Faeit 212 site removed

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.

**Kanluwen**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
It also is another illegal use of the DMCA.

Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."

While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.

So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?

Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:

2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.

Description of the copyrighted work:

The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.

As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.

Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.

While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.

That bothers me quite a bit.

Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?

**Vetric**

sourclams wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:
Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.

Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!

Hey! Slaanesh drives sales!

**kronk**

Ravenous D wrote:
Instead of being a better company they are attempting to silence nay sayers and rumour sites, newsflash, thats what facists do.

Considering the last Fascist Political Party died out shortly after WWII, one doesn't truly know what a Fascist Regime would do to an internet website posting images taken from a copy written publication.

Not that I'm saying that you're wrong about how they'd proceed, it's just that it's a hypothetical discussion.

**pretre**

Mohoc wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:
Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.

We don't know if they nuked his blog. It might simply be a server issue. Lets wait to find out.

To be fair, they did ask for his account to be disabled in February:

This user has infringed Games Workshop's rights previously by posting pages
of other editions of White Dwarf magazine [Google requests #1120928709 and
#1142470480 and 3-8432000000251 and 8-4694000000377]. This user, 'Natfka',
is a repeat infringer and I request that Google disable the account in
accordance with Google's terms of service.

I don't agree with GW's strategy, but we know that this is what happens when you host copyrighted material. There's a reason that Dakka refuses to allow people to upload it to the gallery.

edit: In addition, if it is indeed against Google's TOS, then Natfka is SOL.

**Mr Hyena**

Isn't it illegal to take a copyrighted magazine and post pictures of it online?

**Warboss Gubbinz**

I'll just leave this right here....

http://dnd-realm.simplygaming.org/t34-the-rise-and-fall-of-tsr

It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

**AlexHolker**

Mohoc wrote:
It might simply be a server issue.

A server issue that only affects Games Workshop blogs. Jenny Trout's, for one example, is still up.

**Aerethan**

sourclams wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:
Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.

Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!

You may want to infer some form of sarcasm in that post, otherwise you just sound like an ass.

**kronk**

alienvalentine wrote:

So you're saying that because his blog has been the target of 4 DMCA takedown notices in the last 6 months, and that belloflostsouls.net, who posted the same pictures, usually within hours of natfka, both being mysteriously unavailable within moments of each other is no reason to assume that his blog was actually removed? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

It's certainly suspicious, and you're probably right, but let's not call for a crusade too hastily.

**agnosto**

There's this little country called North Korea....officially fascist since they revised their constitution in 2009 and removed nearly all references to communism while stressing such fascist doctrines as "military first". Juche is dead.

**MeanGreenStompa**

kronk wrote:

It's certainly suspicious, and you're probably right, but let's not call for a crusade too hastily.

I think you may be applying the Entish version of hasty in this case.

**alienvalentine**

Kanluwen wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
It also is another illegal use of the DMCA.

Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."

While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.

So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?

Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:

2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.

Description of the copyrighted work:

The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.

As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.

Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.

While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.

That bothers me quite a bit.

Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.

**pretre**

alienvalentine wrote:

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.

I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.

**Warboss Gubbinz**

So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

**kirsanth**

Mind = boggled.

"It is a guarantee that things will get worse before they get better, but there is no guarantee that things will get better."

**busbina**

I think they are loosing money with White Dwarf and are trying to stop that. But White Dwarf is getting less relative as the hobby grows. If GW wanted to make more money they should start making more online content. Maybe "White Dwarf Online" with daily Battle reports, tactic analysis, and more "painting tutorials". I am a vault member of miniwargaming but I would love "official" content from GW.

**pretre**

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.

**Buzzsaw**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't it illegal to take a copyrighted magazine and post pictures of it online?

It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.

Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.

Which is explicitly allowed under the terms of the Copyright act;

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

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

**kronk**

agnosto wrote:
There's this little country called North Korea....officially fascist since they revised their constitution in 2009 and removed nearly all references to communism while stressing such fascist doctrines as "military first". Juche is dead.

Touche!

(Who is Juche?)

**Mr Hyena**

alienvalentine wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
It also is another illegal use of the DMCA.

Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."

While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.

So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?

Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:

2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.

Description of the copyrighted work:

The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.

As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.

Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.

While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.

That bothers me quite a bit.

Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.

Would you do the same and post a movie or videogame online?

It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.

Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.

So its a full magazine with some comments.

**pities2004**

alienvalentine wrote:
Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.

How dare you use a likeness of my picture, it's trademarked!

**alienvalentine**

pretre wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.

I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.

Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them before GW released them.

**Howard A Treesong**

Aerethan wrote:
sourclams wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:
Holy cow! I can't believe they nuked his entire blog over this. That does it for me, GW really does loathe their customers.

Don't you mouth-breathing perverts realize that when you take pictures of and talk about GW products, you waste valuable time that our loyal-to-the-death customer base could be using to buy more of our models!!!!

You may want to infer some form of sarcasm in that post, otherwise you just sound like an ass.

Isn't it pretty obvious?

**pretre**

Buzzsaw wrote:

It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.

Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.

Which is explicitly allowed under the terms of the Copyright act;

Except for pre-release...

My statements on pre-release here were incorrect.

Emphasis mine.

**alienvalentine**

Mr Hyena wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
It also is another illegal use of the DMCA.

Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."

While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.

So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?

Because reading the DMCA notice the thing that sticks out is:

2. Your copyrighted work
Location of copyrighted work (where your authorized work is located):

The copyrighted work is the contents of the
unreleased 'White Dwarf' magazine (ISSN: 0265-8712) produced by Games
Workshop Limited and due for release on 27th April 2013.

Description of the copyrighted work:

The magazine content and images are
protected by copyright and Games Workshop Limited does not give permission
for it to be displayed on the Faeit212 Blog. The blog is displaying
photographic copies of the pages of the magazine. The 19 photos of magazine
pages in the body of the blog post infringe.

As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of
the material to the public. These rights are being infringed by the
Faeit212 blog entry identified, belonging to user 'Natfka'.

Due to the confidential nature of the work being infringed and its current
status as unreleased, we kindly request you remove this material from your
service as swiftly as possible.

While I will certainly agree that White Dwarf is hardly "confidential material", if GW can't even expect a bit of protection for making sure that they get to be the ones who break something first--not some guy who gets a copy we don't know how...that bothers me.

That bothers me quite a bit.

Also, I'd love for you to explain why the DMCA takedown was "illegally used"?

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, especially as it refers to news reports or reviews, both of which natfka provides in abundance.

Would you do the same and post a movie or videogame online?

It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.

Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.

So its a full magazine with some comments.

My previous piratical proclivities aside, no. But that's not what natfka did, he posted the images as part of a news release or commentary, both of which are covered by US fair use rules.

**pretre**

alienvalentine wrote:
pretre wrote:
alienvalentine wrote:

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.

I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.

Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them before GW released them.

Was the movie already released? Then you're probably fine. We're talking about pictures of something that hasn't been released yet. i.e. Leaked pictures. That's kind of a problem. Him releasing before GW is exactly the problem. Just as you releasing before the Avengers 2 hits theatres is the problem.

**Palindrome**

Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

**pretre**

Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

What reliable, cheap and useful blog / hosting site are we talking about here?

**Mr Hyena**

Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

**alienvalentine**

Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

And where, pray tell, is that?