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.

ArmyRoster.com wrote:Eeek I really anticipate everyone to at least run there resolutions bigger than that. detachments will be added soon, I will look into the marksman thing

Never expect more than 800x600. And don't forget about netbooks!

Yeah, this is really helpful for looking at at work, but I see a future where
everyone will have those tiny Dells at work. That would be bad.

I think Ill give all this a miss and just keep using Microsoft Excel

How come?

yakface wrote:
When they get 40k up and rolling I will be all over this like white-on-rice.

Yakface, there has been a report that you've been stealing Malfred's rice.

If true, this is a serious accusation. (I'm not kidding! Check the User Post Alerts!).

This is interesting.

I'd like for this to succeed, I truly would. However, I'm currently in the course of an education in law school, and accordingly I'm 100% positive you're in violation of intellectual property laws.

The argument that you need the army's book to put together a game-legal army is not going to hold water when you are providing literally 90% of the input from the site itself. It's like saying I need a DVD player to make bootleg/pirated DVDs work: yes, this is true, but bootleg DVDs are still violating intellectual property, and illegal. In Army Builder's case, the program that gets sold to you is more analogous to the DVD player than the bootleg DVD, because it requires additional input from outside the application to function. The fact that you incorporate all of Games Workshop's unit names, stats, and even go as far as using art from the codicies from the unit entries means that you're pretty clearly using their intellectual property.

The 'book' defense you guys have advocated in this thread will probably keep you safe from a tort suit on the grounds of interference with economic advantage, since a user will have to have the codex to know what the wargear is and how the army needs to be arranged. Because of that, you're not impeding GW's sales of their codex. You could argue that they have a case for interference because they have a similar army building product of their own, but I don't think it'd go anywhere because they have to prove damages and I don't know anyone who buys their program. This does not, however, serve as a legal defense against an intellectual property suit.

In any event, good luck. I've bought a copy of Army Builder for this year, so I'll probably continue to use that, but the concept's solid in terms of function.

Don't bother Lorek. The Frazz put me in my place :(

Jamsession: Did they ever do one for Fantasy? I thought they only had 40k.

malfred wrote:Don't bother Lorek. The Frazz put me in my place :(

Jamsession: Did they ever do one for Fantasy? I thought they only had 40k.

I just kind've assumed they did, honestly. I'm not a fantasy player. Looking at it, they probably haven't made one for Fantasy, or if they have I'm sure it's just as bad as the 40k version. In any event, the reference to their program was more with regards to a tort claim of interference with economic advantage; the existence (or nonexistence) of an army-building program for Fantasy does not impede an intellectual property suit, because IP suits don't universally require proof of damages.

jamsessionein wrote:This is interesting.

I'd like for this to succeed, I truly would. However, I'm currently in the course of an education in law school, and accordingly I'm 100% positive you're in violation of intellectual property laws.

The argument that you need the army's book to put together a game-legal army is not going to hold water when you are providing literally 90% of the input from the site itself. It's like saying I need a DVD player to make bootleg/pirated DVDs work: yes, this is true, but bootleg DVDs are still violating intellectual property, and illegal. In Army Builder's case, the program that gets sold to you is more analogous to the DVD player than the bootleg DVD, because it requires additional input from outside the application to function. The fact that you incorporate all of Games Workshop's unit names, stats, and even go as far as using art from the codicies from the unit entries means that you're pretty clearly using their intellectual property.

The 'book' defense you guys have advocated in this thread will probably keep you safe from a tort suit on the grounds of interference with economic advantage, since a user will have to have the codex to know what the wargear is and how the army needs to be arranged. Because of that, you're not impeding GW's sales of their codex. You could argue that they have a case for interference because they have a similar army building product of their own, but I don't think it'd go anywhere because they have to prove damages and I don't know anyone who buys their program. This does not, however, serve as a legal defense against an intellectual property suit.

In any event, good luck. I've bought a copy of Army Builder for this year, so I'll probably continue to use that, but the concept's solid in terms of function.

