GW send C&D letter to 40k radio

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Would they?

I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.

People have been complaining about GW since the 80s (on the old dial-up BBS systems no less!). The only real change is the internet makes it a lot easier for us to hear it.

As for models, I think the CHS case permanently killed any hope of us getting previews of things from the main studio because of the fear that someone will steal what their working on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheNightWillEnd wrote:
This is the realm of tactica where I really don't think you can have a discussion without points costs, and in the end it seems like the real question here is "Could you just listen to the podcast rather than buy the codex?" and the answer is definitely no.

I did a massive roll-up on the Space Marine codex from their pod casts and I had enough information that I could play the codex without ever touching a codex just from their two podcasts. By listening I had the full rules, points costs, ect. It's the same kind of thing Dakka can get slammed over so it's no surprised 40k Radio would get a C&D.

**nkelsch**

CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

Free speech doesn't protect Copyright infringement. Now, was what 40k Radio did copyright infringement? Maybe? GW thinks so... it is up to 40k Radio to make a case in court that they were following 'fair use' and stand up.

But that is expensive, and not a slam dunk.

Free speech doesn't give basic permission to do anything you want.

**Azreal13**

Bull0 wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Bull0 wrote:
I'm not sure if keeping future releases under wraps to try and keep people interested in the stuff you're releasing today really qualifies as "tricking people". Not compared to, say, getting people to pour their money into kickstarters for unseen products.

Of course it is.

Ask anyone who bought a codex a couple of weeks before an update, or bought the 5th edition rulebook the month prior (there is a specific example on my local GW FB page of this, the managers response was "hey, all the pictures and fluff are still great!")

Ok, totally new products probably get a bye in this case, but keeping schtum about updates and still selling the soon to be outdated stuff, while simultaneously shrugging your shoulders when people look for some sort of concession for it, is what if it isn't deceptive?

.

*edit* No, I've totally misread what you were saying, I get it. Yeah, it would be suck to buy a codex only to see the update go up for preorder a few weeks later. They probably shouldn't do that gak. It can't happen that frequently though. Be a pretty large coincidence for someone to buy into an army only to get a totally out-of-the-blue codex update weeks later.

As a percentage? Sure, but for a book like Space Marines, where the uptake from new starters is probably disproportionately high, I'd bet it happens far more frequently. If it is really close, odds are they'll have a receipt and be able to return it, but say three weeks after purchase? Still having POP is unlikely. That's the other thing too, it hurts new players far more than the likes of us, as we are better informed and far more likely to have an inkling of what's upcoming. As perhaps the one unarguably positive thing GW still contributes to the hobby at large is as a generator of new blood, that sort of behaviour, should it put somebody off, is doubly bad.

They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

**ClockworkZion**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't remember people complaining so much 5 years ago, before GW went crazy ape control freak on their new release information.
Those some spiffy rose-tinted glasses you've got on there, Kilkrazy. People have been complaining unceasingly about GW since the early 90s. I bought the first edition of Talisman for $12 when it was circulating then GW upped the price to $20 and I was like, "Wut?" (I needed to replace a bunch of cards). Other complaint generators include, moving from two Rhinos to one in the box, the plastic Land Raider disappearing, and constant price inflation as well as being priced waaaay above competitors at the time. Yes, there was as much complaining back in the day as there is now. The only real difference is that GW had actual content in the WD and they weren't doing all this secrecy trash. Other than that, it's always been the same company.

Yes, people have always complained about price increases, the decline of White Dwarf and the lack of squats. They didn't use to complain about C&Ds to blogs, copyright cases, lack of new release info, tournaments being cancelled and the like, because those things weren't happening.

The complaints about White Dwarf seem to have stopped, probably because no-one on DakkaDakka bothers to read it any more.

You did specify quantity of complaints, not quality.

**Bull0**

azreal13 wrote:
They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

Yeah, I feel like that was happening at some point, but probably isn't anymore.

**ClockworkZion**

CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

**overtyrant**

Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

**Zweischneid**

CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

**ClockworkZion**

Bull0 wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
They could easily phase the books out a month or two prior to update, and give their staff at least enough info as to it was happening, and permission to give a sly mod and a wink to any enquiries, but that just isn't their MO these days.

Yeah, I feel like that was happening at some point, but probably isn't anymore.

GW's Retail staff was one of the big sources of leaks back in the day so it's no surprise.

