Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thrax wrote:Let me clue you in.

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

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

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

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

A lot of serious journalists have spent as much time tanked up to the eyeballs as they ever have actually looking for news.

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

Well we made it nine pages until somebody had to go and bring FOX News into the discussion.

agnosto, how many more pages until you find a way to work George Bush into this?

I think the Fox reference was valid. It's funny, when they were "reporting" on the events leading to Osama Bin Ladens "death"....the whole time on screen they had his name spelt Usama....I mean, really?

Delephont wrote:I think the Fox reference was valid. It's funny, when they were "reporting" on the events leading to Osama Bin Ladens "death"....the whole time on screen they had his name spelt Usama....I mean, really?

That was the actual spelling on the FBI's most wanted list.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten

Its funny, i was watching other news stations saying "Why are they spelling it wrong?"

TBD wrote:

Thrax wrote:Let me clue you in.

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

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

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

Allow me to propose a thought experiment: if everyone else thinks you have said something you don't believe you have said, which is more likely:
--Everyone else is unable to read properly, or
--What you think you are saying is not what you are actually saying?

Delephont wrote:I think the Fox reference was valid. It's funny, when they were "reporting" on the events leading to Osama Bin Ladens "death"....the whole time on screen they had his name spelt Usama....I mean, really?

Hehe, yes, how silly. What fool organization would spell it Usama Bin Ladin...

Buzzsaw wrote:Allow me to propose a thought experiment: if everyone else thinks you have said something you don't believe you have said, which is more likely:
--Everyone else is unable to read properly, or
--What you think you are saying is not what you are actually saying?

The other people are unable to read. I know very damn well what I have and have not said.

Ask Galileo how he feels about your way of thinking.

Can we get back on topic please afore the Moditor of Daily Dakka puts this edition to the Pressbed of Doom?

augustus5 wrote:
Well we made it nine pages until somebody had to go and bring FOX News into the discussion.

agnosto, how many more pages until you find a way to work George Bush into this?

I was just using them as the easy, obvious, example but all the large news organizations are just as guilty.

Why would I bring Bush into it? Was he in journalism? I mean he was coked up enough to be a writer, maybe even did more drugs than Hunter S. Thompson but I didn't know he was a writer. Weird, learn something new everyday.

Why would I bring Bush into it? Was he in journalism?

sort of:
Bush telegram
Australian Slang

town gossip network, rumors

bit like a local rag I figure

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Can we get back on topic please afore the Moditor of Daily Dakka puts this edition to the Pressbed of Doom?

You know... that's a good idea!

(The 'get back on topic' part.)

The following is taken from a bokk called "Beyond the Lens" and it deals with copyright stuff for photographers. Here's a section on reviews:

Criticisim and Review

A photograph may be used for the purpose of criticisim or review of the photograph or of another copyright work, provided the photographer is credited. Citicisim and review do not apply in the context of photographic works being used in college for educational purposes.

That's straight out of the book. So if you can reproduce a copyrighted photograph for review, which if you think about it is an exact likeness of it, then filming the contents of a box for review, shouldn't cause any problems whatsoever.

TBD wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that you are angry at BoW for "spoilers".

Unless under some kind of NDA or other agreement or understanding regarding the materials, there is no moral or legal imperative for them not to reveal the information to the public.

This sort of situation is common and has widely understood ramifications on all sides. I don't see that any new laws need to be created.

If GW, Mantic et al are annoyed with BoW, the companies will no doubt express that by withdrawing information and support from them.

Great thread.

I really liked the Ben Franklin quote and I learned that Reaper minis has a you tube channel.

Off to watch ReaperCon 2011

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems that you are angry at BoW for "spoilers".

Unless under some kind of NDA or other agreement or understanding regarding the materials, there is no moral or legal imperative for them not to reveal the information to the public.

This sort of situation is common and has widely understood ramifications on all sides. I don't see that any new laws need to be created.

If GW, Mantic et al are annoyed with BoW, the companies will no doubt express that by withdrawing information and support from them.

Angry is what I get when somebody tries to steal my wallet or when somebody is being cruel to animals. At the end of the day miniatures really are not that important.

It is others in this thread who became angry as a result of their lack of comprehensive reading skills. Go back to my very first reply in this thread if you will, and hopefully you'll see that the comment was about a matter of logic (or rather unlogic). It didn't even have to do with BoW specifically. In case any additional explanation is needed be welcome to PM me, and this thread can go & stay back on-topic again.

And if a company, it doesn't matter which one, works hard for God knows how long on something, and some A-hole takes pictures at the printers and passes them on to whatever hobo with Youtube, and they spoil it to everybody, then I don't consider that to be perfectly alright, no, regardless of anything legal saying it is.

