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**

Brother Weasel wrote:
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)

To put it another way:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

**Buzzsaw**

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I don't think you quite grasp my point: "point costs and rules mechanics are not generally protect-able under US Copyright law".

If point costs are not protect-able, you can just read them out of the book. This is not Fair Use; fair use is a defense to Copyright infringement. If the material is not protect-able, the issue of a defense never arises.

**Kilkrazy**

R3con wrote:
chris_valera wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
No, but if you read out whole sections of the book she/her publishing company would. It is a question of where the line is.

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

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.

GW have to prove financial harm.

**Medium of Death**

Has the suggested Battlefoam link been expanded on?

Has the content of the letter been expanded on?

It's all very vague.

**fishy bob**

Medium of Death wrote:
Has the suggested Battlefoam link been expanded on?

I'd like to know more about this too.

Also, can someone provide a source that point costs are actually part of rule mechanics and thus not protectable?

**weeble1000**

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.

IANAL, but I expect that the Court's would turn a slanty eye on reading off all rules (even rephrased) in a rulebook. It smacks of dickery, and dickery tends to get looked at more closely. Believe it or not, concepts of equity and fairness are pretty strong in the justice system, for good and ill.

There could very well be some case law or whatnot on this particular point, although things like unlicensed online versions of boggle, scrabble, and similar tend to demonstrate that you can even take a game wholesale and reproduce it, with exactly the same rules, the same layout, etc.

Again, I didn't listen to the podcast, but there's probably something that would allow one to at least present a prima facie case of copyright infringement. As I said, I don't know the case law on this particular point, but there must be some.

**Zweischneid**

ClockworkZion wrote:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

Where the hell did I put my Die Hard 3 Blue Ray... need it now!!

**alphaecho**

Zweischneid wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

You're free to walk into the middle Harlem and yell out a racial slur as loud as you can. You're also free to run like hell as they try to beat the crap out of you.

Where the hell did I put my Die Hard 3 Blue Ray... need it now!!

The film-makers weren't stupid. The board said "I hate everyone". It was digitally altered to the other word after filming. There are times when discretion applies to free speech.

**Buzzsaw**

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

IANAL, but I expect that the Court's would turn a slanty eye on reading off all rules (even rephrased) in a rulebook. It smacks of dickery, and dickery tends to get looked at more closely. Believe it or not, concepts of equity and fairness are pretty strong in the justice system, for good and ill.

There could very well be some case law or whatnot on this particular point, although things like unlicensed online versions of boggle, scrabble, and similar tend to demonstrate that you can even take a game wholesale and reproduce it, with exactly the same rules, the same layout, etc.

Again, I didn't listen to the podcast, but there's probably something that would allow one to at least present a prima facie case of copyright infringement. As I said, I don't know the case law on this particular point, but there must be some.

Heh, while I am a lawyer, I also didn't listen to the podcast. Certainly reading the book straight out without any paraphrasing would be a violation. There is probably a better case then Feist, but I'm not up on it, and so it probably goes to specific facts (which neither of us knows about,

). Certainly in the case of recipies the protection is very, very thin indeed.

As a matter of equity the case is even more complicated, since usually a party that comes to a court asking for equity ought to have clean hands. And GW, well...

**Motograter**

Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

**Brother Weasel**

Motograter wrote:
Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

They probably don't know about that case, nor would they look at it unless it applied to the current case.

**nkelsch**

Brother Weasel wrote:
Motograter wrote:
Be surprised if any serious major us court take gw seriously anymore after the chapter house debacle

They probably don't know about that case, nor would they look at it unless it applied to the current case.

And courts take cases seriously based upon the case. This isn't Mayberry courts where Andy is just letting Otis sleep it off in the jail and ignoring Gomer Pyle because he saw a ghost. They are not going to ignore GW simply because what some angry people on the internet think about one case.

And GW was not found at all to be frivolous... and even if the lawyer GW had did some shady things, that reflects more upon the lawyer than the company hiring the lawyer. If they were in a different jurisdiction with a new lawyer, not sure why 'any major US court' wouldn't take them seriously and hear the case impartially based upon the facts.

**H.B.M.C.**

Panic wrote:
yeah,
Like Beasts and CrapterHouse... these guys say they love 40K yet they ignore the rules set down by GW.

So basically more people doing what they know they shouldn't do.

As far as I'm aware, the rules you speak of don't go:

"First rule of Games Workshop - you don't talk about Games Workshop. Second rule of Games Workshop - you do not talk about Games Workshop!"