Hey there,

Benny here... Just thought I would let you know that we are not the pirated DVD... we are the DVD player in your analogy... something like a scanned book from a torrent would be your equivalent of a bootlegged DVD... sooooo you are wrong in that one.

On another note, I have been notified by another individual who has been actively contacting GW that they do not have an issue with AR as I do NOT validate the army lists and therefore it is possible to make illegal compositions and that this is just a tool, not a replacement for the army books.

I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.

Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...

Anyways. I hope the rest of you are enjoying it. I am trying to get it bug free as soon as possible. As soon as everything is solid I will be adding 40k... Im giving you all a rough estimate of the start up date for 40k... and I'm thinking Beta will start mid Jan! If everything goes smoothly!

Cheers

Benny
AR

ArmyRoster.com wrote:
Hey there,

Benny here... Just thought I would let you know that we are not the pirated DVD... we are the DVD player in your analogy... something like a scanned book from a torrent would be your equivalent of a bootlegged DVD... sooooo you are wrong in that one.

A program like Army Builder is, as I mentioned in my post, more analogous to the DVD player, in that it only receives the input given, and does not possess any intellectual property in and of itself. The moment you start reproducing GW's IP content, such as stat lines, unit names, and points values, you cross that line [provided permission has not been expressly given by GW]. There is obviously an element of severity here; a PDF copy of the rulebook would be in greater violation, and thus liable to greater penalty, but this does not mean that if you're not a scanned rulebook you can't be in violation. To further draw out the example, a bootleg DVD that only has the first ten minutes of an hour long movie is still in violation of IP laws... excerpting a chapter from The DaVinci Codes and putting them up on a web site for the public to read is still in violation of the IP laws... excerpting unit stats, rules, points cost and images from the rulebooks is in violation of IP. Just because you don't reproduce all of it doesn't make reproducing some of it free of legal ramifications.

On another note, I have been notified by another individual who has been actively contacting GW that they do not have an issue with AR as I do NOT validate the army lists and therefore it is possible to make illegal compositions and that this is just a tool, not a replacement for the army books.

Have you read Army Builder's backstory? I found it in another thread here just the other day. It's fairly interesting. It also illustrates the amount of difficulty and antagonism Games Workshop and Lone Wolf have had with one another about a program that does not even include any data. In relevant part:

Once AB was officially released, GW immediately adopted an adversarial stance towards AB, threatening litigation and other actions. Given the way that AB was released, though, there was nothing GW could do. By having the data files decoupled from the product and entirely fan-created, AB was unassailable.

This is essentially the reason why AB has not had to face any legal action. The above does not apply to armyroster.com, which is where the problem lies. The argument that 'illegal compositions' would prevent you from liability is a bit absurd. To further provide an example, if I take a book, remove all of the chapters from that book, and rearrange them in a random order (maybe duplicating some chapters, maybe leaving some others out), I am fairly certain to have an unintelligible work of literature on my hands. However, that does not change the fact that the chapters are still someone else's intellectual property.

I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.

If we're both providing backstories here, I'm not an attorney, but I am in the course of getting a legal education, and the things you learn in law school are not always matters of common sense. My purpose in explaining all of this to you is to help you 'find out about the laws and IP'. "But I'm worldly, and this isn't fair!" is not a defense if you get hauled into court by GW. I am not trying to be condescending; rather, I'm simply trying to make this easy to digest.

Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...

Earth's been around a couple hundred million years, right (biblical interpretations aside)? I'm sure if the sun were going to explode, it would have done it by now. I'm glad the sun is never going to explode(or go supernova, or whatever stars do).

Do you see the flaw in the reasoning, and how it applies to what you just said? "Operating for five weeks in a beta form that GW's legal department may or may not even know about is sure proof that you're free of liability." (I'm admittedly giving little credence to your above 'I know a guy who knows a guy who says this whole company thinks this is fine')

There is a difference between "100% lawsuit-proof" and "100% in violation." Can you argue to any degree whatsoever that the Warhammer content that is right now on your web site [by this I mean points cost, wargear, unit names] is original Intellectual Property? You cannot, honestly. There is no evidence of any degree that you could present to a court that would say "Yes, Azhag the Slaughterer is our intellectual property, and so is his wargear, stat line and special rules." There would be no question of material fact as to whether or not you are violating Games Workshop's intellectual property.