GW could behave like everyone else and be more open.
If they keep mum human behaviour dictates that someone will try and get a bit of kudos from posting pics.
It is what most people want and posting pics spoils it only for the paranoid heads at GW.

Mantics had some concepts leaked to BoW.
Did they throw a fit and sue when those images got shown?
They laughed and went on the next show to discuss their new stuff.

Irrespective of such, I would be surprised if it has any bearing on the Youtube situation.

TBD wrote:And if a company, it doesn't matter which one, works hard for God knows how long on something, and some A-hole takes pictures at the printers and passes them on to whatever hobo with Youtube, and they spoil it to everybody, then I don't consider that to be perfectly alright, no, regardless of anything legal saying it is.

This does assume that the "Something" is "spoiled" by the premature release, and guess what... Fair use laws does have a clause with regards to that, i.e. "the effect on the market of the work" this is why leaked songs books, and films are generally -not- considered fair use, because the leak has provided an source other than the creator, to obtain the work, the same is -not- true of miniatures, unless you have some supersekret tech that can wizbang out a near identical copy based on a few seconds of pixelated screentime.

On regards to the -other- matter, you keep insisting that if the law attaches to "journalists" then what is a "journalist" should be defined under law, and that if itsn't is causes chaos... this might be true, if it was how the law worked... IT'S NOT

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

The law has carve outs for "fair use" are determined by a somewhat subjective test, these carve outs provide room for teachers, commentators and journalists to operate legally...

With regards to takedowns.. there are specific laws with regards to them, under the DMCA, a notice has to be sent informing the host of the infringement, giving specifics of what was infringed, there is also a counter notice procedure, but it can take up to two weeks to restore the work in question, go check out eff.org if you want to know more.

Lanceradvanced wrote:This does assume that the "Something" is "spoiled" by the premature release, and guess what... Fair use laws does have a clause with regards to that, i.e. "the effect on the market of the work" this is why leaked songs books, and films are generally -not- considered fair use, because the leak has provided an source other than the creator, to obtain the work, the same is -not- true of miniatures, unless you have some supersekret tech that can wizbang out a near identical copy based on a few seconds of pixelated screentime.

On regards to the -other- matter, you keep insisting that if the law attaches to "journalists" then what is a "journalist" should be defined under law, and that if itsn't is causes chaos... this might be true, if it was how the law worked... IT'S NOT

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial natureor is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

The law has carve outs for "fair use" are determined by a somewhat subjective test, these carve outs provide room for teachers, commentators and journalists to operate legally...

With regards to takedowns.. there are specific laws with regards to them, under the DMCA, a notice has to be sent informing the host of the infringement, giving specifics of what was infringed, there is also a counter notice procedure, but it can take up to two weeks to restore the work in question, go check out eff.org if you want to know more.

Yes, this is how I've always assumed it works in the first place.

Just to be clear, I referred to the law attaching to journalists & justifying the actions that have been subject of discussion in this thread in the way it was insisted to apply here by others. Your post points out that the people making said claim(s) were wrong in the first place, (see page 3, halfway down, and further on in the thread where it was claimed that all you need is a camera and a platform without much further requirements) and answers the question I raised, which repeatedly failed to get a response. And it is obvious why, because providing such answer would show how the key part of the law was conveniently left out.

So thanks for finally putting this to rest.

- Site has (link to) Youtube showing spoiler of company X's yet unrevealed work.
- Spoiler generates more traffic for site.
- Site has advertising for rivals of company X.
- Increased traffic = (potential) increased traffic & business for said rivals of company X.
- Company X loses sales and/or $$$ as a direct result.
- Site can be viewed as having commercial motives and is not very clearly a "journalistic endeavour".
- Fair use does not apply.
- People can kiss TBD's hiney (size changed to make Chiboggle happy)




(I love you guys anyway, just so you know )

So are you saying BoW was purely a commercial venture when operating with Youtube?

Which unrevealed work did they show?

Your final bullet point is disrespectful but you should at least have the courage to print it in normal font.

Unless the content was stolen I think you will find it falls under "dem's the breaks". How many sites out there have "spoilers" and "sneak peaks" and also have advertising, thus generating revenue?

Ahhhh good to see TBD jumping back and forth like a good monkey marine trying so hard to make a point that makes sense yet falls so hard when he adds so much bidimensional one way thinking. So funny to watch

I specially like that jump TBD did when he says.... BOW is spoiling it for everyone by revealing uber trade minature secrets... hilarious really.
The final splat on the concrete was the business X is losing money because BOW youtube reports... man please dont stop fooling around its amusing.

