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.

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

After playing well over 100 sets of rules over 30 years, I can assure you that there are no clean hands if you want to talk about ripping off rules. Largely though, rules dont sell the game. Flashy art, pretty models and interesting fluff is what 90% of the market wants. Solid rules will very rarely stand on there own, no matter how well they are written.

The art, fluff and sculpting all do fall under copyright protections though to varying degrees.

Peregrine, GW is not my concern.

I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

It's not just the gaming industry. Free flow of information/building on what others did has been pretty important to the development of civilization since around the time man discovered how to make fire (overly exaggerated, yes). If you think the gaming industry is pretty cut throat about all this, you should read up on Tesla and Edison, not to mention every person that has ever seen something and gone "That's pretty good, but I could make it better," and then proceeds to do so.

Edit - You also have to take into account one other thing when it comes to "rip offs" consumer demand. If there is a demand for a product, someone will produce it, they might not have thought of it, but that has very little bearing on anything. While this seems to be dragging a bit off topic, look at things like Printer Paper/notebooks/ball point pens, or other items that are used every day. No one seems to get their panties twisted about there being hundreds (maybe thousands) of manufacturers that are producing the same items, with the same basic design for these.

alphaecho wrote:
I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

Again, sufficiently unique mechanics can be patented. Not-sufficiently-unique mechanics aren't worth copying.

 derek wrote:

It's not just the gaming industry. Free flow of information/building on what others did has been pretty important to the development of civilization since around the time man discovered how to make fire (overly exaggerated, yes). If you think the gaming industry is pretty cut throat about all this, you should read up on Tesla and Edison, not to mention every person that has ever seen something and gone "That's pretty good, but I could make it better," and then proceeds to do so.

Edit - You also have to take into account one other thing when it comes to "rip offs" consumer demand. If there is a demand for a product, someone will produce it, they might not have thought of it, but that has very little bearing on anything. While this seems to be dragging a bit off topic, look at things like Printer Paper/notebooks/ball point pens, or other items that are used every day. No one seems to get their panties twisted about there being hundreds (maybe thousands) of manufacturers that are producing the same items, with the same basic design for these.

On the one hand free flow of information helps innovation, but equally innovators need to be able to be sure they can profit from there work. That is the whole point in the patents system. The system may be broken at the moment, but basis of it is right, to protect innovators to let them profit from there work in the early years but allow free flow of information later. There may be hundreds of ball point pen makers now, but in its early years there was a number of patents.

Now, non of this applies to game mechanics, however, there is a question as to weather stat lines and point values stop being game mechanics and start being a copyrightable intellectual property.

alphaecho wrote:
Peregrine, GW is not my concern.

I'm more concerned about a new starter's efforts being pillaged by unscrupulous types who although doing no wrong (legally) are doing wrong (from a purely moral, no legal standing viewpoint).

From this thread and the Chapterhouse case, it appears a virtual carbon copy of someone else's rules and design aesthetic could be pumped out by a leech. We can't pretend that if someone of that mindset thinks they could get away with it, that they won't try it.

Rules, yes, design aesthetic perhaps and perhaps not, depending on how genuinely original that aesthetic may be.

If you read the 100+ pages of cross-examination on the design concept of the "near future soldier" given during the preamble to the GW versus Chapter House case, it will give you an insight into the possible arguments around a design aesthetic.

However there are hundreds of free wargame rule-sets available. Any game must compete with those for a start, so a low price strategy is probably not going to be successful. Thus, a good set of rules rather than just a carbon copy of an existing set, is more likely to succeed.

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

Do I understand correctly they hold a patent (in part at least) on the action of rotating a card 90 degrees?

Peregrine, Kilcrazy.

These are all good points being made, but it is the apparent lack of protection of someone's hard work that bothers me.

We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

alphaecho wrote:
We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

We're veering off point aren't we?

No "theft" occurred here. All we have is some people discussing a book on a pod-cast, and a company bullying them to stop them talking about their products. That's it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
We all cheer about Chapterhouse winning the majority of the case against GW but would we be happy to see a "Chapterhouse/ Microart/ Puppet's War" level of company feeding off (stealing from if we're not being polite) the ideas/ design of someone who has put a lot of effort into developing something new?

We're veering off point aren't we?

