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

Not really many details so far, apart from

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

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

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

Fun times.

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

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

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

Can someone please explain to me what they did wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Ouze wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 jonolikespie wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

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

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

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

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

nkelsch wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Except it wasn't the whole codex was it?

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

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

nkelsch wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

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

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

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

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

This is pretty much spot on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Allod wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

azreal13 wrote:

Except it wasn't the whole codex was it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimate Totalitarian control of the HHHHobby

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

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

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

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

KaryudoDS wrote:
Leaking 15 minutes of a videogame though for example wouldn't be worth as much since I would still need the game, but heads would still roll over the leak. Maybe GW isn't sure or willing to figure out which heads need to roll, or maybe it sees any level of combinable information as threat.

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

What about Playthroughs on YouTube? There are thousands of videos of people playing through games on youtube. I dont have an Xbox, or PS but I'd like to experience some of the games on those system and thanks to playthroughs I can without buying the product, then again I'm not actually playing the game as I'm watching someone else do it. The questions is though if the gameplay or the story is what's the point of the game. Heck tons of games play like interactive movies and you can watch every alternative option and ending on youtube.
No idea where the law is regarding these things.

I guess this would compare to someone playing a game using a leaked book but without knowing points costs and rules this is pretty useless information as the game is dice based and can be completely random at times. The Swarmlord getting killed by a Commissar is unlikely but it can happen and if it happens it doesn't mean the Swarmlord is bad or that Commissars are OP, it just means the dice gods had a laugh.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

KaryudoDS wrote:
Leaking 15 minutes of a videogame though for example wouldn't be worth as much since I would still need the game, but heads would still roll over the leak. Maybe GW isn't sure or willing to figure out which heads need to roll, or maybe it sees any level of combinable information as threat.

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

What about Playthroughs on YouTube? There are thousands of videos of people playing through games on youtube. I dont have an Xbox, or PS but I'd like to experience some of the games on those system and thanks to playthroughs I can without buying the product, then again I'm not actually playing the game as I'm watching someone else do it. The questions is though if the gameplay or the story is what's the point of the game. Heck tons of games play like interactive movies and you can watch every alternative option and ending on youtube.
No idea where the law is regarding these things.

I guess this would compare to someone playing a game using a leaked book but without knowing points costs and rules this is pretty useless information as the game is dice based and can be completely random at times. The Swarmlord getting killed by a Commissar is unlikely but it can happen and if it happens it doesn't mean the Swarmlord is bad or that Commissars are OP, it just means the dice gods had a laugh.

Nintendo has been cracking down on Let's Plays, albeit inconsistently

 Alfndrate wrote:

Nintendo has been cracking down on Let's Plays, albeit inconsistently

They have been cracking down on anyone who even mentions any of the products. I remember Total Biscuit mentioning they did a 3 hour show where they talked about games and they played an official trailer for a Nintendo game and Nintendo had a takedown done on the video. Showing gameplay from 20 year old games gets you a strike on your youtube account as well from Nintendo.

Guess they are the GW of the console and pc gaming world.

 hisdudeness wrote:


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

More restrictive than "final say"?!?

While this behaviour doesn't seem that odd given GW's reputation, I actually thought they were getting more savvy when 40k radio was leaking the codex.

It struck me that they were allowing them to leak things in a calculated manner. First blurry horrible pictures then vague chapter traits. With everything becoming clearer as the release grew closer.

It seemed to build a lot of excitement here and on other popular wargaming sites.

There will be no excitement! Only the quiet and orderly spending of money in our pursuit of our favorite hobby "buying things from Games Workshop!"

These are the aholes that deliberately lied to us about the space marine release and then blamed it on us for not asking the right questions, I hope they burn.

I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

In this case i would say they hate the people releasing information they don't want to get out until they release it to their fanbase

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Lucasfilm.
edit: this was meant to be funny and not taken literally. Smile.

 pretre wrote:

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

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

Or, you could just say an expensive legal department trying to justify their existence?

Some of these guys are their biggest fans, and this amounts to yet another big 'Feth off'.

And really, who gives a flying poo about them leaking points values?! Will it even diminish their sales by a quarter of one percent (in fact the opposite, considering 40k radio acting as advertising for their game). Once again, the level of self importance with the company is mind-bogglingly hilarious, and deserves to be scorned by the conscientious fan community.

Note that I have not listened to the show, so I really do not know what was said, in what context, and in what manner.

That said, there's also an issue of protectability. Rules just aren't protected by copyright, other than the specific text of the rules. The system is straight up not protectable. Anyone should be able to talk about the point costs of units as this is an element of the game rules. And even sections of the text should be distributable in the context of a review.

At the very least, any discussion or reading of game rules is a murky area.

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

X unit costing Y points is part of a system. The force organization structure is part of a system. A unit's place in that force organization is part of the system.

An Imperial whatsit in the new codex costs bla points and is now in the bla force organization slot. It used to cost bla points which was bla more than now. Now you can take bla unit as a bla force org and that allows you to take bla units as this force org instead of this other force org, and at bla points you could field bla number of them in a bla point game.

That's ipso facto a discussion of rules, which would necessarily mention the name of units, which is potentially copyrightable, but even if it were, it would be such a minimal portion of the whole work that I can see it easily falling within the limits of fair use.

There might be something if those guys were reading off stat lines, wargear options, and rule descriptions straight from the book exactly as printed. But I can imagine a ton of ways to communicate that information in a way that relates almost exclusively to a procedure, process, system, or method of operation.

 Ouze wrote:

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

... Snape killed Dumbledore...

Noooooooooooooo!

 Eldarain wrote:
While this behaviour doesn't seem that odd given GW's reputation, I actually thought they were getting more savvy when 40k radio was leaking the codex.

It struck me that they were allowing them to leak things in a calculated manner. First blurry horrible pictures then vague chapter traits. With everything becoming clearer as the release grew closer.

It seemed to build a lot of excitement here and on other popular wargaming sites.

This is EXACTLY what I thought as well. It was as if GW accidentally discovered that controlling their previews builds excitement and increases sales. As if they actually WANTED us to look forward to their releases, rather than just guessing (or reading about somebody else's guesses) as to what was coming next.

Pretty foolish of us to think GW was going to try to grow and learn and avoid all the trash talking we aim at them when they do something like this...

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

I'm with you: What exactly is GW's end goal here?

The best thing in the world for a company is when customers are talking about you and your product. In the case of 40K Radio they gave a LOT of information, most of it positive, about the SM:Codex... I'd be curious as to how many people bought the book because of the in depth coverage versus those who simply scribbled notes down and ignored the book? My gut "feeling" is that very few people did the latter.

So, what really is GW trying to do? I know that in certain cases trademarks can be lost when the words become synonymous with a general class of products/services; but I don't think any of their valid trademarks are in danger of that. - and no, I don't consider Space Marine to be a valid trademark due to prior usage.

Regarding copyright infringement, well, GW's best way to stop it is by putting out quality physical books and letting social behavior fix it. Most hobby shops already require you to have a codex in order to play there, which is a powerful motivator to force people to buy the product. And, sure, the PDF will show up on in a torrent fairly quickly but my experience (software) has been that "thieves" wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

So, again, what are they trying to do? Is this possibly some form of backwards advertising? In other words trying to use the Streisand Effect? Honestly, I can't see any reason for them to send out C&D letters like this. I get the feeling that a lot of companies have simply gotten onto the IP Law bandwagon created by the music industry and have simply lost site of what's important.

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Have a read up on TSR.

I'm still not sure if GW have actually managed to surpass TSR in general assclownery...

More bullying from a company that thinks they the hobby rather than simple part of it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Have a read up on TSR.

I'm still not sure if GW have actually managed to surpass TSR in general assclownery...

First, my greatest hope for GW and all the games they produce is that they meet the exact same fate as TSR did (namely, being bought out by a company that cares about it's fans and it's products).

But, there's a big difference between TSR and GW in that TSR was run by somebody who actively thought gaming was dumb and that gamers were unworthy of respect or concern.

It is even more embarrassing, I think, for GW to behave so abhorrently when, as far as we know anyway, they actually WANT to make good products and WANT to be popular. If it comes out in 10 years that the board of directors and the CEO genuinely hated us, this all makes more sense, but we have no reason to believe that they don't at least consider themselves to be an ally to the gamer, do we?

 azreal13 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:

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

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

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

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

Except it wasn't the whole codex was it?

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

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

More to the point is that mechanics have fairly soundly been determined to not have copyright protections. Provided they were not reading the fluff portions outloud on YouTube, the numbers and statlines are generally outside of copyrights. They lack the creative nature needed. The rules and stats which support them end up being under different IP protections (patents in most cases) and more often than not...no protection at all.

GW might not like when stats and rules are discussed on forums and I am sure they release all manner of legal hounds when they do...but, that doesnt mean they have a leg to stand on.

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

 tomjoad wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Have a read up on TSR.

I'm still not sure if GW have actually managed to surpass TSR in general assclownery...

First, my greatest hope for GW and all the games they produce is that they meet the exact same fate as TSR did (namely, being bought out by a company that cares about it's fans and it's products).

But, there's a big difference between TSR and GW in that TSR was run by somebody who actively thought gaming was dumb and that gamers were unworthy of respect or concern.

It is even more embarrassing, I think, for GW to behave so abhorrently when, as far as we know anyway, they actually WANT to make good products and WANT to be popular. If it comes out in 10 years that the board of directors and the CEO genuinely hated us, this all makes more sense, but we have no reason to believe that they don't at least consider themselves to be an ally to the gamer, do we?

We've seen some pretty derogatory comments from the marketing director for north America that went without any sort of apology or aknowledgment from the company. To me that suggests they do look down on the grown men playing with their childrens toys.

Chris - wrong country, and free speech in the US still doesnt allow you to breach copyright.

Come on, we all expected GW to react that way, when 40k radio leaked the complete rules from SM Codex and Dark Elf armybook. Only surprise was how long it took this time.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Have a read up on TSR.

I'm still not sure if GW have actually managed to surpass TSR in general assclownery...

Aye. Same train of thought, same Casey Jones rail service.

It comes with having a cooperate culture of loosing touch with your fan base and thinking you are above your business. I/E GM, FORD, Sears Robuck, JC Penny, etc.etc.etc.

Fat Cat mentality.

It happens more then we care to admit it in the gaming world. Ask FASA, TSR, and GDW for a look into their crystal ball's.

As to the assclownery, I only have to point to the "Gamesday" footage that is prevalent on the net before GW C and D's it as well.

