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.

Not surprised at all. The last little while now GW has become more obsessed with money then making its clients happy.

Removing AB will bring misery to its players.

But when they bring out their own crappy version on Apple only products(Another mistake right there)... it will be less than stellar and over priced.

BlueDagger wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:How dare GW insist only they make money on their products like every other company that has ever existed. How nazi-fascist-terrorist of them?

I don't see Ford attacking any Ford enthusist sites out there. I don't see Blizzard C&D sites that host character builders.

Look harder at the ones that were making money off it then. Army Builder wasn't "enthusiasts" it was for thieves.

DarknessEternal wrote:How dare GW insist only they make money on their products like every other company that has ever existed. How nazi-fascist-terrorist of them?

Very few companies produce, market, and sell their own products, meaning lots of companies share profits with other companies. Like, say, everything in retail?

lord_blackfang wrote:Is this the part where I'm supposed to get all indignant? Because I just can't feel it. Remember back when AB sent a C&D to PP? Good times.

Agreed. It's completely fitting.

Lone Wolf Development sends Privateer Press a notice that they should stop using the terms "army" and "builder" in close proximity with one another; PP mocks them publicly.
All the while Lone Wolf dances around the fact that it's 3rd pasty hosts not the company that holds copyrighted information.
So GW hits them where it matters.

MGS wrote:Poor. What would have been wrong with GW just buying AB's GW game builders or even discussing licensing with them?

1. Nothing by GW currently exists to replace this.
2. When/if it does, it will cost the earth.
3. When/if it does, it will be army specific and each other army you want to add (allies etc) will cost extra.
4. It will be, given GWs other forays into 'computer stuff', clunky and full of errors.

Quite, I think that is how most people will be thinking to be honest.

DarknessEternal wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:How dare GW insist only they make money on their products like every other company that has ever existed. How nazi-fascist-terrorist of them?

I don't see Ford attacking any Ford enthusist sites out there. I don't see Blizzard C&D sites that host character builders.

Look harder at the ones that were making money off it then. Army Builder wasn't "enthusiasts" it was for thieves.

Lol...

Army Builder wasn't "enthusiasts" it was for thieves

I guess I'm a thief then... which is weird since I own every codex, FW book, expansion, etc under the sun... I guess me making army lists quickly and effciently is somehow stealing. /rolleyes

DarknessEternal wrote:Look harder at the ones that were making money off it then. Army Builder wasn't "enthusiasts" it was for thieves.

Wow, you are a troll like no other. That might be the most massive Strawman I have ever seen.

Seriously, there's a sad bridge somewhere.

Who was making money off of the 40k AB files? The guys that spend hours upon hours doing data entry? Maybe it was Lone Wolf..... nah, they didn't make the 40k files and have every other system you can think of in there.

Help me pin this down.

-Loki- wrote:

Griever wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

spiraleddie wrote:No doubt we will see the Gw version of army builder being released soon.

Or, you know, just download battlescribe.

Battlescribe is nowhere near as good a program as army builder. Also, what's to stop GW from shutting them down as well. Also, I've spent about 15-20 minutes trying to find data files for the damn program on more than one occasion and can't even turn up anything.

What, aside from battlescribe themselves not hosting the army list files? GW went after the AB 40k team, not AB themselves. With battlescribes lists being entirely community driven, theyre not in this situation at all.

I agree about finding a repository though. It required arcane arts for me to find one that worked. Now that I found a good one, battlescribe is perfect, and even mobile. I don't even have to carry printed lists from home.

Would you care to share?

To be fair, they kind of had it coming to them. They knew the risk of using GW IP and they took it, and they paid the price for it. Sad, I know, but it's the law.

TalonZahn wrote:
Who was making money off of the 40k AB files? The guys that spend hours upon hours doing data entry? Maybe it was Lone Wolf..... nah, they didn't make the 40k files and have every other system you can think of in there.

Yes, it was Lone Wolf. They required you purchase their product to use GW's product that neither they nor you owned. How is this non-obvious to you?

DarknessEternal wrote:

TalonZahn wrote:
Who was making money off of the 40k AB files? The guys that spend hours upon hours doing data entry? Maybe it was Lone Wolf..... nah, they didn't make the 40k files and have every other system you can think of in there.

Yes, it was Lone Wolf. They required you purchase their product to use GW's product that neither they nor you owned. How is this non-obvious to you?

