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.

I liked watching BoW prior to getting podcast/webchannel overload (I've dialed down to Podhammer and 11th Company, pretty much). Their close-cam unboxing videos are excellent, and led me to make sounder, more informed purchases here and there.

Never watched any but now I want to, thanks to this thread. Oh, the irony!

See the guys on here http://www.beastsofwar.com/turn-8/turn-8-19-may-2011/

For those going through BoW video withdrawal, their live webcast from last night is available, Turn 8; it's a nice summation of their nature (warning! Copious use of rice wine and beer!) and, at about the 1:30 (that's 1 hour, 20 minute) mark they start getting into the GW situation and its implications for the hobby as a whole.

Edit: Dangit! Ninja'd by the old fart! That'll teach me to take a bathroom break while posting...

Despite the total lack of evidence, everyone has assumed that GW took down BoW with an underhand copyright allegation to You Tube, in retaliation for comments regarding Infinity and the GW price rises.

That is;

A) rather unfair.
B) very informative about the current PR surrounding GW.

Interesting stuff, if true. Any particular source to this or just general scuttlebutt?

No, it is just rumour - not even that, wild thoughts at best. I'm sure the BoW guys will update us as soon as they find out.

It's just the mutter from the gutter. That's my point.

Agreed.

I think BoW do a great job at what they clearly set out to do, and I hope they're back up soon.

Nah, GW would never do something like that, it would be to dumb (hm, ive hear that before, 4 times this week)

Coincidence? Dunno, but only theway we all point to GW when things like this happen, show how good they are in the community, dont you think?

As the BoW guys alluded to in their last video, YouTube has been known to in essence shot first, ask questions later in an over eager attempt to ensure that YouTube can't be held liable because they waited to respond to a complaint while they substantiated the claim.

In other words, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that the YouTube channel will be back and the explanation will be that YouTube either made a mistake or removed the channel as a precaution while they reviewed a complaint.

I am sure they will. That doesn't remove the fact that the channel has been taken down.

That makes sense. It's probably just someone over-reacting to something...what that could be I don't know. We'll just have to wait & see how it all pans out...

Knowing youtube it was probably a complaint over a song used in one or more of their videos. They tend to ere on the side of caution in that regard. Given enough complaints they just take the site down until the user can prove licensing etc.

They leaked Mantic concept art in said video and on their website. Maybe Mantic is the new Evil Galactic Empire behind this
More on mantic in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370280.page

yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

Smitty0305 wrote:yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

From the first page;

Buzzsaw wrote:

Stanley Rubric wrote:I really hope it's just coincidence. I like BoW and if GW managed to close them down on some technicality, well, I'm already not going to be buying their stuff anymore, but this would just cement the fact that I'd never consider going back.

It wouldn't be BoW as a whole, worst comes to worst, they might be forced to change video hosting providers. That said, if it is GW, then it is a blatant abuse of the relevant laws; IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

Emphasis added.

Smitty0305 wrote:yea theres this crazy thing called copyright infringement, apparently you cant show pictures you dont own in your video.

Apparently you can, according to the laws of the USA and UK.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.


http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-review.htm
Criticism, review and reporting current events
Fair dealing for criticising or review and reporting current events is allowed for any type of copyright work (except a photograph) as long as it is with a sufficient acknowledgment.

As stated, a photograph cannot be reproduced for the purpose of reporting current events. The intention of the law is to prevent newspapers or magazines reproducing photographs for reporting current events which have appeared in competitor’s publications.


Oh! Eire too!!!

http://www.dit.ie/media/documents/library/Copyright-Guidelines.pdf

You may copy if:

You hold the copyright.
The copyright has expired.
You have permission from the copyright owner.
The copying falls within the concept of “fair dealing” and is for research or private
study, criticism or review.

What is “fair dealing”?

You may copy under “fair dealing” in the interests of:

Research or private study.
Criticism or review (with acknowledgement).
Reporting current events (with acknowledgement).

Fair dealing applies to almost all works, including electronic resources. Photographs
are excluded from the concept of fair dealing.



Crazeee!