That's not the Gamesday I used to know.

 azreal13 wrote:
There will be no excitement! Only the quiet and orderly spending of money in our pursuit of our favorite hobby "buying things from Games Workshop!"

I am so glad I walked away from that expensive Game.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Come on, we all expected GW to react that way, when 40k radio leaked the complete rules from SM Codex and Dark Elf armybook. Only surprise was how long it took this time.

I'm not fully aware of the actual leak, but if they leaked all the rules and points costs, instead of listing some noteworthy highlights as part of a review/critique, then a C&D seems fine to me.

Wanna see my shocked face?

 Grot 6 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Have a read up on TSR.

I'm still not sure if GW have actually managed to surpass TSR in general assclownery...

Aye. Same train of thought, same Casey Jones rail service.

It comes with having a cooperate culture of loosing touch with your fan base and thinking you are above your business. I/E GM, FORD, Sears Robuck, JC Penny, etc.etc.etc.

Fat Cat mentality.

It happens more then we care to admit it in the gaming world. Ask FASA, TSR, and GDW for a look into their crystal ball's.

As to the assclownery, I only have to point to the "Gamesday" footage that is prevalent on the net before GW C and D's it as well.

That's not the Gamesday I used to know.

This pretty much says it all:

I weep for Games Workshop.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:


What about Playthroughs on YouTube? There are thousands of videos of people playing through games on youtube. I dont have an Xbox, or PS but I'd like to experience some of the games on those system and thanks to playthroughs I can without buying the product, then again I'm not actually playing the game as I'm watching someone else do it. The questions is though if the gameplay or the story is what's the point of the game. Heck tons of games play like interactive movies and you can watch every alternative option and ending on youtube.
No idea where the law is regarding these things.

Well as pointed out Nintendo went on the warpath. So I'm thinking that does technically count as a public performance. I don't think most companies normally bother because we buy the games to actually play them. So while I'm pretty sure they were in their rights to do so it didn't really make any sense. Same thing has come up in eSports with companies not wanting their games being used but in that case money is usually changing hands... want to say that was Nintendo too actually. Not sure.

 pretre wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've never seen a company hate its fanbase as much as GW

Lucasfilm.
edit: this was meant to be funny and not taken literally. Smile.

You clearly meant LucasArts sir.
edit: while funny I'm fairly certain that was the reason it committed suicide.

 chris_valera wrote:

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

It has nothing at all to do with free speech.

GW ARE trying to do something about rumours. This. Wether or not they are doing the right thing is a different matter.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to stop books getting out. Note how we almost never see images of minis from the studio. We always see books. I would hazard a guess this is because GW staff are not the problem. It is wherever they get the books printed in India/China.

They are not the only company that dose not release things until they are ready. And I don't blame them TBH. People are STILL complaining about there being sisters models ready because some sculpts were seen 2-3 years ago.

I do think they could be more open, but people would still complain just as much.

Would they?

I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

Well, I wasn't planning on having my inaugural Dakka post be a rant, but here it comes.

First, my perspective is that I am 26 and am getting back into the game now after abandoning it 10-odd years ago when I wanted to spend money on other things and cared what others thought of me (now I'm a married working man and don't give a gak). I didn't come to this decision all at once, and I spent a lot of time on a lot of sites to gauge my level of passion for it and basically see if I wanted to spend oodles of money and time on 40k again. In the end I decided to take the plunge, but as a financial journalist, I am constantly amazed at how bad GW's business plan is and this is a great example of it.

I listen to 40k Radio, and podcasts like that were instrumental in getting me interested in the hobby again. Also, in the podcast in question, the hosts were repeatedly stopping themselves to say that they were trying to not give everything away and they encouraged everyone to buy the codices, etc. When points costs were mentioned it was generally in the context of, "This relic is awesome, but it costs 50 points. You could go with X instead of that, is it really worth it?" This is the realm of tactica where I really don't think you can have a discussion without points costs, and in the end it seems like the real question here is "Could you just listen to the podcast rather than buy the codex?" and the answer is definitely no.

But this gets to a much more fundamental problem about GW's products. I've literally spent just a month inundating myself with all of this again and it's clear how much negativity there is out there towards GW. Some of this is petty griping, but a lot of it is a product of just awful strategy by management overall -- crap PR, no(?) growth strategy, and a reactionary view towards the internet and global commerce.

I could speak reams about these problems, but I'll limit it to codices and the rulebook -- they should be free in the first place.

Or maybe not free, but GW should at least not be trying to make money on codices, which it is evidently doing. This is just plain stupid from a business perspective.

The rulebook and a codex are the most basic things you need to play the game. Therefore, anyone in my position is going to have to spend $100+ just to buy the latest edition of books (that I already bought years ago) in order for me to get going so I can give GW more of my money. With the new allies system, which is obviously designed to get gamers to buy more from other armies, I also have to spend $30-$50 just to have the tools necessary to DECIDE if I might want a detachment of them.

Essentially, what GW is doing is putting up barriers to consumers who want to buy their core product -- miniatures. I guarantee you that if the codices were free or cheap (you could even do a digital demo sort of thing where everything is up on the site for a limited time) then more people would be buying some of the new miniatures or thinking about using an Imperial Fists detachment because they have cool rules, no matter what army they play. Instead, they make people fork over a bunch of money before that person can decide whether to make a much larger investment in miniatures, and any third party drumming up excitement about the new stuff gets slapped with a C&D for revealing too much.

In my mind, the basic guts of the codex and rules should just be free or very cheap for everyone to check out and allow everyone to dabble in a bit of every army. If you want all the fluff, artwork and frills, then you can buy a hardcopy version of it, but at a much lower price than what they have right now. Plain and simply, GW needs to understand that they are a gaming and miniature manufacturing company, not a publishing house, and they aren't going to make their margins in books (no one is these days). They should look at it like video game companies do. The Xbox 360 loses Microsoft at least $100 per unit, but they know they will make that back with their huge margins on the games. It's the same with cell phones and apps. Smart companies don't try to make money on the product that serves as the gateway to other products, otherwise you're keeping a lot of potential customers at the door.

Also, as many others have mentioned, their strategy of going after bloggers and forums discussing rumors and stuff is similarly stupid. Most companies are spending millions to try and get people to talk about their product on the internet, because once they get that conversation going then it is free marketing the rest of the way. Does GW think it is the only smart company in the world and the rest are fools by engaging their fans and consumers? Their retail strategy is just as bad but that is a rant for a different time.

Anyone still reading? Anyone still here? Thanks for putting up with my rant, probably the first of many.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
In my mind, the basic guts of the codex and rules should just be free or very cheap for everyone to check out and allow everyone to dabble in a bit of every army. If you want all the fluff, artwork and frills, then you can buy a hardcopy version of it, but at a much lower price than what they have right now.

Quite a few of GWs competitors are doing this (I know I have been reading rules for all the factions mine can ally with in Dystopian Wars while trying to decide how best to expand my collection), but GW seems to be getting WORSE at this rather than better. Not only did the move to hardback reinforce the barriers but the supplements don't help. Ideally in GWs world you'll have a $120 core rulebook, an $84 codex, an $84 supplement and a $84 allied codex (aussie prices suck).

Guess which company is in the process of expanding it's existing ranges, adding new factions and working on whole new systems and which is bleeding sales.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
Well, I wasn't planning on having my inaugural Dakka post be a rant, but here it comes.

Oh, don't worry, it's a time-honored first post tradition. Welcome to Dakka!

Also, the bulk of your post basically just describes the business model of mantic games. See this link: http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

A lot of other companies do this as well because they want to drive mini sales rather than book sales and reduce the overall "get started with our stuff" cost.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Also, the bulk of your post basically just describes the business model of mantic games.

Yeah, GW tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only one week in advance. Mantic tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only months after they got the cash (kickstarter, preorder), for obvious reasons

 Kroothawk wrote:

Yeah, GW tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only one week in advance. Mantic tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only months after they got the cash (kickstarter, preorder), for obvious reasons

Though they both boil down to much the same logic.

Miniatures sell best in a brief time-window when they are "hot" and the hype is up.

"Regular sales" of just their "regular assortment" that isn't currently getting the limited-time blockbuster treatment (whether through Kickstarter or "home-made") is increasingly irrelevant to both companies (and most others too).

I suppose the logical next step is for mini companies to both cut out the Kickstarter-fees and to stop with non-limited back-logs of "old" miniatures in the inventory, and simply do continuous sequential "limited-time-only" splash-releases on a "Kickstarter-like" website of their own.

 Zweischneid wrote:

"Regular sales" of just their "regular assortment" that isn't currently getting the limited-time blockbuster treatment (whether through Kickstarter or "home-made") is increasingly irrelevant to both companies (and most others too).

And then there's PP, who tells you three months in advance everything they're releasing.

How far in advance do FFG reveal what's in each X Wing wave? Doesn't seem to be harming their sales, whatever it is.

 Riquende wrote:
How far in advance do FFG reveal what's in each X Wing wave? Doesn't seem to be harming their sales, whatever it is.

We know the Imperial Aces expansion is coming as well as the blockade runner and rebel transport. We have known about all three for what, 4-6x the length of GWs window from announcement to release already and I don't think they will hit any time soon since the last wave hit like a month or two ago.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

Those some spiffy rose-tinted glasses you've got on there, Kilkrazy. People have been complaining unceasingly about GW since the early 90s. I bought the first edition of Talisman for $12 when it was circulating then GW upped the price to $20 and I was like, "Wut?" (I needed to replace a bunch of cards). Other complaint generators include, moving from two Rhinos to one in the box, the plastic Land Raider disappearing, and constant price inflation as well as being priced waaaay above competitors at the time. Yes, there was as much complaining back in the day as there is now. The only real difference is that GW had actual content in the WD and they weren't doing all this secrecy trash. Other than that, it's always been the same company.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Yeah, GW tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only one week in advance. Mantic tries to sell their miniatures by showing them only months after they got the cash (kickstarter, preorder), for obvious reasons

Though they both boil down to much the same logic.

Miniatures sell best in a brief time-window when they are "hot" and the hype is up.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that (both literally and figuratively)

I've been suggesting for a while now that GWs behaviour is very similar to a film or game studio when they know, or suspect, they have a bit of a turkey on their hands ie they release with a degree of fanfare, but with little or no opportunity for critical exposure. If I'm right, then this would suggest they have little confidence in the product they're manufacturing.