Which of GWs products were they holding to ransom in this way? because I've managed to use my army for a decade and a half without armybuilder's help or permission

DarknessEternal wrote:[Yes, it was Lone Wolf. They required you purchase their product to use GW's product that neither they nor you owned. How is this non-obvious to you?

No, they required me to buy their product to use a file that someone else made or I could make myself. At no time did GW create anything for AB and at no time did Lone Wolf create anything that "stole" from GW.

A set of enterprising individuals created some files that can be used by the LW software. Multiple files, files for all sorts of things.

By your theory Microsoft should sue anyone that's developed a File Viewer for Word, or Adobe for a PDF viewer, etc.. etc..

Be careful, DAKKA might get sued for developing content viewable in Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Chrome.

Now, if people specifically bought AB to look at GW files created by a third party (not related to LW or GW) then I supposed you could call those people thieves but to no more degree than anyone that looks at anything related to GW online.

Straw.

Man.

BlueDagger wrote:This pisses me off. No matter how hard GW tries to force the issue people aren't going to buy ever damn codex their is to see other people's options. If codexes were like $10 per digital copy then maybe an impulse buy of the new dex will happen, but at the current prices it will not happen no matter how much you try to keep the info hidden.

This would be exactly why they would do it... Why on earth would they want you to get the product they sell, for free?

Brother Weasel wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:This pisses me off. No matter how hard GW tries to force the issue people aren't going to buy ever damn codex their is to see other people's options. If codexes were like $10 per digital copy then maybe an impulse buy of the new dex will happen, but at the current prices it will not happen no matter how much you try to keep the info hidden.

This would be exactly why they would do it... Why on earth would they want you to get the product they sell, for free?

The best way to combat piracy is to provide a service better than piracy.
Games Workshop seems to think raising prices is a great way to convince people.

Absolutionis wrote:

Brother Weasel wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:This pisses me off. No matter how hard GW tries to force the issue people aren't going to buy ever damn codex their is to see other people's options. If codexes were like $10 per digital copy then maybe an impulse buy of the new dex will happen, but at the current prices it will not happen no matter how much you try to keep the info hidden.

This would be exactly why they would do it... Why on earth would they want you to get the product they sell, for free?

The best way to combat piracy is to provide a service better than piracy.
Games Workshop seems to think raising prices is a great way to convince people.

I'm not condoning or condemning. Simply stating that GW would prefer you pay for their product over getting it for free.

TalonZahn wrote:

Now, if people specifically bought AB to look at GW files created by a third party

You're kidding yourself if you think there's another reason anyone bought Army Builder. It only exists to sell other companies' IP without that company profiting.

lord_blackfang wrote:Is this the part where I'm supposed to get all indignant? Because I just can't feel it. Remember back when AB sent a C&D to PP? Good times.

Yep. I love to hate GW but it's difficult for me to have any sympathy for Lone Wolf here. Lone Wolf have just found out what 'good will' is and hopefully have realised why they shouldn't have throw it away.

Am I remembering wrongly or did Forward Kommander get a C&D from Lone Wolf too?

TalonZahn wrote:

Now, if people specifically bought AB to look at GW files created by a third party (not related to LW or GW) then I supposed you could call those people thieves but to no more degree than anyone that looks at anything related to GW online.

Straw.

Man.

The thing is people bought Army builder, downloaded 3rd party files which had copyrighted materials and then relied on the copyrighted materials and never bought the codexes. So many times people used army builder lists for a source of rules and validations and did not own codexes to know what the original rules said or reference the original lists. I don't think I have ever met a person who owned a FW book and knew the FW rules for their model... they just go by what is in AB (and sometimes it was wrong or not fully written out so they don't know their actual rules) Hence lost sales as people were not always buying codexes in addition to the army building software.

Recreating GW's copyrighted rules in armybuilder files, excel, PDF, Word is illegal and we have all known this for a very long time. Nothing has changed. GW has targeted any place the offending files exist and the people who put copyrighted materials in those electronic materials. Armybuilder is fine as a software... but if someone puts copyrighted material in part or whole in the electronic format AB makes... then the builder file is infringing. Unlike Excel and word... about 99% of Lonewolf's function requires the user to have copyright infringing datafiles for the software to have value... opposed to word and excel which have other valid uses. Sure someone could make up their own game system and make their own files... but no one pays 39.99$ a year for that 'functionality.' Tehy pay to avoid buying codexes and have access to multiple gaming systems copyrighted rules.