TBD wrote:
- Site has (link to) Youtube showing spoiler of company X's yet unrevealed work.
- Spoiler generates more traffic for site.
- Site has advertising for rivals of company X.
- Increased traffic = (potential) increased traffic & business for said rivals of company X.
- Company X loses sales and/or $$$ as a direct result.
- Site can be viewed as having commercial motives and is not very clearly a "journalistic endeavour".
- Fair use does not apply.

Uh, what?! Are you familiar with how a newspaper or magazine works? Every media outlet has commercial motives. Hell, there are even respected news agencies wholly paid for by a political party and STILL being journalistic endeavours even though they pretty clearly have political motives. And in many cases there are just plain commercial motives.

You still stand by your argument that the laws in common doesn't regulate this properly, in this day and age when we have the internet and it's ease of publishing journalism?

NAVARRO wrote:Ahhhh good to see TBD jumping back and forth like a good monkey marine trying so hard to make a point that makes sense yet falls so hard when he adds so much bidimensional one way thinking. So funny to watch

I specially like that jump TBD did when he says.... BOW is spoiling it for everyone by revealing uber trade minature secrets... hilarious really.
The final splat on the concrete was the business X is losing money because BOW youtube reports... man please dont stop fooling around its amusing.

Normal situation:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf Spaceflyer.
- Bubblecast Inc reveals Evil Elf Spaceflyer @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy clicks on pre-order button @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy buys additional box of Evil Elfs.
- Bubblecast Inc cashes in 32,50 (euro) + 22,75 (euro).

Situation w Spoiler:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf spaceflyer.
- Charlie takes picture at printers.
- Charlie emails picture to Cheetofingers.com (a site about miniatures).
- Cheetofingers.com spoils picture in video.
- Little jimmy goes to Cheetofingers.com to see spoiler.
- Little Jimmy clicks on advertisement for LayWandGames (an internet discounter) next to video, and buys box of Evil Elfs for 19,50 (euro).
- Little Jimmy returns to LayWandGames site later to buy Evil Elf spaceflyer for 27,50 (euro).
- Bubblecast Inc makes 8,25 (euro) less.

Hopefully Navarro now understand concept

So in the perfect fanboy world everyone would preorder off the GW website? Are you applying for a job with them?

TBD wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Ahhhh good to see TBD jumping back and forth like a good monkey marine trying so hard to make a point that makes sense yet falls so hard when he adds so much bidimensional one way thinking. So funny to watch

I specially like that jump TBD did when he says.... BOW is spoiling it for everyone by revealing uber trade minature secrets... hilarious really.
The final splat on the concrete was the business X is losing money because BOW youtube reports... man please dont stop fooling around its amusing.

Normal situation:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf Spaceflyer.
- Bubblecast Inc reveals Evil Elf Spaceflyer @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy clicks on pre-order button @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy buys additional box of Evil Elfs.
- Bubblecast Inc cashes in 32,50 (euro) + 22,75 (euro).

Situation w Spoiler:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf spaceflyer.
- Charlie takes picture at printers.
- Charlie emails picture to Cheetofingers.com (a site about miniatures).
- Cheetofingers.com spoils picture in video.
- Little jimmy goes to Cheetofingers.com to see spoiler.
- Little Jimmy clicks on advertisement for LayWandGames (an internet discounter) next to video, and buys box of Evil Elfs for 19,50 (euro).
- Little Jimmy returns to LayWandGames site later to buy Evil Elf spaceflyer for 27,50 (euro).
- Bubblecast Inc makes 8,25 (euro) less.

Hopefully Navarro now understand concept

Probably just me and my "lack of comprehensive reading skills" but you make no sense at all man ... the perspective is so skewed that has so few bridges with reality its pointless to make out any good out of it...

You know the concept of publicity right???? For every little Jimmy that does that there's 100 new little Jimmy's that now got in contact with that product on you tube... any smart company knows that and hence why the accident leaks sometimes are not a accident to begin with... or do you believe the mantic scifi thing was just a accident?

You don't believe in free journalism and neither in publicity or at least dont understand much about it

WTF... I mean TDB wrote:Normal situation:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf Spaceflyer.
- Bubblecast Inc reveals Evil Elf Spaceflyer @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy clicks on pre-order button @ GW site.
- Little Jimmy buys additional box of Evil Elfs.
- Bubblecast Inc cashes in 32,50 (euro) + 22,75 (euro).

