Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5

 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
You see, that is just it, I kind of have a problem with asking GW for legal advice. The truth is, if I was contacted by GW (and it would have to come from GW USA not GW UK) and they said to take all of my images down, I would, and then probably replace the spaces with "I think GW sucks." That isn't slander either, that is my opinion. So sure they would be retaining their IP, but they would have lost me as a customer and my site as a way of expanding the hobby. Most of my site's visitors come looking mostly for Japanimation, but I was always thinking I was doing GW a favor by posting stuff about their game.

Well, I guess we will wait and see. To be honest I could really care less if I had to take the stuff down or not. It doesn't do anything for my ego to keep it up.

And Jimbo, I see quotes published all the time from all sorts of sources. You might be right on the whole mp3 thing (and I am not convinced file sharing is wrong), but to mention something in written form cannot be that much different than word of mouth. Can you imagine if we were in the same room and you asked me how many points for a Land Raider detachment, and I responded with, "Sorry, you'll have to buy your own rulebook."

Maybe I'll move my site to the Ukraine or Russia (hell, they are pretty cheap too) where UK and US laws wouldn't be able to touch it. It is where the server sits I believe that decides juristiction.

This whole thing is stupid though. It only hurts GW, and if their arrogance is so great, I wish I hadn't spent so much money on their products. I would be this way with any other company.

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
The problem you have is you are confusing the law with common sense, doesn't always work that way...

Your website may well be "advertising" the GW Hobby and bringing people in, however legally it is infringing GW IP and in order to protect their IP from serious copyright infringement (such as someone copying and selling their rules) they have to protect their IP all the time regardless of the consequences such as the GW Sucks image replacement!

but to mention something in written form cannot be that much different than word of mouth.

again common sense would say so, legally they are quite different

if you photocopied your rulebook and gave it to the friend in the example you gave then you would be infringing copyright, to speak the rules is a different case and unlikely to be infringing copyright unless it was broadcast, recorded or in a public space.

I see quotes published all the time from all sorts of sources.

Though you may see this happening, doesn't mean it is legal!

I have to deal with copyright all the time in my job (and I also have to be aware of the differences between US and UK law).

I have also been the victim of copyright infringement.

A website selling rare miniatures, used one of my photographs, without permission, to sell a miniature. The miniature was selling for $150. I did not receive a penny, even though my picture was instrumental in selling the miniature!

You may not agree with me and I know I don't agree with you, therefore we must agree to differ.

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
one other thing I forgot to add...

You can not copyright or trademark game mechanics... they in theory can be patented, but you can not copyright the actual game process!

So you can (considering you re-write and use your own words) the complete rules. So posting stats and points is in fact perfectly legal, however you can't use GW IP or Trademarks to describe those stats and points!

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:04 pm 
Swarm Tyrant
Swarm Tyrant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 9348
Location: Singapore
This discussion is interesting. While it goes on, we should also remember that we are not talking about quoting a GW source, we are talking about publishing an article which has been been bought (including the copyright) by WD for a future issue here.

Anyway, I am fairly aware of the guidelines of referencing and quoting, I have to be in my job!  :D

I agree 100% with Jimbo when he says that "confusing the law with common sense, doesn't always work that way..." (Jimbo, 2004).

It would seem that we are all actually just chatting about our hobbies, bouncing ideas of each other and promoting the further participation...

In addition, there is a law that (I think) no more than 10% of a publication may be copied. And this also applies to individual articles. Therefore, stating a single rule should be OK, but more than that may be problem. I have heard stories of GW wielding the copyright law like their own personal sword, and this does not frighten me too much. There are sites that have been asked to take down artwork and they have replaced the pictures with little messages.

In addition, GW do try to maintain an image. If a site appears to be official, and advocates bad language, then they may suffer by association. They probably do want to guard against that. I doubt that they could actually make a case against it. but it would certainly lead to them examining the site carefully to see if there was anything else that they could use.

I am partially sympathetic to GW, and I try to understand their point of view and position, even though they are rumoured to use the law to their advantage on occassion (I am still very sceptical about the whole 'cant sell GW online in the states because of IP laws').

To be honest, if you sat in a room and read the 40K rulebook out to me directly, that would probably be infringing copyright. Proving it in court however would be impossible.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
Quote (CyberShadow @ 25 2004 Jan.,11:04)
In addition, there is a law that (I think) no more than 10% of a publication may be copied. And this also applies to individual articles.

again not strictly true... you can do if it is for private study or research and then only if you have a licence and then only if the publication is on a specific list.

In the UK you can purchase a CLA licence if you are an educational institution which allows your students to copy one chapter (or 10% of a book or journal (from a list)) for private study or research (and it must be for educational purposes). Note that this does not cover the production of teaching materials!

