but you will all recognize this person from the pages of white dwarf and the online newsletter), and they share many of the views that have been expressed about the way GW doesn't seem to care for its customer base, past simply taking their money in ever-increasing amounts. What I am trying to say is that the people who are actually involved with the hobby side of things are often of the same opinion as you, and have expressed their own concerns about the ways GW is running things, including things like their crackdown on third party bit makers and blogs. I do understand that they are required to protect their copyrights when faced with repeated infringement, and that what people like Natfka are doing related to leaks and posting images directly from white dwarf is illegal. But I don't think that this calls for GW to completely eradicate these blogs.
I will wait and see how this all turns out, but I expect this type of thing to become increasingly common in the future.
It should go without saying, unless some less than reasonable person explicitly elects to mention and include “and all employees” it should be taken for granted that people are talking about the corporate entity and it's policies, and not everyone who works there.
Of course there are a lot of people worth supporting in the company. If nothing else human nature alone demands that there should be some cool people and mostly, the critics do delineate between them and the company.
Unfortunately it is not so easy to separate the two when determining your purchasing habits. You can't exactly support one without supporting the other, though I do like to fancy that with my few purchases I allow myself a year, I am doing precisely that.
I don't know of any 'hater', even when wishing ill of the company due to it's policies, really want to see that extended to all the employees who had little to no say in the contentious policies. Even if one effectively does mean the other.
There shouldn't be a need for a disclaimer, but I will give you that your point is worth acknowledging, hence my post.
However, when I hear people saying things like "GW is a company of fascist ", and that they won't be giving them any more money, I get pretty aggravated. There are large numbers of people in the upper echelons of GW that do want what's best for the hobby and don't just want to screw over the entire community. After hearing about the more recent lawsuits by Games Workshop, I was talking with someone (I will not reveal his, or her, name, but you will all recognize this person from the pages of white dwarf and the online newsletter), and they share many of the views that have been expressed about the way GW doesn't seem to care for its customer base, past simply taking their money in ever-increasing amounts. What I am trying to say is that the people who are actually involved with the hobby side of things are often of the same opinion as you, and have expressed their own concerns about the ways GW is running things, including things like their crackdown on third party bit makers and blogs. I do understand that they are required to protect their copyrights when faced with repeated infringement, and that what people like Natfka are doing related to leaks and posting images directly from white dwarf is illegal. But I don't think that this calls for GW to completely eradicate these blogs.
I will wait and see how this all turns out, but I expect this type of thing to become increasingly common in the future.
You say this, but there is a fairly large body of anecdotal evidence that suggests anyone with the backbone to offer a dissenting voice or in any way disagree with management is at best marginalised and more often than not fired or driven out.
One could even infer from their normal recruitment adverts that this is quite overt within the company.
I've been reading through this thread and all I've found is legal mumbo jumbo.
What the heck actually happened?
Faeit 212 (Natfka's blog) was taken down, GW raged about copyright and attacked google, who shut down BoLS and Faeit. or something. a lot of DMCA (or something...)
puma713 wrote: There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
I would like to see this
I understand GW wanting to protect their work. They have that right, and I won't blame them for exercising it.
However, I do think this is hurting GW more than helping them. I currently do not play Fantasy, though have been thinking about it. A good while back I bought some HighE figures cheap, and was considering buying more on there imminent release, now Faeit gave me news, hyped up the release and generally got me interested, without this GW has not done anything to entice me to buy this army.
Really, these sites really hype up GW products and I’m sure help sales. IMO I would go as far as massively helping sales - In the case of Tau how many less pre-orders would there have been if people didn't hear rumors about how good/ bad they could be? I would not preorder a expensive model with no idea on potential (Unless it looked really awesome).
Exactly. Faeit/rumour blogs actually HELP geedubbs. Without them, few people buy their new releases
I find it kinda funny in a sad sort of way.