No "theft" occurred here. All we have is some people discussing a book on a pod-cast, and a company bullying them to stop them talking about their products. That's it.

We have some people reading word-for-word whole sections of a book on a pod-cast. That's quite a bit different to simply "discussing" it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that discussing rules is made somewhat easier when you can read them out.

OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Well, I'm not going to do that, but good point, sure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Good old HBMC... Anyone who disagrees with your view that anything GW dose is wrong is a White Knight. Have you ever thought that perhaps some people who disagree with you have valid arguments? Probably not, but then you will probably now accuse me of the same.

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
So, someone could lift 40K's entire game mechanism and stats, set it in WWII and relabel things,for example autogun now becomes Lee Enfield, and GW could do nothing about it? Of course, Space Marine would have to become British Commandoes but I'm just biased.

Apologies if I'm being simplistic but as a result of GW's actions I'm regularly finding out that things that people think would be protectable actually aren't.

They can and do with some regularity...more often with board games than with wargames though. You can find hundreds of "not" games on Board Game Geeks, and the entire basis of Hasbro doing the Open Gaming License with the D&D rules is that they knew they couldnt protect rules and stat lines.

So the entire gaming industry is ripe for others to rip off (and I don't care whether its legal or not) the hard work of others.

After playing well over 100 sets of rules over 30 years, I can assure you that there are no clean hands if you want to talk about ripping off rules. Largely though, rules dont sell the game. Flashy art, pretty models and interesting fluff is what 90% of the market wants. Solid rules will very rarely stand on there own, no matter how well they are written.

The art, fluff and sculpting all do fall under copyright protections though to varying degrees.

It is Called Bolt Action.....It plays alot like the older 40k editions and they have better game sequence.Come on it was made by Rick Priesty and Alessio.

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

There is no lawsuit yet. GW can write a C&D letter to anyone. Even if the claims are stupid, the addressee has to decide if it is worth the time, money and effort to defend them in court.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
OK, sure. If you're comfortable defining the activity of reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose of leaking the contents to listeners as simply "Discussing the book", don't let me stop you.

What specific whole sections did they read? At what timestamp? Downloads are on the previous page.

No idea, I don't listen to 40k radio. I'm going off what other people have said.

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

I believe "I'm going off what other people have said" was me saying I don't feel like I have to go listen to the podcasts, as I'm just repeating statements that have already been established by others in the thread, on previous pages. If they're wrong, fine, I'm wrong too. That doesn't really have any bearing on what I was saying, which is that if that is what they were doing, it's a lot more complicated than simply "discussing the book". If that wasn't what 40k radio did, then it doesn't matter. Is this not all really obvious? My point wasn't what 40k radio were or weren't doing, as I have no idea, my point was that if what they were doing was X (which was an impression I got, from reading the thread) then calling it Y is oversimplification.

 Ouze wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And of course beyond that they also have accepted goods that weren't for sale at the time of their receipt meaning that they were stolen

If Gamestop sells me a game before the street date, did I steal it?

Of course not.
However if they're selling you a game months before the street date, there are going to be issues.

Hell even when it's just a week before the street date you see problems.

 Alfndrate wrote:

I believe the "downloads are on the previous page" was Ouze inviting you to actually go listen to the podcasts so you can supply the evidence to back up the "reading out whole sections of a book for the purpose..." statement that you made.

The "10-minute-podcast" of them giving out all the info from Sentinels of Terra has been removed for a while.

The older Space Marines Review is still up, so they either think they have a better case there or the C&D was specifically addressed at the Sentinels of Terra "mini-show", which went live a day or two before the C&D and is, as said, now gone.

So has 40k Radio actually shown this C&D letter? They don't give many details on their Facebook page.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I know GW likes to think it can stop people talking about points costs unless it's in a roundabout manner (X costs 30 skaven slaves/a powerfist/etc) and that they think because they put a tm on the back of the book anything in it is trademarked but presumably 40k radio acquired it in a legal manner, then spoke about it in a news/commentary show that they do right?

I have to concur. I think for purposes of review they can go into as much minutiae as they like. JK Rowling may not like people posting about how Snape killed Dumbledore, but she can't sue over it either. Not that they have, since it's just a C&D.

Not at all. Criticism and review is quite specific in the UK, as is the US law.