Now, whether of not you are 'lawsuit proof' depends on the decision of GW legal. Note that this says nothing about whether or not you are liable for any damages, or whether a court would find for or against you. It simply means that GW has a meritorious case that they could bring against you.

The distinction is important, because I was saying one, and not the other.

I remember thegreatuncleanone site. That was a quite useful site, and I imagine a site that uses even less IP, such as not listing options and costs online, would not have legal problems.

I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?

AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?

AB's not in violation of any of Games Workshop's intellectual property.

The program is simply a template that does math. It comes supplied with no data files, and is not set up by default for use with any particular game's information. You can only get out of it what you put into it - meaning, unless you make datafiles for things, the program will not supply you with any information.

Because of this 'generic' nature, it violates nobody's intellectual property.

Well I'm not one to start a huge flame war so I will take what you have said in stride and try to apply it to my future dealings. There are a couple more comments I would just like to add.

TGUO was left alone for close to 4 years until my buddy shut it down for lack of time. He had far more information on that website that I have put up on AR and got away with it. I really do not think that AR will step on the toes of GW all to much... I can see them getting more steamed up over AB because people are allowed to put on descriptions of all items an rules through there.... so even though AR might not be legal in every aspect... or in any (depending on how anal people are), we retain the need to have a book and therefore do not cut into GW's profits... if anything, by allowing people to make mock-up lists of new armies they haven't played, we are driving more business to them!

Also after 5 weeks and almost 2400 members... you can bet (at least I would haha) that some kind of GW rep or employee has heard of it and it has made its way to someone

Anywho. Thanks for your input and advice jamsessionein, I will take it on board.

Cheers

Benny
AR

jamsessionein wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?

AB's not in violation of any of Games Workshop's intellectual property.

The program is simply a template that does math. It comes supplied with no data files, and is not set up by default for use with any particular game's information. You can only get out of it what you put into it - meaning, unless you make datafiles for things, the program will not supply you with any information.

Because of this 'generic' nature, it violates nobody's intellectual property.

Ok, I understand that portion..thanks for the explanation. However, let me pick your brain a bit more. What about he autolink to datafile downloads both in the program and on their site? This seems very similar to Napsters contributory suit? After all, Napster was simply a program that allowed file sharing...right?

/Just to make this clear, I'm just intellectually curious. I would grab my pitchfork and torch if GW actually went aggressive on AB!

jamsessionein wrote:

ArmyRoster.com wrote:I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.

If we're both providing backstories here, I'm not an attorney, but I am in the course of getting a legal education, and the things you learn in law school are not always matters of common sense. My purpose in explaining all of this to you is to help you 'find out about the laws and IP'. "But I'm worldly, and this isn't fair!" is not a defense if you get hauled into court by GW. I am not trying to be condescending; rather, I'm simply trying to make this easy to digest.

Well, allow me, as an actual (IP) attorney, allow me to give you (Jimmy) a piece of advice;

STOP TALKING

Now, when you say you're getting a legal education, I can only hope that you've yet to reach the point where you have studied legal ethics, specifically advice as the basis for formation of the attorney-client relationship... That said, think back to your first days of law school, when they told you the one and only answer an attorney gives someone asking a question: "it depends". What it depends on are the facts at issue (which you don't know completely) and the relevant law (this is a situation involving at least Trademark, Copyright and Contract law, which, if your posts in this thread are to be taken seriously, clearly you are also not well versed in).

jamsessionein wrote:

Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...

Earth's been around a couple hundred million years, right (biblical interpretations aside)? I'm sure if the sun were going to explode, it would have done it by now. I'm glad the sun is never going to explode(or go supernova, or whatever stars do).

Ok I have to say it...

It has been how many weeks since launch and still no 40k content?