Forgeworld thrive on pre-release rumours. I already have a diorama planned with two of the new Space Marine landspeeders. They openly discuss what they're working on, what they'd like to work on; the old 80's - mid 90's cult of personality for want of a better phrase is thriving. People like to feel involved with the hobby. People also like to plan their spend (especially if it will be significant) in advance.
GW main, well, they don't even send out black boxes to the stores anymore, and most of the time the store monkeys are just as much in the dark as the rest of us.
Look at the current boom in things on kickstarter - this is pre-release selling at its finest. Sometimes all there is to go on is a concept sketch and yet people still shout 'Shut up and take my money!'. Hands up if you pledged on the *cough* not *cough* Serenity crew on Sedition Wars. Me, definitely Guilty.
GW I think have lost touch massively with the market. I still love the settings, hugely. Really want a High Elf army. Really want an Empire army. Hell lots of stuff I'd like, I just can't bring myself to buy them (for myself) these days. I've spent quite a few hundred pounds on other games over the past year, and it's looking like that trend will continue with Robotech Tactics and Mecha Front. Even Martian Front is appealing, and I HATE 15mm stuff.
I can't get worked up over this. Spots the Space Marine thing was absurd, this seems rather reasonable.
If blogs post several scanned pages of codices/armybooks even before they're released, GW will certainly take an action. How many pages people think it is OK to scan and post before it becomes just piratism instead of journalism?
I agree from a legal standpoint. I just don't really see the sense in it from a business / sales drive angle - effectively White Dwarf has been little other than a hardcopy catalogue (from which you can't order bits) for several years now - is the objective to sell miniatures (in which case as much hype and excitement as possible is surely a good thing?) or is the objective to sell the magazine, in which case surely it would be sensible to make the thing worth buying for other reasons too?
masterminis.net has a quite good post on it, I had no idea that Faeit212 had over 20m pageviews. That appears to me to be an insane amount of exposure for a product, and it's usually been extremely favourable exposure at that.
TheAuldGrump wrote: GW Board of Directors Found Murdered. GW Stock Leaps 75% on NYSE....
The Auld Grump
Dakka finally arrived at the final station of the Hate-Train: Murder City.
Congratulations on wishing the deaths of complete strangers - a classy move indeed.
Well, if it was gets GW back on the right track....
How do their own Inquisition say it in 40k? The ends always justify the means.
NB. I am being facetious here. Don't go falling into the great, big, sar-chasm that consumes many people on the Internet. Doesn't mean I don't want GW bought out though. C'mon WOTC, you know you want to.
puma713 wrote: There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
I would like to see this
I understand GW wanting to protect their work. They have that right, and I won't blame them for exercising it.
However, I do think this is hurting GW more than helping them. I currently do not play Fantasy, though have been thinking about it. A good while back I bought some HighE figures cheap, and was considering buying more on there imminent release, now Faeit gave me news, hyped up the release and generally got me interested, without this GW has not done anything to entice me to buy this army.
Really, these sites really hype up GW products and I’m sure help sales. IMO I would go as far as massively helping sales - In the case of Tau how many less pre-orders would there have been if people didn't hear rumors about how good/ bad they could be? I would not preorder a expensive model with no idea on potential (Unless it looked really awesome).
Regarding Tau, I was thinking a similar thing earlier. Given how often I look at the GW homepage I can tell you that without rumour sites I probably wouldn't have even known there were new Tau until a couple of weeks ago.
winterdyne wrote:I find it kinda funny in a sad sort of way.
Forgeworld thrive on pre-release rumours. I already have a diorama planned with two of the new Space Marine landspeeders. They openly discuss what they're working on, what they'd like to work on; the old 80's - mid 90's cult of personality for want of a better phrase is thriving. People like to feel involved with the hobby. People also like to plan their spend (especially if it will be significant) in advance.
GW main, well, they don't even send out black boxes to the stores anymore, and most of the time the store monkeys are just as much in the dark as the rest of us.
