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.

 sourclams wrote:
So in other news, I think it's amazing that Games Workshop's (which really is a veyr small company, generally speaking) heavy-handed legal/C&D bullying has gained enough renown to be referenced in a mainstream editorial.

Which may have been my point in posting this

This and the BBC article and the various broad spectrum gamer/geek sites which carried the 'spots the space marine' incident have a far wider reach than those who are familiar with GW's product and so you have a negative experience travel broadly which might otherwise have been avoided if GW's legal team minded it's business and didn't go looking for obscure things to prod at.

It seems a self inflicted wound to the company identity.

Thanks for this, MeanGreenStompa.

Interestingly, for those of you suggesting that counter to the author of this article's statement that GW are colossal jerks, GW have now sent out C&Ds to Google for bloggers posting pictures they found on the internet. The thread is now active in this section of dakka.

This gak writes it's self.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Interestingly, for those of you suggesting that counter to the author of this article's statement that GW are colossal jerks, GW have now sent out C&Ds to Google for bloggers posting pictures they found on the internet. The thread is now active in this section of dakka.

This gak writes it's self.

I am still no closer to being happy in my own mind with what is right and what is wrong on this issue, plenty of times I think GW are massively out of order, sometimes I think they have a fair point.

I think the thing I have primarily taken away from the great many threads on this subject in the last 12 months is simply that a real concrete solution still does not present itself to me, and I am very glad that high flying lawyers and lawmakers and bureaucrats far above my pay scale get to decide the right and the wrong way to do this gak!

I'm especially glad Im not a judge, trying to be fair and impartial (as I do endeavour to try and be) on some of these cases would give me a bloody stroke!

This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

 mattyrm wrote:

I am still no closer to being happy in my own mind with what is right and what is wrong on this issue, plenty of times I think GW are massively out of order, sometimes I think they have a fair point.

I think the thing I have primarily taken away from the great many threads on this subject in the last 12 months is simply that a real concrete solution still does not present itself to me, and I am very glad that high flying lawyers and lawmakers and bureaucrats far above my pay scale get to decide the right and the wrong way to do this gak!

I'm especially glad Im not a judge, trying to be fair and impartial (as I do endeavour to try and be) on some of these cases would give me a bloody stroke!

I think they use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

I think they'd be far better served and as legally strong, in those cases we saw with the blood bowl and other name usage issues with a 'hi, you're using our stuff on your boards, we know you're big fans and we love our fans, so just put this wee disclaimer 'we recognize that we are using GW IP with kind permission' somewhere on your site and we're golden' instead of the 'you have 20 seconds to comply or we'll shut you down' bs they pull.

I think their 'we don't talk to press' and 'we will shut down anything where there's negative commentary and refuse interaction' is bizarre and a bit creepy.

I really really think they'd be better served in producing excellent and affordable miniatures for their game systems. Starving out any competition and allowing anything that just provides additional service. You know, get on with making profit and meeting expectation instead of endless pursuit of trivia with hyperbolic aggressive stance.

Make the best model soldiers in the world, produce them at a competitive price, let the market vouch for how great your gak is or not. If not, get off your arse and sort it out.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I really really think they'd be better served in producing excellent and affordable miniatures for their game systems. Starving out any competition and allowing anything that just provides additional service. You know, get on with making profit and meeting expectation instead of endless pursuit of trivia with hyperbolic aggressive stance.

This is crazy talk. Their established history of absolutely no sales growth whatsoever proves that there are always exactly the same numbers of gamers in existence, and therefore each must be carefully shepherded and protected from cheap knockoff game companies, or people that take pictures of miniatures, or people that talk about miniatures, or people that might want to game with miniatures.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The writer of that "article" is bad and should feel bad. It's editorial journalism at its finest.

Oh, and MGS? Way to not post the entire thing.

Curious minds really want to know.

I don't think calling out MGS for linking to the entire article but only posting the GW-relevant bit is poor behavior on his part, either. If anything it helps cut down on forum clutter.

Yeah, I provided a link to the entire article and then quoted the GW pertinent bit, as it was about GW.

Kan, your implied accusation is falling on barren ground here, I wasn't angling or manipulating, just putting the pertinent part up for quick review/the work blocked. You may set down your sword and shield for now.

And I called you out for posting an article that amounts to the same level of emotive crap that Fox News and most media outlets vomit up. Hell, he even starts with something I fully expect to see from them with an "ominous picture of something completely unrelated to the article".

The author starts in with a whole bunch of information that would have been interesting to read about in and of itself--but then oh look. He was just using that to set up an emotive rant and then plugging "Chillingeffects.org" and to "gratefully acknowledge" their assistance in drafting this article.
If he toned down the more colorful descriptors he used? I would have appreciated the read...but as it stands, it's bad and he should most definitely feel bad.

And for future reference? I'd take you more seriously if you didn't include the childish little "white knight" snipe. You're better than that, MGS.