This could also explain their rather heavy handed legal approach, it is often those that feel they are in a weak or undermined position who are the most aggressive (ask anyone who works in retail and deals with customer complaints)

I'd suggest that if the models were truly amazing, something which FW proves GW have access to the talent to achieve, then people would buy things because they had to have them, and that wouldn't change regardless of how long those models had been available (assuming said person didn't already own them)

I know I'm not alone in having a mental shopping list of awesome stuff I want that far exceeds my buying power, but while some items drop off that list after a day or a week, others stay because they really speak to me and still get me excited about owning them, potentially even years after release.

I've often accused Kirby of milking GW as his retirement fund, but as time goes by, I'm beginning to feel that more and more of their behaviour is more appropriately explained by them knowing that their market position is under pressure, and their response to this is to both become more insular on one hand, while coming out swinging with the other.

Not the way I'd do it, but it does seem to fit.

 Riquende wrote:
How far in advance do FFG reveal what's in each X Wing wave? Doesn't seem to be harming their sales, whatever it is.

Well, that game only is a year old (e.g. similar time-frame to DreadBall, DZC, etc..), and we don't even know if FFG will want to (or can) turn that game into a sustained 5, 10 or even 20 year business.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

Those some spiffy rose-tinted glasses you've got on there, Kilkrazy. People have been complaining unceasingly about GW since the early 90s. I bought the first edition of Talisman for $12 when it was circulating then GW upped the price to $20 and I was like, "Wut?" (I needed to replace a bunch of cards). Other complaint generators include, moving from two Rhinos to one in the box, the plastic Land Raider disappearing, and constant price inflation as well as being priced waaaay above competitors at the time. Yes, there was as much complaining back in the day as there is now. The only real difference is that GW had actual content in the WD and they weren't doing all this secrecy trash. Other than that, it's always been the same company.

People may have been complaining unceasingly but in the past GW was growing as a company. They aren't any more but their competition is.

Saying that people have always been complaining might sound like a good reason to dismiss this complaining but the numbers tell a very different tale.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
How far in advance do FFG reveal what's in each X Wing wave? Doesn't seem to be harming their sales, whatever it is.

Well, that game only is a year old (e.g. similar time-frame to DreadBall, DZC, etc..), and we don't even know if FFG will want to (or can) turn that game into a sustained 5, 10 or even 20 year business.

The facts of that statement are incontrovertible, but the statement itself is entirely irrelevant.

Firstly, FFG has already taken a number of titles into multiple year lifespans, so they clearly know enough about their business to repeat that, secondly because I fail to see how players of one game getting excited over new releases for the game they enjoy doesn't translate to another, purely because one game has been out for a longer period of time?

The life span of X-wing is dictated by a licence agreement, which I would guess ranges from 3-5 years.

I would expect new unit releases to reduce as the end of the licence nears and pick up when they agree to increase the licence next period - Mickey needs some new ear warmers!

But none of this is relevant to the thread?

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

Those some spiffy rose-tinted glasses you've got on there, Kilkrazy. People have been complaining unceasingly about GW since the early 90s. I bought the first edition of Talisman for $12 when it was circulating then GW upped the price to $20 and I was like, "Wut?" (I needed to replace a bunch of cards). Other complaint generators include, moving from two Rhinos to one in the box, the plastic Land Raider disappearing, and constant price inflation as well as being priced waaaay above competitors at the time. Yes, there was as much complaining back in the day as there is now. The only real difference is that GW had actual content in the WD and they weren't doing all this secrecy trash. Other than that, it's always been the same company.

Yes, people have always complained about price increases, the decline of White Dwarf and the lack of squats. They didn't use to complain about C&Ds to blogs, copyright cases, lack of new release info, tournaments being cancelled and the like, because those things weren't happening.

The complaints about White Dwarf seem to have stopped, probably because no-one on DakkaDakka bothers to read it any more.

 scarletsquig wrote:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
Well, I wasn't planning on having my inaugural Dakka post be a rant, but here it comes.

Oh, don't worry, it's a time-honored first post tradition. Welcome to Dakka!

Also, the bulk of your post basically just describes the business model of mantic games. See this link: http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

A lot of other companies do this as well because they want to drive mini sales rather than book sales and reduce the overall "get started with our stuff" cost.

The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success. It just astounds me that GW shoved those people out of the door only to see them set up shop across the street and chew into the company's market share. And for all intents and purposes, Mantic is immune to legal hassling from Games Workshop. Not only does Mantic have money, but it is a practical impossibility to take a spurious suit against a man who used to run the design studio where the allegedly infringed artwork was created.

"Well, let me tell you my first hand experience about Games Workshop, its policies, its contracts with artists, and describe for you what is in fact protected expression in artistic works of my own creation, tell you precisely what sources I did in fact consult to create those works, and provide my expert opinion about why my products do not infringe."

weeble1000 wrote:


The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success. It just astounds me that GW shoved those people out of the door only to see them set up shop across the street and chew into the company's market share. And for all intents and purposes, Mantic is immune to legal hassling from Games Workshop. Not only does Mantic have money, but it is a practical impossibility to take a spurious suit against a man who used to run the design studio where the allegedly infringed artwork was created.

"Well, let me tell you my first hand experience about Games Workshop, its policies, its contracts with artists, and describe for you what is in fact protected expression in artistic works of my own creation, tell you precisely what sources I did in fact consult to create those works, and provide my expert opinion about why my products do not infringe."

You call selling products sight-unseen at a super deep discount which is equally reliant on 'removing critical thought' from the purchase and then producing substandard sculpts out of shoddy material in a poorly casted way 'different' from GW?

Both companies don't have a product which withstands critical thought and suffers from having more time to investigate and reason decisions. GW suffers from previews because they don't want you to put off buying this months release in favor for next months release. Mantic suffers from having terrible consistency and art direction and hiding models months after they are finished being sculpted because they don't want people to see how bad they are and are afraid people will change their minds. I have yet to find people in real life who play mantic games or were happy with the models they got from any kickstarter from them. I am sure they exist, but they just don't seem to be real life people and the internet is an echo chamber of fanbois and shills.

PP is the respectable company. They make products, they share greens and WIPs, they let people know months in advanced and make models which customers can choose to buy or not buy with all the information available to them, and they *STILL* sell products. They support the models with a good game. This is the 'make a product people want and you will sell it.'

Mantic and GW both rely on tricking customers and removing critical thought to increase sales and it works for them so they keep doing it. People get mad but obviously not enough to impact their sales so why change? Dumb people's money is equally as good as smart people's money so if someone is going to buy an army they don't want due to the 'hype' and then buy a second army 4 months later because it is 'what they really wanted' why change to a model which allows someone to compare and buy less product?

I'm not sure if keeping future releases under wraps to try and keep people interested in the stuff you're releasing today really qualifies as "tricking people". Not compared to, say, getting people to pour their money into kickstarters for unseen products.

I liked the 40k radio podcasts preview episodes and now I'm sad if they stop.

I buy all of the 40k codecies anyway, so it's not like they're stopping a sale in my book.

GW can be lame sometimes.

weeble1000 wrote:
The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success.

I wouldn't call a company that is jumping from kickstarter to kickstarter with barely money to finish the job properly "a pretty significant success". There is a reason why noone in Germany wants to distribute Mantic anymore, with one distributor for Dreadball boxes left.

yeah,
Like Beasts and CrapterHouse... these guys say they love 40K yet they ignore the rules set down by GW.

So basically more people doing what they know they shouldn't do.
Then complaining when GW tells them to stop.

Panic...

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not sure if keeping future releases under wraps to try and keep people interested in the stuff you're releasing today really qualifies as "tricking people". Not compared to, say, getting people to pour their money into kickstarters for unseen products.

Of course it is.

Ask anyone who bought a codex a couple of weeks before an update, or bought the 5th edition rulebook the month prior (there is a specific example on my local GW FB page of this, the managers response was "hey, all the pictures and fluff are still great!")

Ok, totally new products probably get a bye in this case, but keeping schtum about updates and still selling the soon to be outdated stuff, while simultaneously shrugging your shoulders when people look for some sort of concession for it, is what if it isn't deceptive?

At least with KS, you're aware you're taking a risk with your cash, and are making an informed decision on whether the project is worth the risk based in the creators track record, renders, greens, concept art etc. Applying the rule of caveat emptor, when that rule is integral to how KS functions, is far from dishonest, and just providing you with all the relevant information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
Like Beasts and CrapterHouse... these guys say they love 40K yet they ignore the rules set down by GW.

So basically more people doing what they know they shouldn't do.
Then complaining when GW tells them to stop.

Panic...

Except in both those cases there is substantial doubt in whether either party was actually doing anything wrong.

So, yeah, except that.

Businesses don't have to follow the rules set down by GW. They have to follow the rules set down by the law.

 chris_valera wrote:

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

nkelsch wrote:
I have yet to find people in real life who play mantic games or were happy with the models they got from any kickstarter from them. I am sure they exist, but they just don't seem to be real life people and the internet is an echo chamber of fanbois and shills.

PP is the respectable company. They make products, they share greens and WIPs, they let people know months in advanced and make models which customers can choose to buy or not buy with all the information available to them, and they *STILL* sell products. They support the models with a good game. This is the 'make a product people want and you will sell it.'

Dunno, Mantic Games (DreadBall, Kings of War, soon Deadzone) is very popular around here.

Are the models great? No, not really.

But the games are mostly fun and, perhaps even more importantly, Mantic Games did a hell of a job creating tournaments, community, etc.. , at least on the Island.

To mirror your sentiment, I have yet to find a real human that ever played a PP game. I know they are popular, even the 2nd most popular miniatures-game before X-Wing came along, but I don't think I've ever seen a life Warmahorde model outside a hobby-store display.

Regional caveats and all that. (where, to be fair, I would say the most popular Wargame in my neighborhood is actually SAGA atm... hardly a global competitor

 azreal13 wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not sure if keeping future releases under wraps to try and keep people interested in the stuff you're releasing today really qualifies as "tricking people". Not compared to, say, getting people to pour their money into kickstarters for unseen products.

Of course it is.

Ask anyone who bought a codex a couple of weeks before an update, or bought the 5th edition rulebook the month prior (there is a specific example on my local GW FB page of this, the managers response was "hey, all the pictures and fluff are still great!")

Ok, totally new products probably get a bye in this case, but keeping schtum about updates and still selling the soon to be outdated stuff, while simultaneously shrugging your shoulders when people look for some sort of concession for it, is what if it isn't deceptive?

*edit* No, I've totally misread what you were saying, I get it. Yeah, it would be suck to buy a codex only to see the update go up for preorder a few weeks later. They probably shouldn't do that gak. It can't happen that frequently though. Be a pretty large coincidence for someone to buy into an army only to get a totally out-of-the-blue codex update weeks later.