I would expect no less from a book publisher if someone took a copy of a book, put it in MS word and posted it all over the internet. They would have every right to have that file taken down and the person who made the file held responsible. It really is very reasonable and common even if annoying... There is a reason there is a whole industry on locking down electronic versions of book contents to make sure people have to purchase them to gain access to the info inside them.

DarknessEternal wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:How dare GW insist only they make money on their products like every other company that has ever existed. How nazi-fascist-terrorist of them?

I don't see Ford attacking any Ford enthusist sites out there. I don't see Blizzard C&D sites that host character builders.

Look harder at the ones that were making money off it then. Army Builder wasn't "enthusiasts" it was for thieves.

That sort of imbecilic comment is entirely unwarranted, wind your neck in sunshine.
I own the codex for all my armies, I find armybuilder a very convenient and useful tool for constructing lists and printing a clear list for my opponents and my own reference.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I own the codex for all my armies, I find armybuilder a very convenient and useful tool for constructing lists and printing a clear list for my opponents and my own reference.

I do too... doesn't mean everyone does... and owning the codex doesn't make the AB files 'not infringement' as owning a book doesn't legally allow you to format shift and get a free copy of all versions of formats. There is a huge difference between you taking your codex and building an AB file and downloading someone elses AB file even if the result is the same. Unless you are the person who made the scan, ripped the MP3, copied the disk, xeroxed the book... you are not protected and the document is still infringement.

Army building data files are basically illegal... We all know this to be true. Pirating a DVD and uploading it to an international untouchable server does you know good if they know *YOU* are the one committing the act which is why the team who has updated the files has to stop as they have been personally identified and named in a legal action.

It sucks and is annoying, but shouldn't be surprising to anyone as we all knew this is how it was.

DarknessEternal wrote:

TalonZahn wrote:

Now, if people specifically bought AB to look at GW files created by a third party

You're kidding yourself if you think there's another reason anyone bought Army Builder. It only exists to sell other companies' IP without that company profiting.

EDIT: Misread.

@nkelsch - I was wondering how long before you showed up to bandwagon.

The good old "no one pays 39.99$ a year for that 'functionality.' Tehy pay to avoid buying codexes and have access to multiple gaming systems copyrighted rules." and "people bought Army builder" and then of course the ever present personal experience to add validation to your argument; "I don't think I have ever met a person who owned a FW ".

Whitknighting for GW isn't going to get you free product. Are you going to post some statistics next?

@Dark

Not all people that buy LW are "theives" and only GW has seen this course of action as reasonable.

I own AB, and Battlescribe, and Heavy Metal. I also own nearly every book for; 40k, WHFB, Battletech going back 25 years, FoW, Warmachine, and many, many more systems. I use AB for the convenience. Yes, my analogies were apt as I can use Excel to do the exact same thing as AB. Is GW going to sue Microsoft when people start dumping XMS files on Google Docs or will they go after the nameless/faceless creators of those files?

This C&D to AB40k is about as poinlelss/useless as the letter threating a FLGS about leaks/previews.

nkelsch wrote:Recreating GW's copyrighted rules in armybuilder files, excel, PDF, Word is illegal and we have all known this for a very long time

nkelsch wrote:Recreating GW's copyrighted rules

nkelsch wrote:copyrighted rules

Really? this again? I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever this little phrase comes up. I guess I'll laugh this time

So what does this leave Lone Wolf? Hero Lab? (I have no idea how popular that is) They've taken some major hits this year--between PP and now GW.

I don't see how Army Builder can make its software and sell it without some sort of license from GW to do so. If GW choses not to extend one, that sucks, we can tell GW it sucks, I'll agree that it sucks. But I'll have no choice but to defend GWs right to make this decision.

AgeOfEgos wrote:So what does this leave Lone Wolf? Hero Lab? (I have no idea how popular that is) They've taken some major hits this year--between PP and now GW.

To be fair, the squabble with Privateer Press was just Lone Wolf being the aggressor...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100205/0129478063.shtml

I just don't get why GW will never entertain a mutually beneficial licensing agreement with strong boundaries written in if they fear that.

Instead they are removing something of use to us in the hobby and not providing their own version. We also know when/if they do, it will be far more limited and far more expensive.

