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 are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

If by the other list maker guy you mean the website, it was using GW art and not just rules. Also Battlescribe keeps a level of separation, they don't create the datafiles (the part that contains the rules) so GW would have to go after the forum members who post the files.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

GW has to care about legal grounds, they can't just go after anyone. In this case, battlescribe hasn't used any GW assets to make their program or site. This makes a big difference. GW could still attempt to argue that the program is made specifically to utilise files that contain their assets... but it would be far from an open shut case like the others were.

 Purifier wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

GW has to care about legal grounds, they can't just go after anyone. In this case, battlescribe hasn't used any GW assets to make their program or site. This makes a big difference. GW could still attempt to argue that the program is made specifically to utilise files that contain their assets... but it would be far from an open shut case like the others were.

Rules are assets. The indexes themselves say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers."

So unless GW have given them permission to re-create the rules digitally, they are infringing on their copyright. By not C&Ding them after being made aware (which I have been told they are), they will lose the right to protect those copyrights.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

GW has to care about legal grounds, they can't just go after anyone. In this case, battlescribe hasn't used any GW assets to make their program or site. This makes a big difference. GW could still attempt to argue that the program is made specifically to utilise files that contain their assets... but it would be far from an open shut case like the others were.

Rules are assets. The indexes themselves say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers."

So unless GW have given them permission to re-create the rules digitally, they are infringing on their copyright. By not C&Ding them after being made aware (which I have been told they are), they will lose the right to protect those copyrights.

Battlescribe doesn't have any rules in the program.

Battlescribe is a framework. It would be like suing Microsoft for having Excel, because some people add points costs to excel documents and share them.

 Purifier wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

GW has to care about legal grounds, they can't just go after anyone. In this case, battlescribe hasn't used any GW assets to make their program or site. This makes a big difference. GW could still attempt to argue that the program is made specifically to utilise files that contain their assets... but it would be far from an open shut case like the others were.

Rules are assets. The indexes themselves say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers."

So unless GW have given them permission to re-create the rules digitally, they are infringing on their copyright. By not C&Ding them after being made aware (which I have been told they are), they will lose the right to protect those copyrights.

Battlescribe doesn't have any rules in the program.

I'm not talking about Battlescribe, read the topic title.

In this case, though, who do they go after? The makers of Battlesxcribe aren't using any GW assets. It's a load of anonymous "freelancers" on Github that are doing that. Presumably GW have weighed the cost of tracking them all down against the expected return and decided it doesn't make sense.

Also, you don't understand copyright. Trade marks have to be actively defended or they can be deemed "genericised" (for example, sellotape, heroin). With copyright, the copyright owner can decide who they want to pursue. Of course, copyright only protects the words used to express an idea, not the idea itself, but that doesn't really apply here since Battlescribe data files tend to copy GW's text word-for-word.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


I'm not talking about Battlescribe, read the topic title.

Why haven't the battlescribe data makers been C&Ded yet?

 Blacksails wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


I'm not talking about Battlescribe, read the topic title.

Why haven't the battlescribe data makers been C&Ded yet?

I'm talking about the 40k data makers, not battlescribe itself.

I doubt GW have the time or resources to go after all of the data producers.

I'm guessing they are just letting it slide.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


I'm not talking about Battlescribe, read the topic title.

Why haven't the battlescribe data makers been C&Ded yet?

I'm talking about the 40k data makers, not battlescribe itself.

Oh, so what you actually meant was 'Don't read the topic title', gotcha.

The title is correct (apart from perhaps being " ... Battlescribe data file makers ...". The people who create Battlescribe data files are not affiliated with makers of the Battlescribe program itself. An approach also taken by Wolf's Lair Development with their Army Builder software.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The title is correct (apart from perhaps being " ... Battlescribe data file makers ...". The people who create Battlescribe data files are not affiliated with makers of the Battlescribe program itself. An approach also taken by Wolf's Lair Development with their Army Builder software.

Thanks for the clarification.

It does seem odd though, doesn't it? Is that just a means to protect themselves in case GW did decide to go legal happy?

Partly, I assume. More likely, though, it's to make the program more useful. If the data files were done in-house, then they'd need to buy a copy of every miniatures game and spend time coding them up. Outsource it and you can get a load of other people to do the work (for free! why bother paying wages when you can fool people into working for free? ) for hundreds of games simultaneously.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The title is correct (apart from perhaps being " ... Battlescribe data file makers ...". The people who create Battlescribe data files are not affiliated with makers of the Battlescribe program itself. An approach also taken by Wolf's Lair Development with their Army Builder software.

Thanks for the clarification.

It does seem odd though, doesn't it? Is that just a means to protect themselves in case GW did decide to go legal happy?

It's also a very good way to support many games with a single program. It's actually a good design practice to separate the data from the tool that processes it.
In addition, the data can be created/ maintained by the community. Typically, a person will work on a small number of factions, and the other factions will be done by other people. That way it's faster, and the people doing the work know the armies better.