 Kroothawk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success.

I wouldn't call a company that is jumping from kickstarter to kickstarter with barely money to finish the job properly "a pretty significant success". There is a reason why noone in Germany wants to distribute Mantic anymore, with one distributor for Dreadball boxes left.

Hey now, Mantic was doing just fine before it started this Kickstarter crap. I don't think a company like Mantic, PP, or GW needs to or should be doing a kickstarter. But that does not disguise the fact that Mantic is releasing the types of products GW was not interested in releasing at a price point GW was unwilling to sell at. That's all I'm saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
Like Beasts and CrapterHouse... these guys say they love 40K yet they ignore the rules set down by GW.

So basically more people doing what they know they shouldn't do.
Then complaining when GW tells them to stop.

Panic...

Oh my God. I expect this post has been responded to already, and I really shouldn't dignify it. But the "rules set down by GW" are not the same as the rules of the society we and GW live in; rules which GW attempts to use to enforce its own, different set of rules. There is a big problem with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 R3con wrote:

 chris_valera wrote:

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

Unless the law says that such does not actually infringe any any exclusive right, and thus causes no harm for which one can seek to recover damages.

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would they?

I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

People have been complaining about GW since the 80s (on the old dial-up BBS systems no less!). The only real change is the internet makes it a lot easier for us to hear it.

As for models, I think the CHS case permanently killed any hope of us getting previews of things from the main studio because of the fear that someone will steal what their working on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
This is the realm of tactica where I really don't think you can have a discussion without points costs, and in the end it seems like the real question here is "Could you just listen to the podcast rather than buy the codex?" and the answer is definitely no.

I did a massive roll-up on the Space Marine codex from their pod casts and I had enough information that I could play the codex without ever touching a codex just from their two podcasts. By listening I had the full rules, points costs, ect. It's the same kind of thing Dakka can get slammed over so it's no surprised 40k Radio would get a C&D.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

Free speech doesn't protect Copyright infringement. Now, was what 40k Radio did copyright infringement? Maybe? GW thinks so... it is up to 40k Radio to make a case in court that they were following 'fair use' and stand up.

But that is expensive, and not a slam dunk.

Free speech doesn't give basic permission to do anything you want.

 Bull0 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not sure if keeping future releases under wraps to try and keep people interested in the stuff you're releasing today really qualifies as "tricking people". Not compared to, say, getting people to pour their money into kickstarters for unseen products.

Of course it is.

Ask anyone who bought a codex a couple of weeks before an update, or bought the 5th edition rulebook the month prior (there is a specific example on my local GW FB page of this, the managers response was "hey, all the pictures and fluff are still great!")

Ok, totally new products probably get a bye in this case, but keeping schtum about updates and still selling the soon to be outdated stuff, while simultaneously shrugging your shoulders when people look for some sort of concession for it, is what if it isn't deceptive?

.

*edit* No, I've totally misread what you were saying, I get it. Yeah, it would be suck to buy a codex only to see the update go up for preorder a few weeks later. They probably shouldn't do that gak. It can't happen that frequently though. Be a pretty large coincidence for someone to buy into an army only to get a totally out-of-the-blue codex update weeks later.

As a percentage? Sure, but for a book like Space Marines, where the uptake from new starters is probably disproportionately high, I'd bet it happens far more frequently. If it is really close, odds are they'll have a receipt and be able to return it, but say three weeks after purchase? Still having POP is unlikely. That's the other thing too, it hurts new players far more than the likes of us, as we are better informed and far more likely to have an inkling of what's upcoming. As perhaps the one unarguably positive thing GW still contributes to the hobby at large is as a generator of new blood, that sort of behaviour, should it put somebody off, is doubly bad.

They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

Those some spiffy rose-tinted glasses you've got on there, Kilkrazy. People have been complaining unceasingly about GW since the early 90s. I bought the first edition of Talisman for $12 when it was circulating then GW upped the price to $20 and I was like, "Wut?" (I needed to replace a bunch of cards). Other complaint generators include, moving from two Rhinos to one in the box, the plastic Land Raider disappearing, and constant price inflation as well as being priced waaaay above competitors at the time. Yes, there was as much complaining back in the day as there is now. The only real difference is that GW had actual content in the WD and they weren't doing all this secrecy trash. Other than that, it's always been the same company.

Yes, people have always complained about price increases, the decline of White Dwarf and the lack of squats. They didn't use to complain about C&Ds to blogs, copyright cases, lack of new release info, tournaments being cancelled and the like, because those things weren't happening.

The complaints about White Dwarf seem to have stopped, probably because no-one on DakkaDakka bothers to read it any more.

You did specify quantity of complaints, not quality.

 azreal13 wrote:
They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

Yeah, I feel like that was happening at some point, but probably isn't anymore.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

 Bull0 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

Yeah, I feel like that was happening at some point, but probably isn't anymore.

GW's Retail staff was one of the big sources of leaks back in the day so it's no surprise.

GW does pull stuff from the "mandatory stock" list for their partners (there are different stockist levels but they all get lists of what products they need to have stocked to maintain that level of stockist, these levels give benefits like tournament prize support and larger discounts IIRC) and their stores about a month in advance, but then again they also make some rather odd things go direct only so perhaps no one wants to rely on that as "proof" of what's coming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

overtyrant wrote:
Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

I am American, it just says I'm Canadian when I'm online at the local college despite only being across town. Go figure.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

Depends how they're phrased really. It's not hard for someone to get sued for slander when they voice negativity about someone or something.

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

But not everything pertaining to other people's intellectual property is allowed by free speech either, otherwise the whole idea of "copyright" would be nonsensical.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

But not everything pertaining to other people's intellectual property is allowed by free speech either, otherwise the whole idea of "copyright" would be nonsensical.

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

Depends how they're phrased really. It's not hard for someone to get sued for slander when they voice negativity about someone or something.

If you make knowingly false statements. Generally the truth is a defense in most instances.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

Brother Weasel wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

It also doesn't give you freedom from the repercussions of exercising said speech.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.

Probably. Though empowering Congress to prevent financial harm to a company in this manner is pretty much why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 was added to the US Constitution (modeled, in fact, on things like the Licensing of Press Act or the Statute of Anne, all of which pre-date American Independence).

US Constitution wrote:
The Congress shall have Power

...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.

Probably. Though empowering Congress to prevent financial harm to a company in this manner is pretty much why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 was added to the US Constitution (modeled, in fact, on things like the Licensing of Press Act or the Statute of Anne, all of which pre-date American Independence).

US Constitution wrote:
Congress has the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

nkelsch wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

Free speech doesn't protect Copyright infringement. Now, was what 40k Radio did copyright infringement? Maybe? GW thinks so... it is up to 40k Radio to make a case in court that they were following 'fair use' and stand up.

But that is expensive, and not a slam dunk.

Free speech doesn't give basic permission to do anything you want.

I appreciate there is a great deal of confusion in this thread about what is and is not subject to copyright, so I'm going to re-post the excellent little primer that Weeble put up earlier. If that is too long to read, just remember that there is a division between idea and expression: the ideas in a Codex are not subject to Copyright. Only that particular expression.

The protection given to things like point costs and the mechanics of rules is slender to the point of transparency.

weeble1000 wrote:
Note that I have not listened to the show, so I really do not know what was said, in what context, and in what manner.

That said, there's also an issue of protectability. Rules just aren't protected by copyright, other than the specific text of the rules. The system is straight up not protectable. Anyone should be able to talk about the point costs of units as this is an element of the game rules. And even sections of the text should be distributable in the context of a review.

At the very least, any discussion or reading of game rules is a murky area.

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

X unit costing Y points is part of a system. The force organization structure is part of a system. A unit's place in that force organization is part of the system.

An Imperial whatsit in the new codex costs bla points and is now in the bla force organization slot. It used to cost bla points which was bla more than now. Now you can take bla unit as a bla force org and that allows you to take bla units as this force org instead of this other force org, and at bla points you could field bla number of them in a bla point game.

That's ipso facto a discussion of rules, which would necessarily mention the name of units, which is potentially copyrightable, but even if it were, it would be such a minimal portion of the whole work that I can see it easily falling within the limits of fair use.

There might be something if those guys were reading off stat lines, wargear options, and rule descriptions straight from the book exactly as printed. But I can imagine a ton of ways to communicate that information in a way that relates almost exclusively to a procedure, process, system, or method of operation.

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

This time GW would have a much more solid case seeing as everything that was read off came directly from their book. This isn't like "who owns the concept of space marine shoulder pads?" but "did the defendant read from this book and present information within in a manner that does not constitute fair use?".

And when it comes to fair use it's not even like GW is the worst offender out there. Video game companies, music publishers and the film industry are far worse about "fair use". I was watching a review last night and they actually pointed out that Squaresoft C&D anyone who even plays PART of the song from Kingdom Hearts 2 even if it's being done in a manner that constitutes fair use.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.

The entire existence of copyright is literally a limit to free speech/press in order to prevent financial harm. Whether you morally agree with the concept of "copyright" is irrelevant.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

I could be convicted of wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday in Belguim. It may even be true, but the authorities in Belgium would still have to petition the US courts to do anything about it. In which case a US judge would say that it's Mr.Darr's constitutional right to wear brown shoes, so get bent Belgium. I would just have to keep Belgium off my travel itinerary,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Absolutionis wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 R3con wrote:


Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.

The entire existence of copyright is literally a limit to free speech/press in order to prevent financial harm. Whether you morally agree with the concept of "copyright" is irrelevant.

...of a certain limit category of financial harm that related primarily to ownership. Again, not ALL financial harm, and even in that category not all instances.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

I could be convicted of wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday in Belguim. It may even be true, but the authorities in Belgium would still have to petition the US courts to do anything about it. In which case a US judge would say that it's Mr.Darr's constitutional right to wear brown shoes, so get bent Belgium. I would just have to keep Belgium off my travel itinerary,

The thing you're missing I think is that I was referencing the US's "Fair Use" Laws, which 40k Radio does not mean the definitions of, thus meaning they'd just get bent over the witness box and taken for all they're worth.

 azreal13 wrote:


If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Apples and Oranges.

Game Mechanics are hard to copyright, that is true. If they release a new wargame - RomeroRadio Warfare for 28mm Tabletop Mayhem - and it's rules (though not the iconic and fluffy parts) are remarkably similar to a popular Wargame by GW, it'd be hard to make a case.

