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.

 pretre wrote:
Didn't we already do this thread to death once?

Indeed, this is taking up valuable space that could be occupied by yet another gun thread.

/snicker

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't sue over Orc as that word is owned by the Tolkien Estate IIRC.

And Michael Moorcock owned the 8 pointed star as a symbol of Chaos.

And wow, this is really getting some traction.

Much like pirates, IP trolls are the bane of all civilized men.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I call shenanigans on this author.
This is nothing but publicity for her alongside of the rabid hatred people have for Games Workshop.

As opposed to the opposite end of the scale, I suppose - specifically, do you have any evidence that GWS was not responsible for having it pulled from Amazon? Or is it just as much conjecture as the other camp, who says they did?

I mean, on the one hand, we have the possibility the customer self-published the book, had it pulled from Amazon to drum up publicity (while also making it almost impossible to actually buy the book) in order to "drum up publicity" and drive people to some website that people have never heard of to buy the book, as opposed to Amazon. The reward here is iffy at best.

On the other hand, GWS has a very long and unambiguous history of wildly overreaching with their IP claims to historic creatures. I'm not trying to re-hash that argument here, simply using it as an example that Occam's Razor is not on their side on this. It's certainly in-character for them to have done this.

Still, could just be Amazon being the bad guy here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why is this suddenly a big story now, and not back when this first happened?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I seem to have put a quote bracket in the wrong place, only the last paragraph was mine.

This makes your post from earlier make a lot more sense

 Kanluwen wrote:
[It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

Honest question - do you believe that Games Workshop is the only party that has the right to use the name "Space Marine" in literature?

So if you concur that they don't own the rights to the name "Space Marine", then why does all that unrelated stuff you keep throwing up matter?

Are you saying that other authors can use the phrase and concept of a Space Marine, unless it becomes popular enough that it might cost GW money in potentially lost sales?

I mean, so what if it showed up in related searches?

Also, do you have absolutely any evidence for these claims you keep making about how she or her friends colluded to game Amazon's search somehow or that she had a whole bunch of fake reviews? And is that even actually gaming, if she wrote a book about Space Marines and it showed up with other Space Marine related books? I mean, that sounds like "working as intended" to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property"

When even you agree it's not actually their property, in what possible way does this not make them wrong?

My wife intentionally looks for messed-up stuff on Amazon when I leave it up on my PC so later I have an annoying "surprise" when I go on Amazon to look for something.

She continues to find this hilarious.

 marielle wrote:
I find it amusing that...

That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.

Because no matter what Games Workshop does, if you criticize them, you're a "hater".

Someday Tom Kirby is going to walk onto a stage in Nottingham, and eat a live puppy; knowing full well somewhere on the internet, someone will be beating feet to post how that puppy was a jerk, and that's totally acceptable in some cultures, etc.

I suppose next, Tom Kirby will be so distraught over the whole affair, he'll take hostages and barricade himself inside Bugman's Bar.

The whole thing ends in tragedy when police negotiators arrive, but he refuses to say a word to them - he simply glared, and turned away until they left.