And you're better than comparing the Guardian to Fox News... Ye gods!! *ignore* *ignore* *ignore*

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Yes, the Guardian, pretty much the last bastion of genuine investigative journalism in the UK print media. Unless you count hacking into the phones of abduction and murder victims and their families of course

The fact that their Comment is Free section on the website(the whole point of which is a place where comment is, you know, free, ie not subject to editorial control) is riddled with lefties so left even most lefties think they're odd is besides the point.

 sourclams wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I really really think they'd be better served in producing excellent and affordable miniatures for their game systems. Starving out any competition and allowing anything that just provides additional service. You know, get on with making profit and meeting expectation instead of endless pursuit of trivia with hyperbolic aggressive stance.

This is crazy talk. Their established history of absolutely no sales growth whatsoever proves that there are always exactly the same numbers of gamers in existence, and therefore each must be carefully shepherded and protected from cheap knockoff game companies, or people that take pictures of miniatures, or people that talk about miniatures, or people that might want to game with miniatures.

This is funny and sad at the same time as there is a ring of truth to this. I'm just waiting to see the next financial report and to see how much profit they are going to have.

As far as being posted on the Guardian. Right or wrong. You do NOT want any sort of negative article written against YOUR company by a news corp this large. More warning signs on what is in store with this game company.

Shareholders read the papers or will be told about critical articles about their investment. Eventually shareholders will approach GW with their concerns. Something will have to change. We probably haven't reach that point yet, but the negative press is definitely piling up lately.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Doesn't give any reasoning for such disapproval. .

Next.

The general reaction in the spots controversy was that GW was heavy handed and stupid. This article is not breaking new ground nor is it a radical position. It doesnt matter where the article was published so much as what was said. I dont see anything at all controversial about the claim that GW is very aggressive about protecting its trademarks.

I did find the idea of revoking a trademark very interesting, I wonder how often that happens.

What matters is it was picked up by a mainstream news source and spread. As has been said, for a start the shareholders read the paper and see just how much bad light is suddenly being cast on the cashcow their affiliated with. Either they start voicing up for things to change, or they scarper before the bad press comes after them by association. Not only that (though to a lesser extent), little timmy's left wing social justice mum and dad probably read the paper too, find out what a "bad company" GW is and start refusing to buy little timmys toy soldiers from there.

Or there abouts anyway.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Yes, the Guardian, pretty much the last bastion of genuine investigative journalism in the UK print media. Unless you count hacking into the phones of abduction and murder victims and their families of course

I don't know about that.

On one hand, the Guardian isn't exactly Fox News or the Sun. One the other hand, its not exactly The Times. I've always found it slots in somewhere between the Independent and the Daily Mail for content/accuracy.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Good to see that Cory hasn't decided to just let go of this bone, hopefully his editorial does not fall on deaf ears.

BTW, the author of the article is one of the top selling, best regarded, active sci-fi authors. He also has been a long time advocate for the restraint of IP laws (a man of my own heart in that regard).

Chilling Effects is a well established organization to do much the same. Between them and the EFF, there is very little else that has been working to push back against the IP abuses that often go unnoticed (or the misleading of the public regarding IP laws, their purpose and application). The term is descriptive, not emotive. If they wanted an emotive term, they would call themselves the Slippery Slope, though to be honest, that is often descriptive as well in these cases.

He should put a full copy of his latest book up on somewhere like piratebay, before its released. Then we'll see what he really feels about IP law and theft of ideas.

I call bs on anyone who tries to say they wouldn't be bothered by something they worked hard for being passed around for free.

You mean like he does?

http://craphound.com/homeland/download/

Although he goes a bit further than we did, we routinely contributed large portions of our code base to open source projects, and only became involved in legal cases when companies attempted to then sell software built off from our freely available code.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
You mean like he does?

http://craphound.com/homeland/download/

Although he goes a bit further than we did, we routinely contributed large portions of our code base to open source projects, and only became involved in legal cases when companies attempted to then sell software built off from our freely available code.

Well played Sir!

and only became involved in legal cases when companies attempted to then sell software built off from our freely available code.

So whats wrong with that?

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Yes, the Guardian, pretty much the last bastion of genuine investigative journalism in the UK print media. Unless you count hacking into the phones of abduction and murder victims and their families of course

I don't know about that.

On one hand, the Guardian isn't exactly Fox News or the Sun. One the other hand, its not exactly The Times. I've always found it slots in somewhere between the Independent and the Daily Mail for content/accuracy.

The Times is a Murdoch paper. The Independent isn't bad, but they don't consistently break stories. The Daily Fail is a joke.

The Guardian has spelling errors, and their opinion and "lifestyle" sections are as deficient as all the UK media, but they break stories that the other papers won't touch out of fear of vested interest, and while it's admittedly not a very prestigious accolade, they have the best science reporting in the mainstream print media. Their political coverage is in the top three. I don't consider them gospel, people who exclusively "trust" a single source of information are deluding themselves, but they're the best of a bad bunch, and people who dismiss an article because they printed it tend to be showing their ideological preferences.