If they "leak" new rules for Warhammer 40.000 Imperial Fists specifically to freely distribute the copyrighted information inside a Games Workshop Warhammer 40.000 Supplement on Imperial Fist, I would guess you might get a very different ruling, even if it's "the rules" from that book they "leaked".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Brother Weasel wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

It also doesn't give you freedom from the repercussions of exercising said speech.

Indeed...

The government can't infringe on your right, but people can, DakkaDakka can tell you not to say something... (getting a little of topic here of course) it also doesnt' stop you from getting punched in the nose (though then you go to assault laws)

Brother Weasel wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Brother Weasel wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

It also doesn't give you freedom from the repercussions of exercising said speech.

Indeed...

The government can't infringe on your right, but people can, DakkaDakka can tell you not to say something... (getting a little of topic here of course) it also doesnt' stop you from getting punched in the nose (though then you go to assault laws)

To put it another way:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

This time GW would have a much more solid case seeing as everything that was read off came directly from their book. This isn't like "who owns the concept of space marine shoulder pads?" but "did the defendant read from this book and present information within in a manner that does not constitute fair use?".

And when it comes to fair use it's not even like GW is the worst offender out there. Video game companies, music publishers and the film industry are far worse about "fair use". I was watching a review last night and they actually pointed out that Squaresoft C&D anyone who even plays PART of the song from Kingdom Hearts 2 even if it's being done in a manner that constitutes fair use.

I don't think you quite grasp my point: "point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law".

If point costs are not protect-able, you can just read them out of the book. This is not Fair Use; fair use is a defense to Copyright infringement. If the material is not protect-able, the issue of a defense never arises.

 R3con wrote:

 chris_valera wrote:

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

GW have to prove financial harm.

Has the suggested Battlefoam link been expanded on?

Has the content of the letter been expanded on?

It's all very vague.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Has the suggested Battlefoam link been expanded on?

I'd like to know more about this too.

Also, can someone provide a source that point costs are actually part of rule mechanics and thus not protectable?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

IANAL, but I expect that the Court's would turn a slanty eye on reading off all rules (even rephrased) in a rulebook. It smacks of dickery, and dickery tends to get looked at more closely. Believe it or not, concepts of equity and fairness are pretty strong in the justice system, for good and ill.

There could very well be some case law or whatnot on this particular point, although things like unlicensed online versions of boggle, scrabble, and similar tend to demonstrate that you can even take a game wholesale and reproduce it, with exactly the same rules, the same layout, etc.

Again, I didn't listen to the podcast, but there's probably something that would allow one to at least present a prima facie case of copyright infringement. As I said, I don't know the case law on this particular point, but there must be some.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

Where the hell did I put my Die Hard 3 Blue Ray... need it now!!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

Where the hell did I put my Die Hard 3 Blue Ray... need it now!!

The film-makers weren't stupid. The board said "I hate everyone". It was digitally altered to the other word after filming. There are times when discretion applies to free speech.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

IANAL, but I expect that the Court's would turn a slanty eye on reading off all rules (even rephrased) in a rulebook. It smacks of dickery, and dickery tends to get looked at more closely. Believe it or not, concepts of equity and fairness are pretty strong in the justice system, for good and ill.

There could very well be some case law or whatnot on this particular point, although things like unlicensed online versions of boggle, scrabble, and similar tend to demonstrate that you can even take a game wholesale and reproduce it, with exactly the same rules, the same layout, etc.

Again, I didn't listen to the podcast, but there's probably something that would allow one to at least present a prima facie case of copyright infringement. As I said, I don't know the case law on this particular point, but there must be some.

Heh, while I am a lawyer, I also didn't listen to the podcast. Certainly reading the book straight out without any paraphrasing would be a violation. There is probably a better case then Feist, but I'm not up on it, and so it probably goes to specific facts (which neither of us knows about, ). Certainly in the case of recipies the protection is very, very thin indeed.

As a matter of equity the case is even more complicated, since usually a party that comes to a court asking for equity ought to have clean hands. And GW, well...

Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

Motograter wrote:
Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

They probably don't know about that case, nor would they look at it unless it applied to the current case.

Brother Weasel wrote:

Motograter wrote:
Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

They probably don't know about that case, nor would they look at it unless it applied to the current case.

And courts take cases seriously based upon the case. This isn't Mayberry courts where Andy is just letting Otis sleep it off in the jail and ignoring Gomer Pyle because he saw a ghost. They are not going to ignore GW simply because what some angry people on the internet think about one case.

And GW was not found at all to be frivolous... and even if the lawyer GW had did some shady things, that reflects more upon the lawyer than the company hiring the lawyer. If they were in a different jurisdiction with a new lawyer, not sure why 'any major US court' wouldn't take them seriously and hear the case impartially based upon the facts.

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
Like Beasts and CrapterHouse... these guys say they love 40K yet they ignore the rules set down by GW.

So basically more people doing what they know they shouldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the rules you speak of don't go:

"First rule of Games Workshop - you don't talk about Games Workshop. Second rule of Games Workshop - you do not talk about Games Workshop!"

No one's breaking any rules here. It's just a big fish trying to push smaller fish around.

nkelsch wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success. It just astounds me that GW shoved those people out of the door only to see them set up shop across the street and chew into the company's market share. And for all intents and purposes, Mantic is immune to legal hassling from Games Workshop. Not only does Mantic have money, but it is a practical impossibility to take a spurious suit against a man who used to run the design studio where the allegedly infringed artwork was created.

"Well, let me tell you my first hand experience about Games Workshop, its policies, its contracts with artists, and describe for you what is in fact protected expression in artistic works of my own creation, tell you precisely what sources I did in fact consult to create those works, and provide my expert opinion about why my products do not infringe."

You call selling products sight-unseen at a super deep discount which is equally reliant on 'removing critical thought' from the purchase and then producing substandard sculpts out of shoddy material in a poorly casted way 'different' from GW?

Both companies don't have a product which withstands critical thought and suffers from having more time to investigate and reason decisions. GW suffers from previews because they don't want you to put off buying this months release in favor for next months release. Mantic suffers from having terrible consistency and art direction and hiding models months after they are finished being sculpted because they don't want people to see how bad they are and are afraid people will change their minds. I have yet to find people in real life who play mantic games or were happy with the models they got from any kickstarter from them. I am sure they exist, but they just don't seem to be real life people and the internet is an echo chamber of fanbois and shills.

PP is the respectable company. They make products, they share greens and WIPs, they let people know months in advanced and make models which customers can choose to buy or not buy with all the information available to them, and they *STILL* sell products. They support the models with a good game. This is the 'make a product people want and you will sell it.'

Mantic and GW both rely on tricking customers and removing critical thought to increase sales and it works for them so they keep doing it. People get mad but obviously not enough to impact their sales so why change? Dumb people's money is equally as good as smart people's money so if someone is going to buy an army they don't want due to the 'hype' and then buy a second army 4 months later because it is 'what they really wanted' why change to a model which allows someone to compare and buy less product?

Gotta be honest, I've gotten 5 other people to try Kings of War, and 4 of them think it's a stronger game than WHFB. The fifth player also really enjoyed it. I've also gotten in a game of it with Porkuslime when I went to Ohio for a work trip. Your experience has been poor, but I've had decent success with it. 5 players may sound small, but WHFB wasn't exactly a hugely played game in my area before, so when all the players who do play prefer KoW, that says something, right? Have I seen much in the way of Mantic being sold? No. And it's a shame. Their rules are spot on, but their models are hit and miss to a majority of players. I'll even admit, restic can be frustrating to work with, as a lot of stuff has to be heated and cooled into place. But I like the look of lots of stuff, even things others hate (love the trolls, MaAs need a lot of help, but work if you're willing to do it. Shouldn't have been like that though). I also love X-Wing, and FFG's release policy rocks. Plenty of companys get it right, GW can't afford to keep getting it wrong. It's one of the reasons I barely touch GW games anymore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

I am American, it just says I'm Canadian when I'm online at the local college despite only being across town. Go figure.

Nice to know. Can you also tell us, if you are from North, Central or South America? And if from North America, which country

Another thing to consider is the Gaming Saloon.

They are a retailer of GW products and GW does have some additional options based on that.

Sound familiar to another recent GW action to another blog/podcast and their associated retail outlet.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 R3con wrote:

 chris_valera wrote:

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

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

GW have to prove financial harm.

Which GW would never be able to do since they don't do anything like market research.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

I am American, it just says I'm Canadian when I'm online at the local college despite only being across town. Go figure.

Nice to know. Can you also tell us, if you are from North, Central or South America? And if from North America, which country

North America, the belligerent country with severe self-entitlement issues.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Apples and Oranges.

Game Mechanics are hard to copyright, that is true. If they release a new wargame - RomeroRadio Warfare for 28mm Tabletop Mayhem - and it's rules (though not the iconic and fluffy parts) are remarkably similar to a popular Wargame by GW, it'd be hard to make a case.

If they "leak" new rules for Warhammer 40.000 Imperial Fists specifically to freely distribute the copyrighted information inside a Games Workshop Warhammer 40.000 Supplement on Imperial Fist, I would guess you might get a very different ruling, even if it's "the rules" from that book they "leaked".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Apples and Oranges.

Game Mechanics are hard to copyright, that is true. If they release a new wargame - RomeroRadio Warfare for 28mm Tabletop Mayhem - and it's rules (though not the iconic and fluffy parts) are remarkably similar to a popular Wargame by GW, it'd be hard to make a case.

If they "leak" new rules for Warhammer 40.000 Imperial Fists specifically to freely distribute the copyrighted information inside a Games Workshop Warhammer 40.000 Supplement on Imperial Fist, I would guess you might get a very different ruling, even if it's "the rules" from that book they "leaked".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

You don't 'Copyright' rule mechanics, you CAN copyright an 'expression' of a rule mechanic which would protect a publication and prevents people from copying your ruleset in whole by duplicating the publication. If they want to 'clone' your game, they have to do it in a completely new expression which would result in writing it from scratch. If you don't have a patent on your mechanic, then as long as they don't duplicate your 'expression' of your rules, then they are not infringing.

A narration of your publication is copyright infringement if not falling under fair use. Simply being a supposed 'news organization' doesn't defacto make it fair use, doing a review doesn't make it fair use and being a publication of game mechanics which are not patentable doesn't make it fair use or invalidate the copyright on the publication.

If they did a straight read through of the codex, then they were infringing and have to prove 'fair use'. Being rules doesn't make the copyright invalid.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

Why are you lying?

I just downloaded the review to listen to it (Episode 66, you can download it right now for free, pt1 here) and it clearly contains significant review elements.