No one's breaking any rules here. It's just a big fish trying to push smaller fish around.

**timetowaste85**

nkelsch wrote:
weeble1000 wrote:

The business model of Mantic is to do everything they wished GW would have allowed them to do, and surprise surprise, it has been a pretty significant success. It just astounds me that GW shoved those people out of the door only to see them set up shop across the street and chew into the company's market share. And for all intents and purposes, Mantic is immune to legal hassling from Games Workshop. Not only does Mantic have money, but it is a practical impossibility to take a spurious suit against a man who used to run the design studio where the allegedly infringed artwork was created.

"Well, let me tell you my first hand experience about Games Workshop, its policies, its contracts with artists, and describe for you what is in fact protected expression in artistic works of my own creation, tell you precisely what sources I did in fact consult to create those works, and provide my expert opinion about why my products do not infringe."

You call selling products sight-unseen at a super deep discount which is equally reliant on 'removing critical thought' from the purchase and then producing substandard sculpts out of shoddy material in a poorly casted way 'different' from GW?

Both companies don't have a product which withstands critical thought and suffers from having more time to investigate and reason decisions. GW suffers from previews because they don't want you to put off buying this months release in favor for next months release. Mantic suffers from having terrible consistency and art direction and hiding models months after they are finished being sculpted because they don't want people to see how bad they are and are afraid people will change their minds. I have yet to find people in real life who play mantic games or were happy with the models they got from any kickstarter from them. I am sure they exist, but they just don't seem to be real life people and the internet is an echo chamber of fanbois and shills.

PP is the respectable company. They make products, they share greens and WIPs, they let people know months in advanced and make models which customers can choose to buy or not buy with all the information available to them, and they *STILL* sell products. They support the models with a good game. This is the 'make a product people want and you will sell it.'

Mantic and GW both rely on tricking customers and removing critical thought to increase sales and it works for them so they keep doing it. People get mad but obviously not enough to impact their sales so why change? Dumb people's money is equally as good as smart people's money so if someone is going to buy an army they don't want due to the 'hype' and then buy a second army 4 months later because it is 'what they really wanted' why change to a model which allows someone to compare and buy less product?

Gotta be honest, I've gotten 5 other people to try Kings of War, and 4 of them think it's a stronger game than WHFB. The fifth player also really enjoyed it. I've also gotten in a game of it with Porkuslime when I went to Ohio for a work trip. Your experience has been poor, but I've had decent success with it. 5 players may sound small, but WHFB wasn't exactly a hugely played game in my area before, so when all the players who do play prefer KoW, that says something, right? Have I seen much in the way of Mantic being sold? No. And it's a shame. Their rules are spot on, but their models are hit and miss to a majority of players. I'll even admit, restic can be frustrating to work with, as a lot of stuff has to be heated and cooled into place. But I like the look of lots of stuff, even things others hate (love the trolls, MaAs need a lot of help, but work if you're willing to do it. Shouldn't have been like that though). I also love X-Wing, and FFG's release policy rocks. Plenty of companys get it right, GW can't afford to keep getting it wrong. It's one of the reasons I barely touch GW games anymore.

**Kroothawk**

ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Nice to know. Can you also tell us, if you are from North, Central or South America? And if from North America, which country

**d-usa**

Another thing to consider is the Gaming Saloon.

They are a retailer of GW products and GW does have some additional options based on that.

Sound familiar to another recent GW action to another blog/podcast and their associated retail outlet.

**jonolikespie**

Kilkrazy wrote:
R3con wrote:
chris_valera wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
No, but if you read out whole sections of the book she/her publishing company would. It is a question of where the line is.

There is no line, it is clearly a free speech issue.

If GW cares that much, they should clamp down on rumors.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

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.

GW have to prove financial harm.

Which GW would never be able to do since they don't do anything like market research.

**ClockworkZion**

Kroothawk wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Nice to know. Can you also tell us, if you are from North, Central or South America? And if from North America, which country

North America, the belligerent country with severe self-entitlement issues.

**Azreal13**

Zweischneid wrote:
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".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

**nkelsch**

azreal13 wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
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".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

You don't 'Copyright' rule mechanics, you CAN copyright an 'expression' of a rule mechanic which would protect a publication and prevents people from copying your ruleset in whole by duplicating the publication. If they want to 'clone' your game, they have to do it in a completely new expression which would result in writing it from scratch. If you don't have a patent on your mechanic, then as long as they don't duplicate your 'expression' of your rules, then they are not infringing.