Look at the current boom in things on kickstarter - this is pre-release selling at its finest. Sometimes all there is to go on is a concept sketch and yet people still shout 'Shut up and take my money!'. Hands up if you pledged on the *cough* not *cough* Serenity crew on Sedition Wars. Me, definitely Guilty.
GW I think have lost touch massively with the market. I still love the settings, hugely. Really want a High Elf army. Really want an Empire army. Hell lots of stuff I'd like, I just can't bring myself to buy them (for myself) these days. I've spent quite a few hundred pounds on other games over the past year, and it's looking like that trend will continue with Robotech Tactics and Mecha Front. Even Martian Front is appealing, and I HATE 15mm stuff.
Exactly. Seems to me that Faeit was acting as free marketing for GW. I find it mystifying that Black Library and Forge World are happy to preview things a long time in advance but GW seem so determined to ignore the concept.
If blogs post several scanned pages of codices/armybooks even before they're released, GW will certainly take an action. How many pages people think it is OK to scan and post before it becomes just piratism instead of journalism?
2....no 10...no 7...
Really that is a false question, there is no simple answer to such things. Obviously, the nature of the pages and how they are used are the primary factors of whether or not something is simply reporting or if it is blatant piracy. 10 pages which are the table of contents, maybe one character, the army cheat sheet, maybe some of the full color army photos...that could be good journalism. 10 pages from the army list section...that could be good piracy.
Each has to be evaluated for what information it contains and how that might impact GWs ability to sell their copyrighted products. Although some of that might come into play with this specific situation, most the complaints filed by GW against Faeit are relating to early release information, not things that could be considered piracy.
Agreed with Sean here. While Faeit clearly had posted whole-page images of the upcoming High Elf army book (go to google and search for "site:natfka.blogspot.com high" and view Google's cached version of the the sample army book pics), where it gets murky is that these are (reportedly) the sample pages freely available to anyone with an iPad. If something is made freely available to anyone with a certain device, it doesn't seem like it would enjoy anywhere near the same level of protection as the full copyrighted work. There is a fairly noticeable lack of commentary on the work itself, but again being a redistribution of a something out there out as a sample would, to my untrained mind, really dilute any claim of infringement.
It's somewhat moot as a discussion point at the moment though, because none of the posted notices have referenced sharing the army books; only unreleased White Dwarf pictures.
Clearly, GW has to protect their IP. They'd lose the ability to defend it in the future if they didn't, there are people re-casting GW models and selling them below retail, and finally it is the correct thing for GW to do.
I actually like the price increases. I've been playing since the 80's and I've seen the rise of what LortR and GW brought. I'm glad that, that element is going away.
I'd prefer to play against a 12-year-old kid that did research and sought out this type of gaming (like I did, long before GW stores existed in the states) rather than a kid that gets dropped off as a form of day care.
What will be the net effect of this?
1) Sites will become more "gun shy" about posting this type of material
2) It will be more difficult to find (hello message boards and usenet!) unofficial sources of news
3) People will have shorter spin up time to get excited about new stuff coming down the pike. Either you put in a big order for the new release the day it hits gw,com or you miss the 1st wave and wait awhile for restocking
If I were PP, Wyrd, CMoN, FFG, etc I'd jump on this and embrace the rumor sites and form a relationship with them and get people excited about the stuff they are releasing and use that to gain market share.
Still will by GDub products, can't blame them for protecting their IP, I think Faeit could be relaunched and just verbalize the pics rather than post them, but I'm not sure I'd lose much sleep not knowing whats coming out next.
puma713 wrote: There's a simple fix to all this: GW posting information on their upcoming releases themselves! Kill the leaks and save face all at the same time - work smarter, not harder.