Situation w Spoiler:

- Bubblecast Inc creates Evil Elf spaceflyer.
- Charlie takes picture at printers.
- Charlie emails picture to Cheetofingers.com (a site about miniatures).
- Cheetofingers.com spoils picture in video.
- Little jimmy goes to Cheetofingers.com to see spoiler.
- Little Jimmy clicks on advertisement for LayWandGames (an internet discounter) next to video, and buys box of Evil Elfs for 19,50 (euro).
- Little Jimmy returns to LayWandGames site later to buy Evil Elf spaceflyer for 27,50 (euro).
- Bubblecast Inc makes 8,25 (euro) less.

Umm... what???

No really - What?

How does... I mean... but you can't really... uhh... I think my brain is melting.

WHAT???

How does anything you said just make sense? I mean, how is this any different to me walking to four different music stores in the same mall to find the one that's selling a CD I want for the lowest price? How does one site reporting news and rumours in any way impact the price or how much money a company makes? There's no logical train of thought to what you're saying - no spoiler = buy at store, spoiler = buy at discounter (WTF???). And all it seems to be is a bunch of not-so-subtle digs at these sites (cheetofingers? Really? ). And how are they fething 'spoilers'. What's spoilt exactly?

This is madness. Utter madness.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I mean, how is this any different to me walking to four different music stores in the same mall to find the one that's selling a CD I want for the lowest price? How does one site reporting news and rumours in any way impact the price or how much money a company makes?

It's a completely different situation because none of these music stores also produce the music they sell.

Now if one of them would be producing it's own unique line of cd's, which is also sold in the other music stores in addition to other music, and the mall's information booth obtained the picture of that cd ahead of time, and uses these pictures to lure curious customers inside, only to point them to the backdoor which leads to a rival music-discounter's store which also is a business partner of said information booth, then the situation would be the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:Probably just me and my "lack of comprehensive reading skills" but you make no sense at all man ... the perspective is so skewed that has so few bridges with reality its pointless to make out any good out of it...

You know the concept of publicity right???? For every little Jimmy that does that there's 100 new little Jimmy's that now got in contact with that product on you tube... any smart company knows that and hence why the accident leaks sometimes are not a accident to begin with... or do you believe the mantic scifi thing was just a accident?

You don't believe in free journalism and neither in publicity or at least dont understand much about it

Well I am afraid that it indeed does have to do with reading.

The perspective here is not necessarily my perspective, but the perspective of the company who owns the rights to the work. I don't have to care, but obviously GW does, and that is all that matters because it is their work and they should be the one to reveal it.

I believe that you are a sculptor yourself, if I remember correctly? Now suppose you sell those sculpts from your home and also to third party stores who sell it a little bit cheaper than you do when someone buys from you directly.

What if you spent months working on an item, and your neighbour takes a picture through the open window, sends it to his cousin who advertises for one of those third party stores, resulting in people buying from that store instead of from you directly.

I am sure you would have liked to decide when and how your work gets revealed and/or intentionally leaked. Also, the most ideal situation for you is still when all the little Jimmy's buy from you directly since it makes you the most $$$ that way.

Only GW should be able to review GW? Never see the truth again that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After all, they call their resin "Fine"cast and say its really good.

pixelpusher wrote:

TBD wrote:
- Site has (link to) Youtube showing spoiler of company X's yet unrevealed work.
- Spoiler generates more traffic for site.
- Site has advertising for rivals of company X.
- Increased traffic = (potential) increased traffic & business for said rivals of company X.
- Company X loses sales and/or $$$ as a direct result.
- Site can be viewed as having commercial motives and is not very clearly a "journalistic endeavour".
- Fair use does not apply.

Uh, what?! Are you familiar with how a newspaper or magazine works? Every media outlet has commercial motives. Hell, there are even respected news agencies wholly paid for by a political party and STILL being journalistic endeavours even though they pretty clearly have political motives. And in many cases there are just plain commercial motives.

You still stand by your argument that the laws in common doesn't regulate this properly, in this day and age when we have the internet and it's ease of publishing journalism?

Good points!

By now I think we should realize that TBD has got an axe to grind and will continue to do so until he wears it down to a nub!

TBD: Here is where your entire argument falls apart.

GW doesn't have to sell their merchandise through other distributors, that was their own choice.

At that point, any rationalization over discounters, alternate sites, spoilers, other retailers, etc. etc. it all becomes rubbish. GW made a business decision to sell their product through other means than their own distribution methods.

There are plusses and minusses to doing this.

If you are trying to tell me that because GW makes a product and allows others to resell this product, I am somehow beholden to NOT get the best deal for my money, that I must turn myself away from the nefarious and ill-tempered retailers who would dare to sell it to me at a discount (After already paying GW for the privelege of doing so I should add), well, frankly, .....

Nevermind that. I think you're being unrealistic with your approach.

Edit: For tone.