From 29:33 to 37:15 they talk about Centurions, specifically how Grav weapons work; describing when it would be "brutal" (space marines) or when it's not worth taking (Orks), and whether or not it's worth the points to take them on the Centurions ("so awesome", what they took out during the course of a game) and how best to employ them (as a defensive bubble), and what can be used to counteract them (Sternguard with combi-plas, avoiding them, etc) and the problems with the unit (Slow and Purposeful) and so on. They then move on to say that the assault ones are probably not worth fielding because they are too hard to use/get in range, etc.

They then go on to talk about the new Tigurius and at that point I stopped listening because my interest in listening to podcasts about 40K is nearly nonexistant. I was just curious to see if what you posted was true (it was not), or if you totally made it up (you did).

nkelsch wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Apples and Oranges.

Game Mechanics are hard to copyright, that is true. If they release a new wargame - RomeroRadio Warfare for 28mm Tabletop Mayhem - and it's rules (though not the iconic and fluffy parts) are remarkably similar to a popular Wargame by GW, it'd be hard to make a case.

If they "leak" new rules for Warhammer 40.000 Imperial Fists specifically to freely distribute the copyrighted information inside a Games Workshop Warhammer 40.000 Supplement on Imperial Fist, I would guess you might get a very different ruling, even if it's "the rules" from that book they "leaked".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

You don't 'Copyright' rule mechanics, you CAN copyright an 'expression' of a rule mechanic which would protect a publication and prevents people from copying your ruleset in whole by duplicating the publication. If they want to 'clone' your game, they have to do it in a completely new expression which would result in writing it from scratch. If you don't have a patent on your mechanic, then as long as they don't duplicate your 'expression' of your rules, then they are not infringing.

A narration of your publication is copyright infringement if not falling under fair use. Simply being a supposed 'news organization' doesn't defacto make it fair use, doing a review doesn't make it fair use and being a publication of game mechanics which are not patentable doesn't make it fair use or invalidate the copyright on the publication.

If they did a straight read through of the codex, then they were infringing and have to prove 'fair use'. Being rules doesn't make the copyright invalid.

You'll note my use of quotation marks? That's because I was using Zwei's words in my response to him. I'm quite aware that copyright isn't the correct terminology (but would concede I'd get out of my depth fairly quickly with the ins and outs) but I'm not entirely sure there is anything unique enough about 40K to be patentable? What's different about it to any other game that isn't just a variation on pre existing methods and mechanisms? Turning a card through 90 degrees to show that its resource had been used for a turn was something very specific and with a narrow scope, which is why that (I assume) was given a patent.

The fact is, they didn't do a straight read through of the codex, but included significant detail in a critical setting. (Ie they talked about the rules the about their likely impact on the game in general, whether it was good, bad, situational etc..)

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Heh, while I am a lawyer, I also didn't listen to the podcast. Certainly reading the book straight out without any paraphrasing would be a violation. There is probably a better case then Feist, but I'm not up on it, and so it probably goes to specific facts (which neither of us knows about, ). Certainly in the case of recipies the protection is very, very thin indeed.

As a matter of equity the case is even more complicated, since usually a party that comes to a court asking for equity ought to have clean hands. And GW, well...

Yea...Feist may be apropos, but it isn't facts we are dealing with, though systems are as equally unprotectable as facts. I guess the arrangement of the rules could constitute protected expression, but even then, would reading only the rulesy parts off, even in the order as arranged, constitute infringement? I mean, omitting the non-rulesy parts could constitute re-arrangement, and I seriously doubt that the podcast straight up relates the rules without rearrangement. That would have been the most boring podcast in the world...ever. "Space Marine Chaplin, Weapon Skill 5, Ballistic Skill 4, Strength 4...Space Marine Librarian, Weapon Skill 5..."

I didn't listen to it but...that couldn't have happened...right?

The most peg-hangy thing would probably be things like character names, and 40K is a registered GW mark, so...that's some vulnerability there.

weeble1000 wrote:
I mean, omitting the non-rulesy parts could constitute re-arrangement, and I seriously doubt that the podcast straight up relates the rules without rearrangement. That would have been the most boring podcast in the world...ever. "Space Marine Chaplin, Weapon Skill 5, Ballistic Skill 4, Strength 4...Space Marine Librarian, Weapon Skill 5..."

I didn't listen to it but...that couldn't have happened...right?

No, it did not. They give away points costs and rules functionality but not in the original form, to the extent I listened to it, and did so within the format or a play-by-play review. It's 119mb if you want to listen to it.

nkelsch wrote:


First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

Deal!

 Ouze wrote:
Why are you lying?

I just downloaded the review to listen to it (Episode 66, you can download it right now for free, pt1 here) and it clearly contains significant review elements.

From 29:33 to 37:15 they talk about Centurions, specifically how Grav weapons work; describing when it would be "brutal" (space marines) or when it's not worth taking (Orks), and whether or not it's worth the points to take them on the Centurions ("so awesome", what they took out during the course of a game) and how best to employ them (as a defensive bubble), and what can be used to counteract them (Sternguard with combi-plas, avoiding them, etc) and the problems with the unit (Slow and Purposeful) and so on. They then move on to say that the assault ones are probably not worth fielding because they are too hard to use/get in range, etc.

They then go on to talk about the new Tigurius and at that point I stopped listening because my interest in listening to podcasts about 40K is nearly nonexistant. I was just curious to see if what you posted was true (it was not), or if you totally made it up (you did).

They explained the mechanics of the rules in explicit detail to include points costs, FOC swapping abilities, which Warlord traits have which rules (in order), which relics have what rules and how much they cost.

Even trying to claim they were "reviewing" the codex (which there are much better ways to do it which don't violate Fair Use) they exceeded any protection Fair Use could give them. You can accuse me of lying if you want (which I'm not, I listened the the same show too and they didn't even present the notion that it was even intended to be a review) but the fact remains they violated what constitutes Fair Use of a published and copy-written document. Regardless if individual mechanics are protectable, they provided enough material that anyone could easily play the game without purchasing the product. That is a big "no go" when it comes to fair use.

Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review and frankly it wasn't a review it was a leak of an unreleased codex they had on a tablet (yeah, they bragged about having that by the way). They screwed up all the way here.

Its like citing a source on a paper, if you cite the source you will not get sued no matter what.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review.

We're talking about the show "New Space Marines Codex Review Part 1. Aug 15th (Show 66)", right? That's the one they never claimed was any kind of review? Tell me more.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Its like citing a source on a paper, if you cite the source you will not get sued no matter what.

Not quite. For example if you use an unedited clip from a movie there are limits of how long it can be uncut. Even if I say "I'm reviewing Rambo III" and then just give you nearly the entire movie without cutting much, if anything, out of it, that's still enough for the company that owns Rambo III to nail my ass to the wall.

Similarly I can't just read you "most" of the Chamber of Secrets unfiltered and claim it to be Fair Use. I can read small sections, summarize, even give my thoughts on it but there has to be more than a verbatim presentation of the material in the book from start to end.

By presenting as much material as they did, and how they did (not to mention admitting to owning a digital copy of a codex that wasn't out yet and they were aware of it being unavailable for purchase making them a possible accessory to it's theft and/or piracy) they exceeded the kinds of protection you claim from Fair Use. Fair Use is supposed to be a shield to keep people from being sued for talking about things unjustly, not a way to present enough of an experience that it replaces the material, especially when it makes you money from it (all those lovely sponsors who help pay for the episodes for instance).

weeble1000 wrote:
Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

*sigh*

And now I'm hungry. Thanks weeble!

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review.

We're talking about the show "New Space Marines Codex Review Part 1. Aug 15th (Show 66)", right? That's the one they never claimed was any kind of review? Tell me more.

Have you listened to the whole thing? Both part 1 and part 2 of them talking about the codex? Those bits where they talk about how to use something? That's Fair Use.

That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

But please, tell me about how listening to such a small portion of that episode makes you more knowledgeable about what was actually said through both episodes on the Space Marine codex that someone who actually sat through both of them. Please, enlighten me where the word "review" was used. Because from what I remember they weren't talking about reviewing the codex, they were talking about sharing all the rules, stats and details on all the stuff in the book. But if you can point me to that time code where they once claim to have legitimately obtained the materials and claim to be presenting a review of the product please let me know, because I've obviously forgotten. Until then you may want to actually have proof before you accuse people of outright fabrications.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you listened to the whole thing? Both part 1 and part 2 of them talking about the codex? Those bits where they talk about how to use something?

I have listened to most of it at this point, certainly enough to confidently say you're totally, 100% full of it when you claim:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
[40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim"

When of course they did absolutely nothing of the sort. Every bit of it has some commentary attached to it, and of course they didn't cover all of the book - they never "read verbatim" any of the fluff, for example, which presumably is about half the book, going by the other codices I own. You want to argue that they exceeded the bounds of what they could use as fair use, that's a good argument, but that's not the argument you made there.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Please, enlighten me where the word "review" was used.

You cant find where they called it a review on this page?



I can only lead you to the water, bro. I can't make you drink it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

You're right, it isn't a case of fair use. Fair use only applies when you're using copyrighted material, and rules for a game are not copyrighted material. Copyright infringement or fair use would only apply to reading the exact words used by GW, not saying "X upgrade costs Y points".

I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Outside of them claiming it to be a review or not, they certainly have set up a potential pitfall for themselves with the knowledgeable receipt of stolen goods (codex that's not for sale yet) and by providing so much detail that anyone with a little time, and something to write with and on can get all the stuff they need to play the codex without purchasing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That's a legitimate means of conveying the information that is protectable, at least in the US. All those points costs, specific rule names, and all that other stuff that you can copy down and then not have to buy the codex because they laid out even the cost of every bit of wargear in the book? Not so much.

You're right, it isn't a case of fair use. Fair use only applies when you're using copyrighted material, and rules for a game are not copyrighted material. Copyright infringement or fair use would only apply to reading the exact words used by GW, not saying "X upgrade costs Y points".

I'd disagree, but we'll end up in the weeds at this point, paticularly since very few of us are lawyers and because of this we can only argue what we think the law means, not what it actually means.

At the very least 40k Radio should rethink how they present the materials they're given in the future (assuming if they are given more in the future) to keep them out of court. They weren't particularly smart about it until now, but now GW will be watching them a lot closer so they need to be smarter about it.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Fair enough.