Agreed. How much of this is GW enforcing the rumored "No Rumors" clause of their modeling deal with New Line Cinema? That is to say, without this agreement with New Line Cinema to make a model range and rule system that no one I know would ever want, would they be cracking down so hard on the rumor mills?
evancich wrote: Clearly, GW has to protect their IP. They'd lose the ability to defend it in the future if they didn't, there are people re-casting GW models and selling them below retail, and finally it is the correct thing for GW to do.
100% correct. As much as people like to rail against the man and say they're just being a bunch of jerks (or insert profanity of choice here), GW has no choice but to defend their IP and copyright. If they don't, they lose the ability to defend it in the future. It doesn't matter if it's a small infringement or large, they have the legal obligation to defend it.
I'm not saying it's been done the right way, but it is something they absolutely *have* to do.
Also, it wasn't over simple rumours as some people seem to be under the impression (note the number of blogs and sites that have not been contacted that simply put up rumours without infringing any copyright laws). It was done over the unauthorized release of pictures from an unreleased publication which GW has the right of first release on. If they don't defend that then they can never claim infringement and their copyright is essentially invalid!
evancich wrote: Clearly, GW has to protect their IP. They'd lose the ability to defend it in the future if they didn't, there are people re-casting GW models and selling them below retail, and finally it is the correct thing for GW to do.
100% correct. As much as people like to rail against the man and say they're just being a bunch of jerks (or insert profanity of choice here), GW has no choice but to defend their IP and copyright. If they don't, they lose the ability to defend it in the future. It doesn't matter if it's a small infringement or large, they have the legal obligation to defend it.
I'm not saying it's been done the right way, but it is something they absolutely *have* to do.
Also, it wasn't over simple rumours as some people seem to be under the impression (note the number of blogs and sites that have not been contacted that simply put up rumours without infringing any copyright laws). It was done over the unauthorized release of pictures from an unreleased publication which GW has the right of first release on. If they don't defend that then they can never claim infringement and their copyright is essentially invalid!
You are wrong. You don't have to activly defend copyright. You have to defend your trademark. That being said, there are fair use exemptions to both. Faeit's blog rubbed a GW lawyer the wrong way and he made an error in law and sent a DMCA notice to Google, asking for legal content to be taken down. That is either bad policy on GWs part or intentional criminal abuse of the law. There is no such thing as a "Right to first Release" when it comes to news.
Except they clearly do not have to defend their IP.
Even if we were to assume for a second that this was not fair use...GW could still ignore it without harming their copyright position. That particular notion of having to defend IP only applies to trademarks (not a factor here) and only in so much as it leads to the mark becoming a generic term (again...not a factor here).
To try to compare posting a few blurry images from White Dwarf a couple weeks before it is released to recasting of figures (or that some how one will lead to the other) is about the biggest stretch that anyone has made and is wrong on pretty much every level.
It was done over the unauthorized release of pictures from an unreleased publication which GW has the right of first release on.
Except they have no specific right.
Copyrights provide the right to copy and distribute works. There is no preeminent right to first release granted to the author. If a leak happens...and that leak is used in a manner consistent with fair use, then it does not violate the copyright of the author.
GW has no choice but to defend their IP and copyright
Since GW themselves are unsure as to what IP they own Im pretty sure they should start tasking their legal department it making sure they have solid foundations on ownership before lashing out.
Really, these sites really hype up GW products and I’m sure help sales. IMO I would go as far as massively helping sales - In the case of Tau how many less pre-orders would there have been if people didn't hear rumors about how good/ bad they could be? I would not preorder a expensive model with no idea on potential (Unless it looked really awesome).
Exactly. Faeit/rumour blogs actually HELP geedubbs. Without them, few people buy their new releases
As much as I am NOT siding with GW in this situation, their reasoning might sounds something like:
"We have lost the sales of old models for the (Insert Infringed Army Here) because somebody leaked that new models were on the way and provided hard evidence. Because of this, we lost $X of average models sales for this range. We need to shut it down!"
GW has a terribly bad habit of not thinking long term, as shareholders do not care about long term gains if it means short term losses.
.jpg)
up by 