So you can copy articles from The Independent under the CLA licence but not from the Guardian.

Quoting 10% of an article and posting it to a web forum most certainly would not be covered by this licence!

Therefore, stating a single rule should be OK, but more than that may be problem.

Actually you can tell us all the rules considering that you don't quote verbatim from a GW publication or use GW trademarks, as you can not copyright or trademark game mechanics or facts.

I am partially sympathetic to GW, and I try to understand their point of view and position, even though they are rumoured to use the law to their advantage on occassion (I am still very sceptical about the whole 'cant sell GW online in the states because of IP laws').

Again this is a misinterpretation, the actual line was that you can't use GW pictures on your online stores, customers can still purchase GW miniatures online in the US, you just can't use their pictures in your online store (or eBay auction).

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
Fascinating. :o

It's like walking in a minefield.

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
IPR and copyright is a real minefield...

for example (and these are based o UK law) if you video a tv programme, you can watch it later, but you must then "wipe" the tape you are not "allowed" to keep the copy!

If you purchase a DVD or CD you have not purchased a copy of the film or album you have merely purchased a licence to view or listen to it in your own home.

Of course it is not all mines... check out Creative Commons for an interesting variant on copyright law (US only, none of the licences would hold up in a UK court of law). The white stripes example in the video makes for interesting viewing.

http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/getcreative/

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
Nice flash movie! I love Jack White. I saw the White Stripes twice in three days last summer and they were both amazing shows. Recommend everyone go see them. It doesn't surprise me that he said ok to the Steve's revisions, he's pretty down to earth. Very smart too. Realistically, how would he stop Steve from doing what he was doing anyway? How could Jack stop me from doing it in my living room, and then playing it for my friends?

Maybe I just have a laid back approach to it all. I have had people email me for permission to use stuff that was actually mine on my website, and my response was don't even ask, just take whatever you want. I have seen images that I have scanned appear on Ebay, as well as the descriptions I made on the site posted there to EXACTLY as it is on my site. I don't care. I actually think it is funny. Flattering maybe. The point is if someone makes a cool million off something I did, good for them. I really don't care.

You mentioned filesharing. The vast majority of bands get paid $X UPFRONT, lets say $250,000 to make an album. The band uses that money for studio time, lawyers, etc etc merchandise, all usually provided by or recommended by the recording company. Once an album is released, it hurts the recording company the most, as the band has usually made all they will make unless they are contracted further, which is rare. The band's real hope for making money lies in touring, and many times if they don't draw big crowds, they rely on the sale of the merchandise at shows to keep the tour going. I have seen this all first hand so I know a little bit about it. That being said, I have ZERO sympathy for the record exes, the RIAA, or anyone else who makes big money off the bands hard work. Jack White actually produces his own stuff, as well as Whirlwind Heat, the band that opens for them, so he is actually smart about the whole process.

And $250,000 might sound like a lot of money, but truthfully, but the time it is all said in done, I have seen bands owe $10,000 or more from the merchandise they had made.

I don't really know who is to blame, the record execs who make a good deal for themselves and screw the band, or the band who is just trying to get their name out there. But I do know for sure that if you want to reward a band for the music they play, buying the CD is a tiny bit compared to seeing them on tour. I am glad file sharing is screwing the foundation of the music industry because it does need an enema. I-tunes, or whatever. . . please. You don't even need Kaza to distribute files, you can do it right in MSN Messenger! Now no one but Microsoft would actually see it if they were paying attention. I think it is great. It doesn't hurt the bands as much as it is hurting the companies, which I am totally for. I'd like to see the entire industry get rebuilt.

Well, now back to GW. If GW wasn't so hardheaded they could be everyone's favorite company. Maybe I haven't seen some examples in court where they have had to defend themselves. I remember a long time ago I bought some minis of some robots that looked a lot like terminators to use for custom mechs in Battletech, and I heard later the company got sued because they looked too much like GW's stuff. Truthfully, GW's terminators were much much better than these minis. That kind of annoyed me a little. They weren't direct copies, but you could see GW influenced the design.

Imagine if Orcs, Elves and Dwarves were copyrighted and own by one guy. Kind of lame if you ask me.

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
Quote (Jimbo @ 25 2004 Jan.,14:32)
Quote (CyberShadow @ 25 2004 Jan.,11:04)
In addition, there is a law that (I think) no more than 10% of a publication may be copied. And this also applies to individual articles.

again not strictly true... you can do if it is for private study or research and then only if you have a licence and then only if the publication is on a specific list.

In the UK you can purchase a CLA licence if you are an educational institution which allows your students to copy one chapter (or 10% of a book or journal (from a list)) for private study or research (and it must be for educational purposes).