GW does pull stuff from the "mandatory stock" list for their partners (there are different stockist levels but they all get lists of what products they need to have stocked to maintain that level of stockist, these levels give benefits like tournament prize support and larger discounts IIRC) and their stores about a month in advance, but then again they also make some rather odd things go direct only so perhaps no one wants to rely on that as "proof" of what's coming.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

overtyrant wrote:
Shhh don't tell the Americans that!

I am American, it just says I'm Canadian when I'm online at the local college despite only being across town. Go figure.

**CaulynDarr**

Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

**ClockworkZion**

CaulynDarr wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

Depends how they're phrased really. It's not hard for someone to get sued for slander when they voice negativity about someone or something.

**Zweischneid**

CaulynDarr wrote:

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

But not everything pertaining to other people's intellectual property is allowed by free speech either, otherwise the whole idea of "copyright" would be nonsensical.

**CaulynDarr**

ClockworkZion wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

But not everything pertaining to other people's intellectual property is allowed by free speech either, otherwise the whole idea of "copyright" would be nonsensical.

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

The 1st amendment isn't the only law in existence.

Freedom of Speech is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified (U.S. Citizen Bradley Manning anyone? Edward Snowden) or otherwise.

Also, Freedom of Speech usually refers to the right to express your own ideas and opinions.

Yes, but the point is that the economic loss to a company is not the measure by which free speech is judged. Otherwise all forms of negative criticism against companies would be outlawed

Depends how they're phrased really. It's not hard for someone to get sued for slander when they voice negativity about someone or something.

If you make knowingly false statements. Generally the truth is a defense in most instances.

**ClockworkZion**

CaulynDarr wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

**Brother Weasel**

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

**ClockworkZion**

Brother Weasel wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

It also doesn't give you freedom from the repercussions of exercising said speech.

**Zweischneid**

CaulynDarr wrote:

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.

Probably. Though empowering Congress to prevent financial harm to a company in this manner is pretty much why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 was added to the US Constitution (modeled, in fact, on things like the Licensing of Press Act or the Statute of Anne, all of which pre-date American Independence).

US Constitution wrote:
The Congress shall have Power

...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

**CaulynDarr**

Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

I never made that argument. I was replying to a blanket statement that free speech ends at financial harm. A pretty ridiculous statement.

Probably. Though empowering Congress to prevent financial harm to a company in this manner is pretty much why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 was added to the US Constitution (modeled, in fact, on things like the Licensing of Press Act or the Statute of Anne, all of which pre-date American Independence).

US Constitution wrote:
Congress has the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

**Absolutionis**

CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

**Buzzsaw**

nkelsch wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

Free speech doesn't protect Copyright infringement. Now, was what 40k Radio did copyright infringement? Maybe? GW thinks so... it is up to 40k Radio to make a case in court that they were following 'fair use' and stand up.

But that is expensive, and not a slam dunk.

Free speech doesn't give basic permission to do anything you want.

I appreciate there is a great deal of confusion in this thread about what is and is not subject to copyright, so I'm going to re-post the excellent little primer that Weeble put up earlier. If that is too long to read, just remember that there is a division between idea and expression: the ideas in a Codex are not subject to Copyright. Only that particular expression.

The protection given to things like point costs and the mechanics of rules is slender to the point of transparency.

weeble1000 wrote:
Note that I have not listened to the show, so I really do not know what was said, in what context, and in what manner.

That said, there's also an issue of protectability. Rules just aren't protected by copyright, other than the specific text of the rules. The system is straight up not protectable. Anyone should be able to talk about the point costs of units as this is an element of the game rules. And even sections of the text should be distributable in the context of a review.

At the very least, any discussion or reading of game rules is a murky area.

“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

X unit costing Y points is part of a system. The force organization structure is part of a system. A unit's place in that force organization is part of the system.

An Imperial whatsit in the new codex costs bla points and is now in the bla force organization slot. It used to cost bla points which was bla more than now. Now you can take bla unit as a bla force org and that allows you to take bla units as this force org instead of this other force org, and at bla points you could field bla number of them in a bla point game.

That's ipso facto a discussion of rules, which would necessarily mention the name of units, which is potentially copyrightable, but even if it were, it would be such a minimal portion of the whole work that I can see it easily falling within the limits of fair use.

There might be something if those guys were reading off stat lines, wargear options, and rule descriptions straight from the book exactly as printed. But I can imagine a ton of ways to communicate that information in a way that relates almost exclusively to a procedure, process, system, or method of operation.

**Zweischneid**

CaulynDarr wrote:

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

**Buzzsaw**

Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

**CaulynDarr**

Absolutionis wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.

