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.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
The links to the relevent copyright law posted above state that this isn't the case.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
yeah methinks they are in a slow decline vs a steady rise
whatever I already "ragequit the hobby" just waiting for people to buy my cheap junk or trade yugioh for it
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
Did they copy the iPad version of it? Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects a particular expression of it. Copying from magazine is not the same as copying from iPad.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
Did they copy the iPad version of it? Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects a particular expression of it. Copying from magazine is not the same as copying from iPad.
And that would stop GW how exactly? We all saw what happened in the space marine case. Homer Simpson said it best:
That is GW's attitude. Facts are meaningless to them. Such things would not stop them from doing a bit of mental gymnastics to make sure you have infringed upon them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 22:10:18
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
No, it doesn't. White Dwarf is not a computer program, an audio recording or an audiovisual recording. This means that it is fundamentally impossible for this to be classified as pre-release piracy.
I'm sure GW would argue otherwise seeing as there is an iPad version of it....
eBooks have been found to not be software but literary works in terms of determining legal protections since 1997 (would need to double check if that is by case law or statute...I remember the year, I don't recall the why though off the top of my head). I think it might be case law going towards some DRM issues of the time...but, that is a long time to be recollecting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 22:13:05
Yeah...I'm sure they actively seek out reasons to cause trouble. Just as they sit around thinking of ways to "screw over" certain armies, hate their customers, and purposely drive down sales.
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
To expound on that, the sworn statements which are made under the DMCA section 512 are done only in clear cut cases of the law. If there is any question regarding the applicable nature of the law (one image, one full page, 20 full pages or a 120+ page magazine...) fall into an area that is not clear cut as it is not the whole of the work. If Faeit 212 was posting complete issues of the White Dwarf it would be clear cut. However, the nature of White Dwarf would allow large swathes of it to actually fall into an area that you can repost them with little worry as although they are portions of a copyrighted work - they are in fact Facts...something that would be akin to posting a scan of a page from a Sears catalog. If they had posted complete copies of something that is somewhat more creative (the Heavy Metal articles for example) grounds for that being a clear cut violation could be made - however the entirety of the New/Upcoming release section is not a creative work, but a presentation of facts that are not given the same level of protection as creative works (gets complicated...but, that is what courts are for - not the DMCA).
Necros wrote: Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
For one, there are a lot of details missing in that story. I know phones with cameras aren't even allowed in most department store warehouses, for example, and LP/legal teams are frequently scouring the internet for images of their products appearing online without approval.
Two, there wasn't a photo or scan of copyrighted information made by Jeep; no competitor then proceeded to reproduce a vehicle modeled after that Jeep photo; and the guy who took the photo didn't claim he made the Jeep and tried to sell it as his own.
Pictures of models leak all the time. Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies. (Or so I imagine.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 22:32:17
Necros wrote: Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
Ironically, the way GW demonstrates they don't care how their customers perceive their brand is by obsessing over how their customers perceive their brand.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
To expound on that, the sworn statements which are made under the DMCA section 512 are done only in clear cut cases of the law. If there is any question regarding the applicable nature of the law (one image, one full page, 20 full pages or a 120+ page magazine...) fall into an area that is not clear cut as it is not the whole of the work. If Faeit 212 was posting complete issues of the White Dwarf it would be clear cut. However, the nature of White Dwarf would allow large swathes of it to actually fall into an area that you can repost them with little worry as although they are portions of a copyrighted work - they are in fact Facts...something that would be akin to posting a scan of a page from a Sears catalog. If they had posted complete copies of something that is somewhat more creative (the Heavy Metal articles for example) grounds for that being a clear cut violation could be made - however the entirety of the New/Upcoming release section is not a creative work, but a presentation of facts that are not given the same level of protection as creative works (gets complicated...but, that is what courts are for - not the DMCA).
Based on these circumstances, how effective would a DMCA Counter-Notice be and does Faeit have standing to sue GW?
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Hmm, I guess you may well be right in term of US law,
I keep thinking in UK terms where this is what the copyright office says
"iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
•The work has been made available to the public.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 22:34:04
brassangel wrote: Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies.
No - actually that is irrelevant (for the...10th or so time). Read the statutes which are linked to, they clearly do not apply to magazines and they clearly do not apply to magazines which are equivalent to a catalog. If you wanted to mesh it with your concept - it would be like someone in the printing office taking a picture of the sales brochure for the new Jeep. That brochure would be copyrighted, and pre-release - but still not a violation of the laws regarding pre-release of software, A/V works or movies...White Dwarf is none of those items. Even more importantly though, the specific product is even further removed being a toy gaming kit. The focus would be on that specific product and less about the White Dwarf issue should issue go to court (which hopefully Google will do their due diligence and tell GW to STFU).