A narration of your publication is copyright infringement if not falling under fair use. Simply being a supposed 'news organization' doesn't defacto make it fair use, doing a review doesn't make it fair use and being a publication of game mechanics which are not patentable doesn't make it fair use or invalidate the copyright on the publication.

If they did a straight read through of the codex, then they were infringing and have to prove 'fair use'. Being rules doesn't make the copyright invalid.

**Ouze**

ClockworkZion wrote:
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).

Why are you lying?

I just downloaded the review to listen to it (Episode 66, you can download it right now for free, pt1 here) and it clearly contains significant review elements.

From 29:33 to 37:15 they talk about Centurions, specifically how Grav weapons work; describing when it would be "brutal" (space marines) or when it's not worth taking (Orks), and whether or not it's worth the points to take them on the Centurions ("so awesome", what they took out during the course of a game) and how best to employ them (as a defensive bubble), and what can be used to counteract them (Sternguard with combi-plas, avoiding them, etc) and the problems with the unit (Slow and Purposeful) and so on. They then move on to say that the assault ones are probably not worth fielding because they are too hard to use/get in range, etc.

They then go on to talk about the new Tigurius and at that point I stopped listening because my interest in listening to podcasts about 40K is nearly nonexistant. I was just curious to see if what you posted was true (it was not), or if you totally made it up (you did).

**Azreal13**

nkelsch wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Zweischneid wrote:
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".

So you're contending that an online news site, who, for the sake of this discussion we will assume, did nothing illegal in obtaining the info they shared, and that info was in itself "hard to copyright" and absolutely completely relevant to its target audience still did something wrong?

Other ones got bells on dude.

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

You don't 'Copyright' rule mechanics, you CAN copyright an 'expression' of a rule mechanic which would protect a publication and prevents people from copying your ruleset in whole by duplicating the publication. If they want to 'clone' your game, they have to do it in a completely new expression which would result in writing it from scratch. If you don't have a patent on your mechanic, then as long as they don't duplicate your 'expression' of your rules, then they are not infringing.

A narration of your publication is copyright infringement if not falling under fair use. Simply being a supposed 'news organization' doesn't defacto make it fair use, doing a review doesn't make it fair use and being a publication of game mechanics which are not patentable doesn't make it fair use or invalidate the copyright on the publication.

If they did a straight read through of the codex, then they were infringing and have to prove 'fair use'. Being rules doesn't make the copyright invalid.

You'll note my use of quotation marks? That's because I was using Zwei's words in my response to him. I'm quite aware that copyright isn't the correct terminology (but would concede I'd get out of my depth fairly quickly with the ins and outs) but I'm not entirely sure there is anything unique enough about 40K to be patentable? What's different about it to any other game that isn't just a variation on pre existing methods and mechanisms? Turning a card through 90 degrees to show that its resource had been used for a turn was something very specific and with a narrow scope, which is why that (I assume) was given a patent.

The fact is, they didn't do a straight read through of the codex, but included significant detail in a critical setting. (Ie they talked about the rules the about their likely impact on the game in general, whether it was good, bad, situational etc..)

**weeble1000**

Buzzsaw wrote:

Heh, while I am a lawyer, I also didn't listen to the podcast. Certainly reading the book straight out without any paraphrasing would be a violation. There is probably a better case then Feist, but I'm not up on it, and so it probably goes to specific facts (which neither of us knows about, ). Certainly in the case of recipies the protection is very, very thin indeed.

As a matter of equity the case is even more complicated, since usually a party that comes to a court asking for equity ought to have clean hands. And GW, well...

Yea...Feist may be apropos, but it isn't facts we are dealing with, though systems are as equally unprotectable as facts. I guess the arrangement of the rules could constitute protected expression, but even then, would reading only the rulesy parts off, even in the order as arranged, constitute infringement? I mean, omitting the non-rulesy parts could constitute re-arrangement, and I seriously doubt that the podcast straight up relates the rules without rearrangement. That would have been the most boring podcast in the world...ever. "Space Marine Chaplin, Weapon Skill 5, Ballistic Skill 4, Strength 4...Space Marine Librarian, Weapon Skill 5..."

I didn't listen to it but...that couldn't have happened...right?

The most peg-hangy thing would probably be things like character names, and 40K is a registered GW mark, so...that's some vulnerability there.