The other argument you made, about whether or not they used so much of it that it's not transformative, vs that rules are not protectable anyway - it's a better argument. If rules are indeed not protectable - and I don't know for sure - then I think this case bodes poorly for them. Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I admit I forgot about the "review" label on the page (I'm not perfect and those episodes where about 2 months ago at this point), and I apologize. There was no lying however as there was no actual intention to mislead, I simply had forgotten (2 months and a lot of school will do that to you).

Fair enough.

The other argument you made, about whether or not they used so much of it that it's not transformative, vs that rules are not protectable anyway - it's a better argument. If rules are indeed not protectable - and I don't know for sure - then I think this case bodes poorly for them. Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

Even if GW can't protect individual rules there is the matter of the fact that every codex, rulebook, supplement, ect they sell is protected by a copyright. I'm no expert, but seeing as one of the big reasons to buy a codex is the rules and that 40k Radio gave enough information between their two podcasts that it was legitimately possible to play a game with the updated rules despite not having the book might still fall into a violation of Fair Use.

And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen, and then have publicly admitted it (the talk about having the full codex on his tablet, and then showing it off at Gencon, to GW employees as well ).

I think there are a few avenues open to GW and a C&D was a rather (comparatively) nice way to ask 40k Radio to knock it off all things considered.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

Copyright protects expression, not ideas. The book clearly contains copyrighted material. For example, the fluff is indisputably copyrighted and copy/pasting whole pages of it would be infringing GW's rights. However, the rules for playing the game are not. The exact words used to say "X costs Y points" might be, but good luck arguing that it's a creative work and not just a purely functional statement of a fact. And of course it wouldn't be violating copyright at all to say "X costs Y points" in different words.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even if GW can't protect individual rules there is the matter of the fact that every codex, rulebook, supplement, ect they sell is protected by a copyright. I'm no expert, but seeing as one of the big reasons to buy a codex is the rules and that 40k Radio gave enough information between their two podcasts that it was legitimately possible to play a game with the updated rules despite not having the book might still fall into a violation of Fair Use.

The fact that GW wants to make money off something that can't be copyrighted doesn't mean they suddenly get legal protection for it. It's GW's fault that they've built a business model around selling something that anyone else can publish freely, I don't see any reason to legitimize that bad decision by letting them sue everyone into submission if their profits are threatened.

And, again, it's not fair use because fair use only covers copyrighted material. Game rules (including point costs) are not copyrighted material.

weeble1000 wrote:


Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

But weeble, you forgot the greatest patent ever granted:
How to use a swing:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227

For a brief time, children across the US were engaging in brazen illegal activity.

So were is this '40k radio had a stolen copy' thing coming from?

If a store got their hands on it early and sold it before official release then its a contractual issue, not a legal one and 40k radio would have done nothing wrong by taking advantage of it.
Unless I'm missing something here..

 Peregrine wrote:


And, again, it's not fair use because fair use only covers copyrighted material. Game rules (including point costs) are not copyrighted material.

Only problem I have with this is that forums generally don't want you posting stats or point values due to fear of the citadel fine lawyers.


Fun fact GW: If someone decided to copy those down and tried to play the game they probably weren't going to spend money anyways.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Only problem I have with this is that forums generally don't want you posting stats or point values due to fear of the citadel fine lawyers.

That's because forum owners can't afford to get sued even if they'd probably win in the end. It's pure intimidation by GW.

Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

So are you a lawyer? Do you have a link to something to back all that up? Is their any reason I should take your word on that over other people's in this thread because some people on here are lawyers and some of the others are linking things.

 jonolikespie wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

So are you a lawyer? Do you have a link to something to back all that up? Is their any reason I should take your word on that over other people's in this thread because some people on here are lawyers and some of the others are linking things.

Section 107 of the copyright act.

Here is a good article.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2011/september/fair_use_news_reviews.html

Being unpublished work is a large strike against 40k radio as a copyright holder has the right of first appearance.

It is a "grey area" but the volume of source material, the doing it before the publication was published, "fair use" doesn't sound like it will hold up. But if they feel it was, more power to them to fight it.

Also:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

GWS codexes are copyrighted materials. Quoting it in a review falls under fair use.

nkelsch wrote:
Stop saying rules in a GW codex are not copyrighted. They are. Being "rules or mechanics for a game" doesn't make the codex or the words within it "unprotectable"

You can't say this isn't a "fair use" issue when they are reading quotes from a copyrighted publication simply because "they are rules."

You can argue that their podcast is transformative enough to make it not infringement, you can claim they only used enough of the source material as part of an integral aspect of the review, but you can't claim the material has no valid copyright, as it does.

This is why we don't post points or stats on army lists... We can discuss army lists as rules, points and stats are not integral to the discussion of the copyrighted material so don't need to be reproduced.

It is the difference between quoting a sentence in a review to make a point in a review about a characters interactions and simply quoting an entire chapter. That would be infringement outside of fair use even though it is a review as too much of the source material was quoted and it wasn't integral to the review.

You can argue they are fair use and GW is bullying by hoping they can't afford to claim fair use, but you can't say it was an unprotectable material and there is no copyright on GW codexes. If that was true, then PDFs of every game on the internet would be free and legal to redistribute.

Sigh...

Let me, for the record, state that while I am an IP attorney, I do not know the specific facts of this case, so my remarks here are only of academic interest and do not constitute legal advice.

nkelsch, I say this as gently as I can, but you really don't seem to understand how copyright works in the USA.

You're not grasping the idea-expression dichotomy; "the rules" as they are embodied in a particular work are protected, the ideas within those rules are not.

Fake edit;

nkelsch wrote:
...
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

GWS codexes are copyrighted materials. Quoting it in a review falls under fair use.

You're just trolling now, right? Literally the first paragraph on the page you linked;

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

So are you trying to say that GW codexes are not copyrighted publications and they are afforded no protection? That simply isn't true. While someone can totally make their own game or play a game which functions as the rules in the publication describes, the words as written in the publication are protected and quoting them in part or whole in a review has to pass the test of 'fair use' regardless if they are rules or not.

They can discuss the rules without heavily quoting the source material. When you do too much of the source material, it becomes an issue of infringement.

We do it all the time when people post 'rumors' or discuss codexes. We seem to be able to do it without quoting the entire thing...

But some would want us to believe that "go ahead, you can quote all the rules. points and stats word for word and nothing bad can happen because it is not protected by copyrights!"

And that is not a true statement as you would be quoting a copyrighted publication.

There is a reason we have such as thing as an 'open game license' even though game mechanics are not protectable because the combination in a document is... and for people to reproduce those rules word-for-word is derivative works. Hence why they give blanket permission so people can use the publications 'as-is' and not be infringing.

If it was unprotectable, there would be no need for OGLs because the copyright would be invalid in the first place.

nkelsch wrote:
So are you trying to say that GW codexes are not copyrighted publications and they are afforded no protection?

Of course he isn't.

You cannot reproduce the book without express permission. Discussing the contents of the book however? That's not breaking copyright.

Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use. I'm no lawyer, but somehow I doubt the law offers fair use protection on illegally obtained property.

As for Harper and Row, I don't see how that applies....the only reason 'The Nation' won on appeal is because the court deemed as per wikipedia ""the robust debate of public issues" outweighed the limited power of copyright ownership." and that certainly wouldn't apply here.

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Who knows of any store that had the Space Marine codex nearly a month early? They were offering rules information quite a ways out from even the pre-order announcement, by a couple weeks at least.

Even that aside the copy they have was apparently digital since they had it on their tablet and where showing off pages at Gencon, so someone reproduced it without permission (if it wasn't the person who gave it to them, then it was the 40k Radio guys).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Who knows of any store that had the Space Marine codex nearly a month early? They were offering rules information quite a ways out from even the pre-order announcement, by a couple weeks at least.

Even that aside the copy they have was apparently digital since they had it on their tablet and where showing off pages at Gencon, so someone reproduced it without permission (if it wasn't the person who gave it to them, then it was the 40k Radio guys).

Regardless using the term 'illegal' when there is no actual evidence to suggest anything of the sort needs to stop. At best it is deliberately misleading.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen

If Gamestop sells me a game before the street date, did I steal it?

 Peregrine wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
Though I'm betting the fact they illegally obtained a copy and quoted it before it's official release would put a serious damper on fair use.

Again, where is the proof that they obtained it illegally vs. getting a store to give it to them early? A store handing over a copy of the codex before they're supposed to might be breaking their contract with GW and risking GW's willingness to ship them new products in the future, but it isn't illegal.

Unless they were involved in some sort of corporate espionage and actually stole the copy themselves (as opposed to someone on the inside sending it to them) - that generally doesn't impact the aspects of Fair Use (which largely would be irrelevant anyway as the rules themselves are outside of copyrights and therefore not subject to Fair Use).

Journalists report on leaked information all the time. It may be early copies of software which gets leaked to them, classified documents, prototypes of hardware - all sorts of things. Many of those are protected by copyrights, patents and even criminal law. However, journalists in most the civilized world is given broad lee way provided that they do no break any laws in obtaining it.

Even before that point though, you need to determine if it is copyrightable. The cover page of a book saying "Copyright 2013" doesn't mean it is - and it doesn't mean it all is. You can find a lot of "classic" books now which have been rereleased, and most of them have a copyright listed. However, I can guarantee you that the "Copyright 1999" statement on my copy of the Iliad does not mean that the publishers have a valid copyright on anything other than the cover art (which to be honest I think is actually a reproduction of an ancient Greek painting).

Along the same lines, if I were to write a book about WWII and include a number of charts which cover things like equipment used in different battles or a timeline of events - my words describing things would be copyrightable. However the tables would not be. Transferring that over to a rulebook like a GW codex, the fluff and descriptions are copyrightable, the rules, stat lines and tables are not (though to some extent how they express them would be).

It would take a fair amount of effort by a site like 40K radio to violate those aspects of the copyrightable material in a Codex - at least without going so far as to post full pages along with their podcasts. Beyond that, discussing the rules - even in detail would still be fair use, even if the rules haven't been released yet.

In fact, the very nature of them being not released would likely strengthen the news worthy nature of the consideration. While some people seem to be hung up on that being something which makes it less "fair use" - the reality is that once the Codex is released, it is no longer newsworthy in the same way as an exclusive a month before it is officially released. That is a significant determination as well in just determining whether or not something is news or not news.

So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it?

Yes.

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

 azreal13 wrote:


So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

No. I am contending that things are sufficiently clear-cut enough to be sure any court will rule in 40KRadio's favour. Even if "fair use" is a more likely outcome (say ~ 75%), there are enough angles that a superiour legal team may exploit to make a decision go the other way, or a pro-copyright inclined judge may base his argument on and not be "wrong" either.