I'm hoping it's just coincidence that the channel being down is happening at the same time as GW's giant act of errorism this week. I would never be able to believe GW would cancel the ability of a website to promote their products/discuss them-then again I couldn't see the extortionate price increase from the metal->resin or the embargo. Hopefully the events are unrelated, as I actually used to like/love GW as a company. If this is true, I have a feeling I'll be trying out a new game soon: how do Mantic's and Malifaux's rules look guys? I think I'll pick up one or the other. A steampunk army sounds quite fun

Any new information?

Nothing yet, not even on their website...

I think it was because they partnered with Battlefoam (advert at the start of their latest videos) and Wayland games (advert at the end of their latest videos). Soon after this their channel was shut down. It might be against Youtube's terms and conditions.

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

Not that I personally mind what these guys are doing, btw, but I definitely don't consider them journalists.

Just like anyone can print a magazine or newspaper and say "Hey look at us, we're journalists, the rules don't apply to us?".

It's debated if "blogs" are journalism or not. But you could definitely consider BoW and the likes to be "reporters" (as in, they report on new products etc) and that kinda makes it a "publication". In other words, it's "journalism". Although not by journalists.

Then again it's not all that uncommon to employ people with no academic education in journalism as journalists on more old-school media outlets. It's more of a title nowadays.

As for it being a crazy US idea I want to tell you that us swedes are just as crazy and consider blogs journalistic endeavours in the sense that they're protected by the Tryckfrihetsförordning. A part of the constitution regarding media. I do think that applies to most of the EU as well.

You need no formal document in the United States to become a "journalist," simply whatever money it takes to support your endeavor, and the time to do it. There are many freelancers out there that report and review all kinds of things for columns in thousands of publications. It's completely normal - and at least in the United States, it's protected free speech.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists (and, rice wine and beer aside, BoW is clearly a journalistic endeavor).

What exactly makes them a journalistic endeavor? If they are it means anyone can put up a site and (regularly) post some stuff on video and say "hey look at me, I'm a journalist, the rules don't apply to me!".

Maybe it's some crazy US thing again, but this wouldn't fly everywhere.

...

It would fly fine in the UK or Eire, or any country which has a Fair Dealing clause in its copyright laws.

France has a very similar clause.

Dutch law also includes a sort of fair use though apparently more restrictive than the English speaking versions. I do not know the details.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is hardly possible to have public discussion of artworks without some kind of fair use provision in copyright laws.

We are talking about guys who unpack kits of plastic miniatures and show the sprues to us on camera, for freak's sake. If that is what it takes to be called a journalistic endeavor then why even bother making any rules at all, because anyone can be a "journalist" whenever it's convenient to use as an excuse to break them.
Journalists (legit ones) take too many liberties with the code of ethics they are supposed to have as it is, but don't let me get started on that.

I'm sure all the people who went through years of proper education to (be able to) work in this particular field of profession would also like if there were some kind of (official) distinction. In this case it's like calling the cleaning lady an "interior decorator"

If you require people who review products to have a phd, something is wrong. Take, for instance, the guys that review cars on TV. They haven't got jack for formal education, but they know a lot about cars, what makes cars good, and what people generally are looking for in a car. That makes them plenty qualified for what they do. BoW can review miniatures as well as any of us, and they don't need a piece of paper to do it. I respect your point, but it's not really carrying any water.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would fly fine in the UK or Eire, or any country which has a Fair Dealing clause in its copyright laws.

France has a very similar clause.

Dutch law also includes a sort of fair use though apparently more restrictive than the English speaking versions. I do not know the details.

What I was referring to with the "fly" comment was whether or not it would fly that BoW (or anyone else similar for that matter) can be called a legit journalistic endeavor, not to the copyright laws themselves. Not sure if we are talking about the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thrax wrote:If you require people who review products to have a phd, something is wrong. Take, for instance, the guys that review cars on TV. They haven't got jack for formal education, but they know a lot about cars, what makes cars good, and what people generally are looking for in a car. That makes them plenty qualified for what they do. BoW can review miniatures as well as any of us, and they don't need a piece of paper to do it. I respect your point, but it's not really carrying any water.

But that is not what I said. It's fine for people to review products, but let's not give them a name they don't deserve.

My point is: to the law it often matters a lot whether or not someone can be called a journalist. They happen to be able to legally get away with a lot of things non-journalist wouldn't be able to get away with. So if just about anyone can create circumstances where he or she can say "I'm a journalist!", then where exactly do you draw the line? It would basically mean Chaos applies.