And this thread is on a 40k (predominantly) board.

I hope you succeed, but plan to stick with Army Builder, as its very easy to use and I can leave my army books on the shelf.

Half the point of a digital army creator is not having to need to lug out the Army books to verify things all the time, just plug and play until you like your list.

Let us know if 40k is ever supported, then it *might* be worth looking into.

There ARE fantasy fans here. We're not the majority, but we appreciate the effort.

Does Armyroster.com have a banner gif of some kind?

malfred wrote:Does Armyroster.com have a banner gif of some kind?

Yes we certainly do. http://www.armyroster.com/advertising.php there are 4 different sizes and they are in PNG format =)

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:Ok I have to say it...

It has been how many weeks since launch and still no 40k content?

And this thread is on a 40k (predominantly) board.

I hope you succeed, but plan to stick with Army Builder, as its very easy to use and I can leave my army books on the shelf.

Half the point of a digital army creator is not having to need to lug out the Army books to verify things all the time, just plug and play until you like your list.

Let us know if 40k is ever supported, then it *might* be worth looking into.

Lol. I realize that hauling books around may be too much to ask, but I do not think of AR as a full replacement for AB. There are many advantages to use AR over AB such as...

1. A community to have your lists reviewed
2. Your armies are all online and therefore can be accessed from anywhere
3. Frequent updates. I fix just about every bug reported within a day or less... AB does not do this and therefore is less reliable. I work personally with the community and implement exactly what has been suggested. I am open to making the application better for you guys.

40k will be added in the new year. As my first and only love has been Fantasy, it came first. I understand this is mainly a 40k board but, as malfred said, there are fantasy players on here and they do appreciate it

Benny
AR

Looks like Ein had the right of it, Army Roster is going down.

Hey everyone,

Well I received notice from GW that I have to shut down Army Roster. On the 6th of January Army Roster will be shutting down. The forums will remain open, but the application itself is now shutting down.

I will be trying to appeal my situation to Games Workshop at the end of next week, but nothing is certain. If they decide that I have truly violated there IP and deserve to be shutdown, I will be persuing other methods for sustaining AR... I'm not certain what this means or how I will do it, but there is always the option of completely opening the source for which armies are made and allowing the public to create any armies for any game system they want. I can do this just as AB has done it, and if GW decides not to take my offer then I will invest time to making it different.

Thanks for your support everyone. Please stick around the forums as much as possible =)

PS make as MANY lists as you can in the time being and print them all off... thats the only consolation I can provide. All of the armies WILL be wiped clean and they will all be deleted on the 6th of January 2009.

Benny
Founder of Army Roster

Bookwrack wrote:Looks like Ein had the right of it, Army Roster is going down.

Hmph...didn't see that coming....

Well, my legal training comes solely from watching Law & Order, and just at a glance I knew AR was setting itself up for a fall.

So much for having a fast way to run up a list with out paying 40$ for a pile of crap like AB.

Maby GW will finally get off its arse and update the EotI...

Well, like I said, I would have liked to see it go unmolested, but they just included too much information for GW to let that sort of thing stand.

Joker, it's worth mentioning that I bought AB and I seriously think I've gotten my money's worth. I make lists often enough that it makes my life vastly easier.

Well that's too bad. Hope they find a way to make it work as I liked having an online software to do my list building (so I can access it from work ).

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

And the whole Army Roster thing is just such an anti-surprise. The trouble they were making for themselves was plainly visible a mile away, When you're dealing with a company that is notoriously jealous in guarding its IP, putting up a site on the web that directly copies large chunks of their written data is a bad plan.

Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

Usually when *I* hear it, it's followed up with "so I might as well d/l it for free, right?"

The only weakness of AB is that some rely it on it too heavily regarding rules. However, I cannot imagine building lists without it.

Your ArmyRoster idea might work if you allow users to input the data of their models (statistics and costs)...which then saves it to a file on their computer. Each time they log, they simply load their 'data' file from their email (Or HD). Essentially, take the weakest part of AB (The laborious process of creating data files) and make it better/easier.