**Azreal13**

Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

**ClockworkZion**

Buzzsaw wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:

Which is why there exists the concept of fair use, as a way to balance freedom of speech and right of ownership. Neither is absolute.

No doubt there.

Thus, how'd you rule the case if you were a judge and had to listen to the 40KRadio podcast in court? Do you hear a review? Or a leak?

Remember, just as in the CHS case, the first step is not probing that the defendant's use is fair... it is establishing that the plaintiff actually has rights on the material alleged to be infringed.

I tend to agree with Weeble: point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law.

This time GW would have a much more solid case seeing as everything that was read off came directly from their book. This isn't like "who owns the concept of space marine shoulder pads?" but "did the defendant read from this book and present information within in a manner that does not constitute fair use?".

And when it comes to fair use it's not even like GW is the worst offender out there. Video game companies, music publishers and the film industry are far worse about "fair use". I was watching a review last night and they actually pointed out that Squaresoft C&D anyone who even plays PART of the song from Kingdom Hearts 2 even if it's being done in a manner that constitutes fair use.

**Absolutionis**

CaulynDarr wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.

The entire existence of copyright is literally a limit to free speech/press in order to prevent financial harm. Whether you morally agree with the concept of "copyright" is irrelevant.

**CaulynDarr**

ClockworkZion wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".

To be fair, GW is British, they don't have the 1st Amendment and are protected by British laws not American ones.

...And 40K Radio is in the US, so they get protection from US law.

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

I could be convicted of wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday in Belguim. It may even be true, but the authorities in Belgium would still have to petition the US courts to do anything about it. In which case a US judge would say that it's Mr.Darr's constitutional right to wear brown shoes, so get bent Belgium. I would just have to keep Belgium off my travel itinerary,

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
Absolutionis wrote:
CaulynDarr wrote:
R3con wrote:

Your right to free speech ends at the point in which you are financially harming a company, like reading off all the points and rules of a codex.

I don't remember anything in the 1st amendment about "except when it hurts companies financially".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Speech_owned_by_others

You cannot claim "Free Speech" to breach copyright. Legal precedent overrides any absolute claims you make assume by simply reading an amendment.

Read what I replied to, before hitting the quote button. Financial harm is a really really really really bad measure of the barrier of free speech. You are reading too much into it if your thing that I said that there is no barrier to free speech.
The entire existence of copyright is literally a limit to free speech/press in order to prevent financial harm. Whether you morally agree with the concept of "copyright" is irrelevant.

...of a certain limit category of financial harm that related primarily to ownership. Again, not ALL financial harm, and even in that category not all instances.

**ClockworkZion**

CaulynDarr wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Not from lawsuits! This isn't even a supreme court case, this is a "stop revealing all the stuff in our new products in a manner that doesn't constitute a review".

40k Radio hasn't once "reviewed" a book, nor pretended too, they came out and said "here's everything in the book verbatim". Reviews are protected speech, but they can't even claim protection on that level because there was nothing there that was either to review or even parody the material (which would have been protected forms of speech).

I could be convicted of wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday in Belguim. It may even be true, but the authorities in Belgium would still have to petition the US courts to do anything about it. In which case a US judge would say that it's Mr.Darr's constitutional right to wear brown shoes, so get bent Belgium. I would just have to keep Belgium off my travel itinerary,

The thing you're missing I think is that I was referencing the US's "Fair Use" Laws, which 40k Radio does not mean the definitions of, thus meaning they'd just get bent over the witness box and taken for all they're worth.

**Zweischneid**

azreal13 wrote:

If all that is discussed are rules and mechanics, which appear to be largely unprotected, what you have there is a distinction without a difference.

Not really. Apples and Oranges.

Game Mechanics are hard to copyright, that is true. If they release a new wargame - RomeroRadio Warfare for 28mm Tabletop Mayhem - and it's rules (though not the iconic and fluffy parts) are remarkably similar to a popular Wargame by GW, it'd be hard to make a case.

If they "leak" new rules for Warhammer 40.000 Imperial Fists specifically to freely distribute the copyrighted information inside a Games Workshop Warhammer 40.000 Supplement on Imperial Fist, I would guess you might get a very different ruling, even if it's "the rules" from that book they "leaked".

**Brother Weasel**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Brother Weasel wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that you have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want...

It also doesn't give you freedom from the repercussions of exercising said speech.

Indeed...

The government can't infringe on your right, but people can, DakkaDakka can tell you not to say something... (getting a little of topic here of course) it also doesnt' stop you from getting punched in the nose (though then you go to assault laws)