I forgot to add this 10% only applies to photocopying and not electronic copying for which you need a different licence.

Quoting 10% of an article and posting it to a web forum most certainly would not be covered by this licence either!

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm
Posts: 3495
Location: Wessex
Quote (Gandalf the Grey @ 25 2004 Jan.,18:10)
It doesn't surprise me that he said ok to the Steve's revisions, he's pretty down to earth. Very smart too. Realistically, how would he stop Steve from doing what he was doing anyway? How could Jack stop me from doing it in my living room, and then playing it for my friends?

Generally though what you are doing with the White Stripes is infringing copyright, you are right though that there is very little Jack could do... however if you put those tracks on the internet or put it on a CD then Jack would (though more like may and probably wouldn't) use legal means to stop you.

Maybe I just have a laid back approach to it all. I have had people email me for permission to use stuff that was actually mine on my website, and my response was don't even ask, just take whatever you want... ... I really don't care.

You have the freedom to make that choice with your IP, however you also need to respect others who choose not to make that choice.

Once an album is released, it hurts the recording company the most, as the band has usually made all they will make unless they are contracted further, which is rare.

But the original writer of the song does get royalties from each copy sold and they do suffer from piracy.

But I do know for sure that if you want to reward a band for the music they play, buying the CD is a tiny bit compared to seeing them on tour.
totally agree

_________________
Jimbo
Felix's Gaming Pages
Felix's Gaming Pages Blog
Almost Always Right...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta
Wow - Jimbo, you're one brave minesweeper man. Thanks for the site - it may not apply everywhere, but it's interesting stuff.   :o

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:00 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:35 am
Posts: 5455
Location: Finland
Quote (vanvlak @ 25 2004 Jan.,15:55)
Fascinating. :o

It's like walking in a minefield.

More like a madhouse, actually. It's really interesting that a law usually != common sense -> many laws are in fact  _against_ common sense. And when you get to the way laws usually are interpreted it's lost all resemblance of sanity. Add to that the fact that usually it's down to "may the richest guy win" and you get a VERY pretty picture. Justice indeed... :{

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 4:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:23 pm
Posts: 789
Location: Tampa, Florida
Well, I just don't care. I mean, I really dont. The world has change completely in the last 10 years, and if companies and such don't learn to change with the times, then they are screwed. I feel no sympathy for them. Not after getting ripped off all these years. Remember the VCR was almost considered illegal? How moronic does that sound today, especially when movie studios make more money off of DVD and VHS sales than they do in the theaters?

The laws in the books can say what they want, but most of the time there is very little they can do to enforce them.  Some laws are just stupid, and maybe breaking them can get you into trouble, but it doesn't make them right. Did you know oral sex is illegal in some US states? How ridiculous is that? No one pays attention to it of course. I certainly wouldn't. If that makes me a criminal so be it. Hell, I am a repeat offender.

The funny think is how popular Kaza is (and obsolete), and how file sharer programmers are looking at the pros and cons of Kaza and making even better software to disguise what users are doing. The next big file sharer software will have everything encrypted, so no one will have any idea what is being exchanged except for the uploader and the downloader. You'll still see the IP addresses, but an outside won't have any idea what has been exchanged. Very sweet. There are already a ton of file sharing apps the hackers use that aren't obviously as common that do a killer job as well. The industry is wasting their time trying to fight it the way they are. If they IRAA wasn't suing 12 year old girls or 65 year old grandpas I would have more sympathy for them, but since they act the way that they do I feel none for them. If they had it their way, we'd still be using records.

I love it. I love the chaos of it all. You'd think I would be a die hard Epic Chaos player but I am not! I still love the Space Marines! Ultramarines at that!

_________________
Please check out my website: http://www.system17.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:50 am
Posts: 22
Firstly hello to everyone, my lurking days are over!
Does anyone know why the skullhamma and gibbletgrinda have been classed as battlewagons and not gun/battle fortresses in the collectors 'counts as' section in the rulebook.
The only reason I could think of was that the new fortress models are much bigger.

Any ideas

Steders


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Sisters of Battle army list v 1.5
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:49 am
Posts: 2830
Location: South East UK
Quote (Steders @ 04 2004 Feb.,17:30)
The only reason I could think of was that the new fortress models are much bigger.

Any ideas

Steders

That is the only reason I know of as well - any further insite Carl (or others?)

_________________
Cheers,
Paul "TuffSkull" T.
http://hobbybrush.com - My New Website, with thousands of painted Mini Pics :)
http://hobbybrush.blogspot.com - My Hobby Blog
TuffSkull's notepad- My Old Blog on Wargames Wiki.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net