You could discuss the points cost when specifically reviewing the work, discussing the implications, and whether it's a well-written codex etc etc. But simply reading out the points cost isn't criticism and review. Fair dealing also covers whether you affect the commercial value of an item, and its' pretty obvious that, if you tell everyone what points costs are, that might save someone being forced to buy the book.

Got to admit I haven't listened to the 40k broadcast, but given that permitted usage is pretty specific, it sounds to me as if what's described falls well outside of that.

Actually nothing in copyright law prevents you from paraphrasing what the work said, so you could actually re-tell the harry potter story in your own words as much as you want. Much the same as you can say space marines cost 15 points (or whatever it is) as long as you are not reading verbatim from the codex.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'd disagree, but we'll end up in the weeds at this point, paticularly since very few of us are lawyers and because of this we can only argue what we think the law means, not what it actually means.

At the very least 40k Radio should rethink how they present the materials they're given in the future (assuming if they are given more in the future) to keep them out of court. They weren't particularly smart about it until now, but now GW will be watching them a lot closer so they need to be smarter about it.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that while the mechanics of the game aren't copyright-able material, the book as a whole is. That's a potentially in that GW can use to argue their case of what was presented on the show violating their copyrights and how it doesn't constitute fair use, I think. An actual lawyer who is fully versed in the particular subject would have to correct me on this though.

(b) 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.

I think that's pretty unambiguous. I would like to know if there is some case law on this particular point though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Weeble doesn't seem to think that's a homerun from his posts and I think he's well situated to speculate.

Please remember that I am not even a lawyer. I think Harper v Nation is not really on point. The issue there was entire republication, which is ipso facto copyright infringement. The only question was one of public interest. Here I think the most significant question is protectability in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dodicula wrote:



Actually nothing in copyright law prevents you from paraphrasing what the work said, so you could actually re-tell the harry potter story in your own words as much as you want. Much the same as you can say space marines cost 15 points (or whatever it is) as long as you are not reading verbatim from the codex.

Slow your roll. There you might have a problem. Copyright includes the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, which specifically includes an abridgment.

You could get away with something very much like a Harry Potter story as the scenes a faire doctrine contemplates that which is indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given subject to be outside the scope of copyright. So you could write a story about a young wizard going to wizard school with wizard friends and facing off against a powerful evil wizard who has his soul linked to Barry Cotter or something, up to a point of course.

The "art" in a story is the story itself, not the words in which it is written. The words are simply a medium of expression. The meaning conveyed by the words is what counts.

 silent25 wrote:
So has 40k Radio actually shown this C&D letter? They don't give many details on their Facebook page.

Not that I can see. Maybe on their forums? But they're members only.

Really - what am I missing here? Who honestly gives a crap about some rules being read out on a podcast? Realistically, how many players will use these as a basis to collect a force and not buy the army book they are describing? I'd hazard a guess somewhere around zero and one - therefore this whole thing is a complete waste of time and money for GW, for 40k radio, and the only thing it does is serve to illustrate GW's crass disregard for their most loyal fans.

It's got 'give the legal team something to do' written all over it, like so many other instances over recent years.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if you're going to classify what was done as somehow "illegal" and in "breach" of copyright, then... I'll let others stop you. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another bloody White Knight.

Good old HBMC... Anyone who disagrees with your view that anything GW dose is wrong is a White Knight. Have you ever thought that perhaps some people who disagree with you have valid arguments? Probably not, but then you will probably now accuse me of the same.

It's fair enough comment - I'd say pretty much all of Bull0's comments on the forum have been defending GW either with the BoW business, or now in this thread.

 Kanluwen wrote:
However if they're selling you a game months before the street date, there are going to be issues.

That's the person who sold it's problem, not 40K Radio's.

 Pacific wrote:
Really - what am I missing here? Who honestly gives a crap about some rules being read out on a podcast? Realistically, how many players will use these as a basis to collect a force and not buy the army book they are describing? I'd hazard a guess somewhere around zero and one - therefore this whole thing is a complete waste of time and money for GW, for 40k radio, and the only thing it does is serve to illustrate GW's crass disregard for their most loyal fans.

Bingo. There isn't nearly enough detail in these podcasts for a person to be able to play Codex: Space Marines without going out and fething buying Codex: Space Marines.


<---- Has listened to nearly every 40k Radio podcast since Romeo and Co took over, including the first 2 Space Marines Review podcasts.