Necros wrote: Kinda reminds me of the drama that happened with the new 2014 Jeep Cherokee. Jeep interweb fans out there new it was coming and were frothing at the mouth to see real pics of it. So, some guy took some cellphone pics at the factory, gave em to a big car blog site who promptly posted them for the world to see, and jeep was like "Dang.. guess we have to release real pics of it now, cuz these cellphone pics look like poo." So they did, and no one was sued, or even got so much as a nastygram.
Well, jeep got a lot of nastygrams, because it's not a box on wheels so real jeep lovers all seem to hate it, but that's a different matter...
Moral of the story.. some companies care about their customers perceive their brand. Some others, not so much.
For one, there are a lot of details missing in that story. I know phones with cameras aren't even allowed in most department store warehouses, for example, and LP/legal teams are frequently scouring the internet for images of their products appearing online without approval.
Two, there wasn't a photo or scan of copyrighted information made by Jeep; no competitor then proceeded to reproduce a vehicle modeled after that Jeep photo; and the guy who took the photo didn't claim he made the Jeep and tried to sell it as his own.
Pictures of models leak all the time. Pictures of models from a copyrighted publication before the release date of said publication is where the main issue lies. (Or so I imagine.)
So, you've been mysteriously struck blind and have been unable to read the multiple posts explaining in detail and with quotations from the relevant laws exactly why "the main issue" is no issue at all?
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Just thought I'd chim in to tell Natfka, who is, I. Believe, gone to the valhalha event that I wish he will get his blog back.
He's has been feeding my 40k needs better than GW could or ever has. If I keep hooked and if I started playing DE, it was thank to him.
I think GW should give him money for everything he has done for them.
The direction the company is taking is saddening and I start to feel bad to support such blatant direspectful attitude.
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
As you can see above the problem that arises from not really understanding what you are discussing: both Sean and I have now had to lay out in detail how what you were going on about was mistaken. Unfortunately in the interim several other people seem to have taken up this mistaken banner.
We might be able to avoid the cycle of people reading the thread to that post and then, mislead by it, posting about how GW is righteously protecting themselves from "pre-release pirates", only to have to be corrected by other posters, if you would edit it to indicate that it relies on a misapprehension of the relevant law.
Of course, being the seed from which springs a Mobius Strip of ignorance has a certain poetry as well...
They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory
To continue the strip, as Sean again ably points out, whole pages would not put it into that category, although a large portion of the magazine would make the determination of fair use more difficult. Again, however, the purpose of the use is imperative, and it seems without dispute that the sites in question are news/criticism.
Hmm, I guess you may well be right in term of US law,
I keep thinking in UK terms where this is what the copyright office says
"iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:
•The work has been made available to the public.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
Keep in mind that Section 30 has three parts. The first part which you quoted deals with criticism and review - Faeit 212 was not doing that...they were reporting on current events or news depending on how you want to word it. That would be covered under part 2 of section 30 which does not require that the work has been made available to the public...it only requires that:
Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
Basically, they just have to acknowledge that it is White Dwarf pimping GW products (which they do). Subsection 3 is an exemption for audio and video reporting that may make it difficult to acknowledge the copyright holder of the work.
Thanks to both Sean Obrien and Buzzsaw for those in-depth posts - learned something new from that.
I'm just a chemistry student, so I know nothing about the law. But it does seem strange to me that you can post whole parts of a magazine under a label of "critique" and it is fine. Especially the part where every picture of the section with new models is posted makes me wonder how it can be legal.
As Sean also mentions, if Faeit posted whole sections of the magazine about painting and what not, it could be a problem. But how does the presentation of the new models deviate from that section? I understand that the modelling section has more of a "follow this and get a result" composition, but essentially wouldn't it be the same as if I took every "Euroman" or "playboy" magazine, and post the featured interview or "bunny of the month" on my site?
In fact, the Playboy example is pretty close I would think. They make a magazine with pictures of pretty women for men to look at. WD is a magazine with pretty models for modeling enthusiasts to look at. Would it be allowed within the US copyright system for me to post a review of every picture of every woman in every months Playboy magazine? Because that is essentially what Faeit is doing with the WD scans.
But there is a second debate to this, and that is whether or not it was a good idea to DMCA BoLS and Faeit (if it did in fact happen and it isn't just some bizarre 40k related google mess up). And I gotta say that this seems... Drastic. Perhaps an overreaction on GWs part. I mean, I get that they want WD to be "exclusive" and have all the news, but perhaps they should have contacted them more formally instead of the sledgehammer approach- I'm sure BoLS would have listened to reason and while I don't know Faeit at all and haven't read his site in any way, he is always refered to as a generally enthusiastic about GW.
Oh well, just hope that both sites get through this without too much hazzle.