I am contending that your version is the 100% certain outcome, even while I don't claim, and never have, that it may be the more likely outcome. But that just isn't good enough.

alphaecho wrote:
So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

No. Remember that there are least three different IP types involved here:

Copyright protects a creative work (literature, music, etc) and is automatically granted as soon as you make a qualifying work. It protects the specific expression of an idea, not the concept itself. So, for example, you can copyright the Horus Heresy books but you can't copyright the entire idea of a civil war between Starship Troopers-style super soldiers. The protection of copyright law lasts (effectively) forever for anything produced in the "modern" era (including everything by GW). Game rules can not be copyrighted.

Patents protect a functional object and requires that you demonstrate the uniqueness of your idea and that it provides a useful function, and then submit it to the government for evaluation and official recognition. A patent gives you exclusive right to produce the thing you patented. So, for example (and let's pretend they're the first to do it) FFG could patent the maneuver template and dial system used in X-Wing, but could not patent the idea of having dice with special symbols on them. Patents last for a relatively short fixed time period and expire automatically, at which point the patented invention can be used freely. Game mechanics CAN be patented if they meet the requirements.

Trademarks protect a brand name or image that is closely associated with a product. These must be unique to your brand and clearly identified with your product, and do not necessarily apply in other industries where there is no possiblity for confusion. For example, the "Games Workshop" logo can be (and is) trademarked within the gaming industry, the Ultramarines chapter symbol might be trademarkable in a very specific gaming context but would not prevent, say, a football team from using it, and the word "missile launcher" is way too generic to trademark even if GW products use the term. Game mechanics can't be trademarked, but unique names for them and IP associated with them can be.

So based purely on copyright law yes, you could produce a "reskinned" 40k using only the mechanics (though why you'd want to copy such an utterly awful game, I have no idea) but GW may or may not have current patents on core game mechanics that you'd be using. And of course you absolutely can not copy the IP of GW's fictional universes or sell your new game using "based on 40k" or any other trademark that could possibly imply GW endorsement of your product.

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

After playing well over 100 sets of rules over 30 years, I can assure you that there are no clean hands if you want to talk about ripping off rules. Largely though, rules dont sell the game. Flashy art, pretty models and interesting fluff is what 90% of the market wants. Solid rules will very rarely stand on there own, no matter how well they are written.

The art, fluff and sculpting all do fall under copyright protections though to varying degrees.

Peregrine, GW is not my concern.

I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

It's not just the gaming industry. Free flow of information/building on what others did has been pretty important to the development of civilization since around the time man discovered how to make fire (overly exaggerated, yes). If you think the gaming industry is pretty cut throat about all this, you should read up on Tesla and Edison, not to mention every person that has ever seen something and gone "That's pretty good, but I could make it better," and then proceeds to do so.

Edit - You also have to take into account one other thing when it comes to "rip offs" consumer demand. If there is a demand for a product, someone will produce it, they might not have thought of it, but that has very little bearing on anything. While this seems to be dragging a bit off topic, look at things like Printer Paper/notebooks/ball point pens, or other items that are used every day. No one seems to get their panties twisted about there being hundreds (maybe thousands) of manufacturers that are producing the same items, with the same basic design for these.

alphaecho wrote:
I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

Again, sufficiently unique mechanics can be patented. Not-sufficiently-unique mechanics aren't worth copying.

 derek wrote:

It's not just the gaming industry. Free flow of information/building on what others did has been pretty important to the development of civilization since around the time man discovered how to make fire (overly exaggerated, yes). If you think the gaming industry is pretty cut throat about all this, you should read up on Tesla and Edison, not to mention every person that has ever seen something and gone "That's pretty good, but I could make it better," and then proceeds to do so.

Edit - You also have to take into account one other thing when it comes to "rip offs" consumer demand. If there is a demand for a product, someone will produce it, they might not have thought of it, but that has very little bearing on anything. While this seems to be dragging a bit off topic, look at things like Printer Paper/notebooks/ball point pens, or other items that are used every day. No one seems to get their panties twisted about there being hundreds (maybe thousands) of manufacturers that are producing the same items, with the same basic design for these.

On the one hand free flow of information helps innovation, but equally innovators need to be able to be sure they can profit from there work. That is the whole point in the patents system. The system may be broken at the moment, but basis of it is right, to protect innovators to let them profit from there work in the early years but allow free flow of information later. There may be hundreds of ball point pen makers now, but in its early years there was a number of patents.

Now, non of this applies to game mechanics, however, there is a question as to weather stat lines and point values stop being game mechanics and start being a copyrightable intellectual property.

alphaecho wrote:
Peregrine, GW is not my concern.

I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

Rules, yes, design aesthetic perhaps and perhaps not, depending on how genuinely original that aesthetic may be.

If you read the 100+ pages of cross-examination on the design concept of the "near future soldier" given during the preamble to the GW versus Chapter House case, it will give you an insight into the possible arguments around a design aesthetic.

However there are hundreds of free wargame rule-sets available. Any game must compete with those for a start, so a low price strategy is probably not going to be successful. Thus, a good set of rules rather than just a carbon copy of an existing set, is more likely to succeed.

nkelsch wrote:

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

Do I understand correctly they hold a patent (in part at least) on the action of rotating a card 90 degrees?

Peregrine, Kilcrazy.

These are all good points being made, but it is the apparent lack of protection of someone's hard work that bothers me.

We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

alphaecho wrote:
We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

We're veering off point aren't we?

No "theft" occurred here. All we have is some people discussing a book on a pod-cast, and a company bullying them to stop them talking about their products. That's it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

We're veering off point aren't we?

No "theft" occurred here. All we have is some people discussing a book on a pod-cast, and a company bullying them to stop them talking about their products. That's it.

We have some people reading word-for-word whole sections of a book on a pod-cast. That's quite a bit different to simply "discussing" it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that discussing rules is made somewhat easier when you can read them out.

OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Well, I'm not going to do that, but good point, sure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Good old HBMC... Anyone who disagrees with your view that anything GW dose is wrong is a White Knight. Have you ever thought that perhaps some people who disagree with you have valid arguments? Probably not, but then you will probably now accuse me of the same.

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

After playing well over 100 sets of rules over 30 years, I can assure you that there are no clean hands if you want to talk about ripping off rules. Largely though, rules dont sell the game. Flashy art, pretty models and interesting fluff is what 90% of the market wants. Solid rules will very rarely stand on there own, no matter how well they are written.

The art, fluff and sculpting all do fall under copyright protections though to varying degrees.

It is Called Bolt Action.....It plays alot like the older 40k editions and they have better game sequence.Come on it was made by Rick Priesty and Alessio.

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

There is no lawsuit yet. GW can write a C&D letter to anyone. Even if the claims are stupid, the addressee has to decide if it is worth the time, money and effort to defend them in court.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

I believe "I'm going off what other people have said" was me saying I don't feel like I have to go listen to the podcasts, as I'm just repeating statements that have already been established by others in the thread, on previous pages. If they're wrong, fine, I'm wrong too. That doesn't really have any bearing on what I was saying, which is that if that is what they were doing, it's a lot more complicated than simply "discussing the book". If that wasn't what 40k radio did, then it doesn't matter. Is this not all really obvious? My point wasn't what 40k radio were or weren't doing, as I have no idea, my point was that if what they were doing was X (which was an impression I got, from reading the thread) then calling it Y is oversimplification.

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen

If Gamestop sells me a game before the street date, did I steal it?

Of course not.
However if they're selling you a game months before the street date, there are going to be issues.

Hell even when it's just a week before the street date you see problems.

 Alfndrate wrote:

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

The "10-minute-podcast" of them giving out all the info from Sentinels of Terra has been removed for a while.

The older Space Marines Review is still up, so they either think they have a better case there or the C&D was specifically addressed at the Sentinels of Terra "mini-show", which went live a day or two before the C&D and is, as said, now gone.

So has 40k Radio actually shown this C&D letter? They don't give many details on their Facebook page.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Actually nothing in copyright law prevents you from paraphrasing what the work said, so you could actually re-tell the harry potter story in your own words as much as you want. Much the same as you can say space marines cost 15 points (or whatever it is) as long as you are not reading verbatim from the codex.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'd disagree, but we'll end up in the weeds at this point, paticularly since very few of us are lawyers and because of this we can only argue what we think the law means, not what it actually means.

At the very least 40k Radio should rethink how they present the materials they're given in the future (assuming if they are given more in the future) to keep them out of court. They weren't particularly smart about it until now, but now GW will be watching them a lot closer so they need to be smarter about it.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I think that's pretty unambiguous. I would like to know if there is some case law on this particular point though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

Please remember that I am not even a lawyer. I think Harper v Nation is not really on point. The issue there was entire republication, which is ipso facto copyright infringement. The only question was one of public interest. Here I think the most significant question is protectability in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dodicula wrote:



Actually nothing in copyright law prevents you from paraphrasing what the work said, so you could actually re-tell the harry potter story in your own words as much as you want. Much the same as you can say space marines cost 15 points (or whatever it is) as long as you are not reading verbatim from the codex.

Slow your roll. There you might have a problem. Copyright includes the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, which specifically includes an abridgment.

You could get away with something very much like a Harry Potter story as the scenes a faire doctrine contemplates that which is indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given subject to be outside the scope of copyright. So you could write a story about a young wizard going to wizard school with wizard friends and facing off against a powerful evil wizard who has his soul linked to Barry Cotter or something, up to a point of course.

The "art" in a story is the story itself, not the words in which it is written. The words are simply a medium of expression. The meaning conveyed by the words is what counts.

 silent25 wrote:
So has 40k Radio actually shown this C&D letter? They don't give many details on their Facebook page.

Not that I can see. Maybe on their forums? But they're members only.

Really - what am I missing here? Who honestly gives a crap about some rules being read out on a podcast? Realistically, how many players will use these as a basis to collect a force and not buy the army book they are describing? I'd hazard a guess somewhere around zero and one - therefore this whole thing is a complete waste of time and money for GW, for 40k radio, and the only thing it does is serve to illustrate GW's crass disregard for their most loyal fans.

It's got 'give the legal team something to do' written all over it, like so many other instances over recent years.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Good old HBMC... Anyone who disagrees with your view that anything GW dose is wrong is a White Knight. Have you ever thought that perhaps some people who disagree with you have valid arguments? Probably not, but then you will probably now accuse me of the same.

It's fair enough comment - I'd say pretty much all of Bull0's comments on the forum have been defending GW either with the BoW business, or now in this thread.