What baffles me is why Army Builder is enforcing a 30 day embargo on datafiles after a publication, when Battlescribe files are available even before publication... One of the reasons (outside of cost) that drove me away from AB.

The embargo is probably their concession to GW's legal team.
It forces people who would have used Army Builder as a replacement to a codex to go and get a copy.
Or something.

1) It's not worth their time to go after people making the data files, since these are just random people contributing to a github. You can't feasibly shut this down.

2) Rules are not copyright-able. While the files that are out there are probably technically actionable, slightly-reworded versions would not be, and so it's not really worth bothering.

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

xmbk wrote:
Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Flames=pretty.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
They are doing the exact same thing as the other list maker guy was but they remain untouched. Doesn't this seem just a little hypocritical and could cost GW their copyrights if they don't fight them?

GW has to care about legal grounds, they can't just go after anyone. In this case, battlescribe hasn't used any GW assets to make their program or site. This makes a big difference. GW could still attempt to argue that the program is made specifically to utilise files that contain their assets... but it would be far from an open shut case like the others were.

Rules are assets. The indexes themselves say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers."

So unless GW have given them permission to re-create the rules digitally, they are infringing on their copyright. By not C&Ding them after being made aware (which I have been told they are), they will lose the right to protect those copyrights.

No, they won't. It's trademarks that have that issue. Copyrights and patents persist whether you defend them or not (in both the US and the UK, which are the principal legal jurisdictions that apply here).

Didn't the other guys software that showed GW art and models also have a patreon to get paid for it on top of that?

Really, to function as a list builder, the AB data files only need the unit descriptions, options and points costs. No need for the unit stats or rules, because of course you have the Index or Codex right with you.

Or they just don't care as long as you aren't using art, because scrollbuilder published points for AoS, which are not freely available and they incorporated it into their community page even though they have a competing product.

Perhaps GW has no interest in building their own app/program to provide this sort of list-building.

Compared to people making their own calculations and ignoring restrictions in their list building it serves the hobby as a whole to have readily available tools for building a list. GWs own attempts at building apps are outright terrible, so I do not blame whoever in charge for perhaps turning a blind eye to this community creation.

I also severely doubt GW makes any significant revenue off the index, and even codex, sales. Their bulk of revenue comes from models and related products (paints, terrain, tools, etc). As long as the tools does not use any of their other assets it makes sense to just let it be. More lists created likely equals to more armies being played, and more armies being played will likely lead to more models getting sold.

The issue with that website was twofold. it hosted the data directly and published it ie points were done by the developers. the other was use of GW owned artwork, sure it looked nice to show units and numbers of units but GW owns that and really I think this more than anything is what forced the cease and dissist.

going after battlescribe would be like going after Microsoft because somebody built a spreadsheet with it. They are a data creation/review tool and people have created data for hundreds of games and chosen to share their work. GW is unlikely to go after hundreds of fans making data files knowing others would step in and the backlash from the community would be potentially severe

The use of Games Workshop's pictures and logos was simply the means by which they could shut Army Builder down. It was the fact that they were asking for money that provided GW the motivation.

The battlescribe data files are fan-made and fan-maintained. Anybody can copy them off the repository and tweak or fix them, and as a direct consequence of that there's not reasonable expectation of consistent source control. That means Battlescribe is, intrinsically, unable to serve as a codex replacement; its simply too prone to errors, too vulnerable to tampering- its only really good for a quick and easy calculator when brainstorming new list ideas.

(No, but seriously. Once you settle on a list in battlescribe always go over the books my hand and make sure.)

Basically the guys making battlescribe and the guys making the data files have been very careful to avoid attracting GW's ire, while the Army Builder creator was (alarmingly) less careful.

BS is pretty useful, albeit sometimes with buggy/wrong rules.

However, if the official Gw list builder comes out as practical and quick, I'll change to it in a heartbeat

It wasn't that much a case of carelessness rather than belief in the good-hearted nature of the "new GW" (believe it if you want, maybe it was too naïve...). After trying to get in contact with GW and receiving no answer from them we discussed it ("we" as we in a discussion, I had no part in the actual development of the builder) and kind of speculated that GW don't provide an answer on purpose. Any answer would've been official. If it was positive it would've opened too many gates I guess while a negative one could be sent anytime later. We thought that the silence meant they wouldn't mind the builder atleast in 7th and we hoped that 8th would come with one. That was an year ago
The builder could be used without any tm images and data, but people would had to enter their own data and xp showed that people prefer to use data that have already been processed - basically people are lazy...

Battle Scribe is an awesome tool. I am a big fan of it.

Until GW can make something similar....which I doubt they will...it will continue to thrive.

They are smart in how they set it up and how the program and data files are separate. This makes it hard to "stop" it.

The fast rate of data corrections and updated stuff makes it pretty damn reliable when making a list. Something I have not seen from any other source.