**Ouze**

weeble1000 wrote:
I mean, omitting the non-rulesy parts could constitute re-arrangement, and I seriously doubt that the podcast straight up relates the rules without rearrangement. That would have been the most boring podcast in the world...ever. "Space Marine Chaplin, Weapon Skill 5, Ballistic Skill 4, Strength 4...Space Marine Librarian, Weapon Skill 5..."

I didn't listen to it but...that couldn't have happened...right?

No, it did not. They give away points costs and rules functionality but not in the original form, to the extent I listened to it, and did so within the format or a play-by-play review. It's 119mb if you want to listen to it.

**weeble1000**

nkelsch wrote:

First of all... "Rule Mechanics" fall under 'Patents' which are usually not granted for games... but it is a patentable thing which can be protected. Wizards *OWNS* the patent of "tapping" and it is a valid patent and a protectable game mechanic.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=960C6443F55E3C322541D46D0E8747BC.espacenet_levelx_prod_6?CC=US&NR=5662332A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19970902&DB=&&locale=en_EP

Though never successfully enforced or tested in court. That sucker is ripe for invalidation. And Azrael, the USPTO will grant a patent on toast and ham sandwiches, so don't hurt your brain trying to figure out why something made it through the patent office.

**Azreal13**

Deal!

**ClockworkZion**

Ouze wrote:
Why are you lying?

I just downloaded the review to listen to it (Episode 66, you can download it right now for free, pt1 here) and it clearly contains significant review elements.

From 29:33 to 37:15 they talk about Centurions, specifically how Grav weapons work; describing when it would be "brutal" (space marines) or when it's not worth taking (Orks), and whether or not it's worth the points to take them on the Centurions ("so awesome", what they took out during the course of a game) and how best to employ them (as a defensive bubble), and what can be used to counteract them (Sternguard with combi-plas, avoiding them, etc) and the problems with the unit (Slow and Purposeful) and so on. They then move on to say that the assault ones are probably not worth fielding because they are too hard to use/get in range, etc.

They then go on to talk about the new Tigurius and at that point I stopped listening because my interest in listening to podcasts about 40K is nearly nonexistant. I was just curious to see if what you posted was true (it was not), or if you totally made it up (you did).

They explained the mechanics of the rules in explicit detail to include points costs, FOC swapping abilities, which Warlord traits have which rules (in order), which relics have what rules and how much they cost.

Even trying to claim they were "reviewing" the codex (which there are much better ways to do it which don't violate Fair Use) they exceeded any protection Fair Use could give them. You can accuse me of lying if you want (which I'm not, I listened the the same show too and they didn't even present the notion that it was even intended to be a review) but the fact remains they violated what constitutes Fair Use of a published and copy-written document. Regardless if individual mechanics are protectable, they provided enough material that anyone could easily play the game without purchasing the product. That is a big "no go" when it comes to fair use.

Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review and frankly it wasn't a review it was a leak of an unreleased codex they had on a tablet (yeah, they bragged about having that by the way). They screwed up all the way here.

**Asherian Command**

Its like citing a source on a paper, if you cite the source you will not get sued no matter what.

**Ouze**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Get your facts straight before you accuse people of being dishonest next time. What they did can't be protected by fair use as a review, they never claimed it was any kind of review.

We're talking about the show "New Space Marines Codex Review Part 1. Aug 15th (Show 66)", right? That's the one they never claimed was any kind of review? Tell me more.

**ClockworkZion**

Asherian Command wrote:
Its like citing a source on a paper, if you cite the source you will not get sued no matter what.

Not quite. For example if you use an unedited clip from a movie there are limits of how long it can be uncut. Even if I say "I'm reviewing Rambo III" and then just give you nearly the entire movie without cutting much, if anything, out of it, that's still enough for the company that owns Rambo III to nail my ass to the wall.

Similarly I can't just read you "most" of the Chamber of Secrets unfiltered and claim it to be Fair Use. I can read small sections, summarize, even give my thoughts on it but there has to be more than a verbatim presentation of the material in the book from start to end.

By presenting as much material as they did, and how they did (not to mention admitting to owning a digital copy of a codex that wasn't out yet and they were aware of it being unavailable for purchase making them a possible accessory to it's theft and/or piracy) they exceeded the kinds of protection you claim from Fair Use. Fair Use is supposed to be a shield to keep people from being sued for talking about things unjustly, not a way to present enough of an experience that it replaces the material, especially when it makes you money from it (all those lovely sponsors who help pay for the episodes for instance).