I'd agree with them having the best science reporting, but political? The Guardian is more than a little affected by obvious left wing bias.

I\d say the Times are the best political commentators out of the lot (although that in itself does not mean they are free of bias). I'd rank the Independent second (as long as you ignore on them on certain subjects like Israel), and the Guardian catching a meagre third.

If you combine any of those three with the BBC and Reuters though, you generally get a fairly balanced view of things.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Just for subtext.

The journalist is a sci fi writer and an editor on Boing Boing. He is pretty passionate about creative commons and the like.

And he made a jab at GW, so the White Knights are out in force protecting daddy dearest.

Is it a full moon? Everyone so hostile.

BTW GW dont want us. New gamers spend more money then old gamers. Tell me how you spend millions but the average long term player spends far less then the guy getting into the game for the first time. GWs buisness stratagy is not to keep you in the game but to get new people in. Now this seems contradictory to what they are curently doing but it really isnt. It is why they have ramped up the release schedule.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

and only became involved in legal cases when companies attempted to then sell software built off from our freely available code.

So whats wrong with that?

It's generally against the open source license(s) that the code is distributed under and you can and will be sued over it.

 doc1234 wrote:
What matters is it was picked up by a mainstream news source and spread. As has been said, for a start the shareholders read the paper and see just how much bad light is suddenly being cast on the cashcow their affiliated with. .

Or the opposite - shareholders are bouyed by GW's aggresive protection of their IP as GW state they will do in their financial reports .

Shareholders seem to be like Watto from Star Wars , " .....Only Money "

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Yes, the Guardian, pretty much the last bastion of genuine investigative journalism in the UK print media. Unless you count hacking into the phones of abduction and murder victims and their families of course

I don't know about that.

On one hand, the Guardian isn't exactly Fox News or the Sun. One the other hand, its not exactly The Times. I've always found it slots in somewhere between the Independent and the Daily Mail for content/accuracy.

The Times is a Murdoch paper. The Independent isn't bad, but they don't consistently break stories. The Daily Fail is a joke.

The Guardian has spelling errors, and their opinion and "lifestyle" sections are as deficient as all the UK media, but they break stories that the other papers won't touch out of fear of vested interest, and while it's admittedly not a very prestigious accolade, they have the best science reporting in the mainstream print media. Their political coverage is in the top three. I don't consider them gospel, people who exclusively "trust" a single source of information are deluding themselves, but they're the best of a bad bunch, and people who dismiss an article because they printed it tend to be showing their ideological preferences.

The Guardian had to apologise to the Sun.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-newscorp-guardian-idUSTRE76E19320110715

12thRonin wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

and only became involved in legal cases when companies attempted to then sell software built off from our freely available code.

So whats wrong with that?

It's generally against the open source license(s) that the code is distributed under and you can and will be sued over it.

Selling on its own, is not problematic...though selling without providing the source code and folow on license that allows for distribution is a violation of the original open source license we contributed code under.

In particular, the case that we dealt with was actually a third party who used code from an open source project we contributed the code to, and subsequently sold it as a proprietary compiled format. They then sued our company for infringement of the code that they took from the open source project. I have to say that our attorney was laughing all the way to the court house in anticipation of standing in front of the judge on that one. Needless to say, it was settled quite quickly.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
This is the Guardian we're talking about.

Next.

Yes, the Guardian, pretty much the last bastion of genuine investigative journalism in the UK print media. Unless you count hacking into the phones of abduction and murder victims and their families of course

I don't know about that.

On one hand, the Guardian isn't exactly Fox News or the Sun. One the other hand, its not exactly The Times. I've always found it slots in somewhere between the Independent and the Daily Mail for content/accuracy.

The Times is a Murdoch paper. The Independent isn't bad, but they don't consistently break stories. The Daily Fail is a joke.

The Guardian has spelling errors, and their opinion and "lifestyle" sections are as deficient as all the UK media, but they break stories that the other papers won't touch out of fear of vested interest, and while it's admittedly not a very prestigious accolade, they have the best science reporting in the mainstream print media. Their political coverage is in the top three. I don't consider them gospel, people who exclusively "trust" a single source of information are deluding themselves, but they're the best of a bad bunch, and people who dismiss an article because they printed it tend to be showing their ideological preferences.

The Guardian had to apologise to the Sun.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-newscorp-guardian-idUSTRE76E19320110715

Gotta love how admitting you made a mistake and apologising for it is seen as a flaw.

Your post is particularly ironic given that the Sun is currently part of the group of newspapers refusing to agree to the independent press regulator that's proposed, and among said group's chief objections is their assertion that it's unfair and "against freedom of the press" to require them to make an apology and publish a correction as prominently as they did the original story when they screw up.

Someday I hope to find a woman who loves me the way fanbois love GW.

It's good to see GW's underhandedness getting some attention outside of our little nerd circle.