Saddened on behalf of all the Ultramarines, Salamanders and White Scars players who got their Codex rolled into Codex: Black Templars.
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.
Somewhere in Poland 1939:
"Look honey, just because there are German Panzers rolling down mainstreet, doesn't exactly mean we are being invaded."
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
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.
Somewhere in Poland 1939:
"Look honey, just because there are German Panzers rolling down mainstreet, doesn't exactly mean we are being invaded."
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
erewego86 wrote: I write these words to advise that whatever written here may or not be my words or someone else's. You never can tell on this forum...
How do I know if those words that are advising people your words may not be your words are in fact your words?
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
pretre wrote: Aww, Buzzsaw has me on Ignore. Although he has a good point about that page being specific to different mediums.
Well in fairness it's only because you keep being wrong.
Only occasionally and I usually cop to it. I made the edit as requested, btw.
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
Gorlack wrote: Thanks to both Sean Obrien and Buzzsaw for those in-depth posts - learned something new from that.
I'm just a chemistry student, so I know nothing about the law. But it does seem strange to me that you can post whole parts of a magazine under a label of "critique" and it is fine. Especially the part where every picture of the section with new models is posted makes me wonder how it can be legal.
As Sean also mentions, if Faeit posted whole sections of the magazine about painting and what not, it could be a problem. But how does the presentation of the new models deviate from that section? I understand that the modelling section has more of a "follow this and get a result" composition, but essentially wouldn't it be the same as if I took every "Euroman" or "playboy" magazine, and post the featured interview or "bunny of the month" on my site?
In fact, the Playboy example is pretty close I would think. They make a magazine with pictures of pretty women for men to look at. WD is a magazine with pretty models for modeling enthusiasts to look at. Would it be allowed within the US copyright system for me to post a review of every picture of every woman in every months Playboy magazine? Because that is essentially what Faeit is doing with the WD scans.
But there is a second debate to this, and that is whether or not it was a good idea to DMCA BoLS and Faeit (if it did in fact happen and it isn't just some bizarre 40k related google mess up). And I gotta say that this seems... Drastic. Perhaps an overreaction on GWs part. I mean, I get that they want WD to be "exclusive" and have all the news, but perhaps they should have contacted them more formally instead of the sledgehammer approach- I'm sure BoLS would have listened to reason and while I don't know Faeit at all and haven't read his site in any way, he is always refered to as a generally enthusiastic about GW.
Oh well, just hope that both sites get through this without too much hazzle.
The difference between the Playboy comparison and White Dwarf is that you can not buy a Bunny. Posting the entirety of an interview would fall into a grey area - interviews are issues of fact and generally not protected (grey area which goes to the manner in which they are presented...see various lawsuits relating to phone books). The images from the article would be copyrighted on their own, and simply posting them to something like an online gallery would not be allowed. The difference of course is that the use of the copyrighted material by Faeit is to provide news of upcoming releases. Going back to your comparison - if you got notice of who would be the next Playboy Playmate of the year (or some other "news") and posted that information along with a copy of one of her images from the magazine - that would fall into the legal use of copyrighted material as you are doing it for purposes of news.
You could also do similar if you were actually critiquing the copyrighted works - either to show examples of lighting techniques, airbrushing or even doing a long dissertation on how the perceptions of beauty have changed over the decades (using example images from Playboy since the 1950s to the present). Although you might be using a substantial amount of copyrighted material which is owned by Playboy - the manner in which it is being used would be protected.
__________________
The second question is an old one. I recall many years ago I was talking to a fellow business owner who was involved in a bit of a legal issue (nothing too serious - but it made the papers). He had said at the time that the only thing worse for business than bad publicity is no publicity. It seems that GW would like to take their bad publicity (which at least adds to name recognition which might stick after people forget why they heard about GW) and replace it with no publicity and render themselves permanently to obscurity. Sort of a rephrasing of the old adage, but for the most part he was trying to make lemonade.
Not sure what GW's train of thought might be - it isn't like you have people picking up a copy of White Dwarf while standing in line at the grocery store - so the only ones who are getting their "GW News" in that manner are already customers anyway. Cutting off any other sources is just asinine from all schools of thought regarding business.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/29 23:21:16
Once again, thank you for a very informative post. People new to this thread should really filter it and read your comments.
My next question is: do you (or anyone) know anything about how the process goes now for the sites affected? I mean, is it hard to get your blogger account opened up again after something like this or? And could there be consequences for any of the affected parties, both BoLS/Faeit but also GW? (except ofcourse loss of visitors and add revenue and general PR trouble - I'm specifically thinking legal trouble).
Saddened on behalf of all the Ultramarines, Salamanders and White Scars players who got their Codex rolled into Codex: Black Templars.