MisterMoon wrote:I don't see how Army Builder can make its software and sell it without some sort of license from GW to do so. If GW choses not to extend one, that sucks, we can tell GW it sucks, I'll agree that it sucks. But I'll have no choice but to defend GWs right to make this decision.

ArmyBuilder is a program that reads an XML file and uses it to create rules governing a data entry system. Nothing about ArmyBuilder has anything to do with GW products or copyrights.

The XML files produced and distributed by a third party may infringe upon GW copyrights. But ArmyBuilder does not.

nkelsch wrote:
... and owning the codex doesn't make the AB files 'not infringement' as owning a book doesn't legally allow you to format shift and get a free copy of all versions of formats. There is a huge difference between you taking your codex and building an AB file and downloading someone elses AB file even if the result is the same. Unless you are the person who made the scan, ripped the MP3, copied the disk, xeroxed the book... you are not protected and the document is still infringement.

While I haven't checked, I'm pretty sure that you don't need author info in the ArmyBuilder XML files. Clearly, I created all my AB files.

Army building data files are basically illegal...

I'm not convinced of this. I'm not sure that the amount of info they use from the codexes doesn't fall under Fair Use. I can legally do this:

Redbeard wrote:
In reviewing GW's latest publication for Warhammer 40k, I'm shocked that they wrote this rule:

Warhammer 40k 6e, pp 120 wrote:
All the greatest generals carefully select the locations where they fight so that it favours their own army and hinders their opponent's. So, if you were the commander of a Tyranid assault swarm, you should think of placing plenty of scenery in your half of the table to block the opponent's lines of sight and provide cover, while the commander of an Imperial Guard tank force might decide to set up very sparse terrain, to maximize their fields of fire.

I copied this text exactly, and yet, it's a fair use. There's no way anyone is going to say a person cannot include a quotation from a book as part of a review, for example.


From the EFF's website: (http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php)

There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:

- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.
- The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.

Now, while ArmyBuilder is a commercial venture, it's important to remember that the data files are not. They're produced, for free, by volunteers. So, I'm not sure they fail on bullet one.

Bullet three certainly goes towards Fair Use as well. AB data files use a few names and numbers, nothing close to the entire codex. I'm also thinking that bullet 4 goes in favour of Fair Use, as a data file is not a substitute for a codex, especially lately where the 'rules' for wargear items direct you to a page in the codex, rather than saying what the item does.

So, the sticking point is bullet two. It's clearly a fictional work.

Even still, looking at these, I'm not sure that this isn't a case of GW swinging their legal stick, hoping that the datafile maintainers will blink. It would be interesting if they found some pro-bono representation, like chapterhouse did, and mire GW in another legal fight.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I just don't get why GW will never entertain a mutually beneficial licensing agreement with strong boundaries written in if they fear that.

Instead they are removing something of use to us in the hobby and not providing their own version. We also know when/if they do, it will be far more limited and far more expensive.

GW did have their own product that for a while was superior to AB. It actually did have rules in it. I liked the user interface more. But, in typical GW fashion, they quickly let it fall by the wayside, didn't provide updates. It was both more and less exensive than AB too. There were two products (???) one for imperial armies, and one for non-imperial armies, so if you wanted everything, you needed to buy both. Each cost slightly less than AB. On the other hand, they actually just sold you the product, rather than licencing it, so you didn't have to shell out year-after-year like you do with AB. Not only that, but they weren't as paranoid as the AB people and didn't limit licences, so I could actually have a copy on my work desktop, home desktop, and laptop without having to pay even more.

Unless you guys want this thread to be shut down for being pretty far off-topic I would suggest that the topic stick to the topic of "Are the 40K files for AB being shut down". If you want to talk about "Is AB copyright infringement" or whatnot you can always start another thread.

Not every thread has to turn into white-knighting, GW-hating, I'm an internet expert in IP law mudslinging fest.

d-usa wrote:Unless you guys want this thread to be shut down for being pretty far off-topic I would suggest that the topic stick to the topic of "Are the 40K files for AB being shut down". If you want to talk about "Is AB copyright infringement" or whatnot you can always start another thread.

Not every thread has to turn into white-knighting, GW-hating, I'm an internet expert in IP law mudslinging fest.

Is it even a question? it's news, the 40k ab files are being shut down... you don't have to read beyond that if you don't want to.