Quijanoth
United States
Crown Point
Indiana
-
You guys realize they don't care how angry you are, right? Not trying to troll or upset anyone further, but seriously, they own the IP's, they're required to protect them in order to maintain them, and the corporation has shareholders to answer to. I'm a little surprised it took this long to hear from them. BGG is getting bigger, has "faces", and could, one day, be quite profitable if purchased by a larger media company.
As an analogy, imagine that IMDB, prior to the Amazon buyout, allowed posting of all of the outtakes, or of fanfilms on the same page as the original movie. Then they allowed "tipping" of an imaginary currency that could be used to buy cool avatars, or physical games, or even be sold. Someone else would be profiting from Hollywood efforts, then, right?
Same thing here, I think. Aldie and company are just intrepid web developers with a wicked good database right now, but two years from now, they could be the next hot new add on for some huge internet biz...
Point is, there could be profits on the horizon, and no intelligent corporate board is going to let that slip away, no matter how many fans they upset.
So, if you read the whole thing, thank you. I realize you're bummed, but it doesn't matter to GW, and the situation won't change. For what it is worth, I tend to just ignore what company makes the game, and look at what entertainment I'll get from the game itself. Might help. Have an awesome holiday weekend.
-
E r i c k N. B o u c h a r d
Canada
Stoneham
Quebec
-
It's business, indeed, and GW unlike most gaming companies is a successful one because it's ruthless, and the market has no pity for nice guys unfortunately...:(
-
Quijanoth
United States
Crown Point
Indiana
-
It honestly isn't any more ruthless than Disney or McDonalds when it comes to protecting its only source of income. I've read arguments from 'geeks saying that you cannot patent an idea. This is absolutely true. But all those "symbols of Khorne" or "lascannons" referenced in the fan-created material CAN be protected, and, as I mentioned, if they do not, they run the risk of becoming public domain.
I understand that it feels personal, but do remember that submission guidelines on this very site state that the person submitting has the right to use any copyrighted material...and if GW doesn't think fan created suppliments are within fair use, they have not only a right, but an obligation to protect their IP's.
-
-
Quijanoth wrote: ...Same thing here, I think. Aldie and company are just intrepid web developers with a wicked good database right now, but two years from now, they could be the next hot new add on for some huge internet biz...
Point is, there could be profits on the horizon, and no intelligent corporate board is going to let that slip away, no matter how many fans they upset...
So - who tipped off these guys then? 
Thanks for the post though. I'm not a big GW guy (and certainly wouldn't endeavour to be after this) but you definitely have a point. I highly doubt GW will suffer when they release their "next big game".
It's just frustrating as consumers when something relatively innocuous, created during free time, by and for fans of a game is blasted away for corporate protectionism.
The spirit and letter of the law have clearly agreed to part ways in this case!
-
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
-
Quijanoth wrote: It honestly isn't any more ruthless than Disney or McDonalds when it comes to protecting its only source of income. I've read arguments from 'geeks saying that you cannot patent an idea. This is absolutely true. But all those "symbols of Khorne" or "lascannons" referenced in the fan-created material CAN be protected, and, as I mentioned, if they do not, they run the risk of becoming public domain.
I understand that it feels personal, but do remember that submission guidelines on this very site state that the person submitting has the right to use any copyrighted material...and if GW doesn't think fan created suppliments are within fair use, they have not only a right, but an obligation to protect their IP's.
And I think the bolded/italicized part is critical..."if GW doesn't think fan created suppliments are within fair use". It's their attorney's opinion, an opinion that could eventually be challenged in court, except for the unfortunate fact that GW has deeper legal pockets than anyone that they've gone after, so the odds that anyone will be willing to spend the time and money to fight them are slim to none. I would be willing to bet that if such material were hosted on a Hasbro-owned website, GW might not be so bold, as Hasbro dwarfs GW in much the same manner that GW dwarfs those whom they've pursued. It's all about GW taking a hyper-aggressive stance to a bunch of small-time operators because they know none of these outfits has the resources to dare challenge them. In other words, it's GW bullying the small guy to brazenly expand their IP reach.
-
Quijanoth
United States
Crown Point
Indiana
-
I see your point, fox, I'm just trying to explain theirs. What seems like hyper-aggression to the consumer is just the way business is done in the IP world. How, exactly, is a user's right to use GW's products diminished because they aren't allowed to produce materials directly derivative of the source material? What constitutes fair use in this situation? The courts are out there to clarify this point. If Derk and Aldie REALLY felt it was fair use, then, yeah, maybe they could make a counter complaint for a frivilous lawsuit or something, but, the thing is this; I don't think anyone on BGG ever really thinks about IP infringment when they upload stuff. I know I usually don't. Because most companies don't care, or aren't successful enough to pay retainers. GW does and is. And if I was their attorney, I'd tell them to do the same thing, otherwise, if, say the word "Eldar" became public domain, then there's a huge chunk out of GW's profitablity, and you better believe I'm going to get fired.
As far as the big guy-little guy thing...you've got me there, dude. That's the legal system the world over. But then you've got to take more of an anti-corporation stand than an anti-GW stance, don't you? GW isn't even really big, exactly. It's just bigger than BGG and its users...for now.
I feel you guys. Really, I do. As a gamer, I get it. Which is sorta why I wrote this with my lawyer hat on.
edited because I can't spell. 
-
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
-
Quijanoth wrote: I see your point, fox, I'm just trying to explain theirs. What seems like hyper-aggression to the consumer is just the way business is done in the IP world. How, exactly, is a user's right to use GW's products diminished because they aren't allowed to produce materials directly derivative of the source material? What constitutes fair use in this situation? The courts are out there to clarify this point. If Derk and Aldie REALLY felt it was fair use, then, yeah, maybe they could make a counter complaint for a frivilous lawsuit or something, but, the thing is this; I don't think anyone on BGG ever really thinks about IP infringment when they upload stuff. I know I usually don't. Because most companies don't care, or aren't successful enough to pay retainers. GW does and is. And if I was their attorney, I'd tell them to do the same thing, otherwise, if, say the word "Eldar" became public domain, then there's a huge chunk out of GW's profitablity, and you better believe I'm going to get fired.
As far as big guy-little guy thing...you've got me there, dude. That's the legal system the world over. But then you've got to take more of an anti-corporation stand than an anti-GW stance, don't you? GW isn't even really big, exactly. It's just bigger than BGG and its users...for now.
I feel you guys. Really, I do. As a gamer, I get it. Which is sorta why I wrote this with my lawyer hat on.
Can't argue with a thing you've said here. It's the truth and that's the way it's gonna be. It sucks and that's just the way it is. I think somebody wrote a song about this... 
-
-
Precisely so, and we'll be better for it.
-
-
This goes beyond protection IP though.
Nobody believes that having a DVD case picture on Amazon is an IP infringement, yet GW seems to have decided that pictures of its products on online shops is.
If there is an issue with IP infringement it does strike me that they are going a little overboard with their solution. It strikes me as being akin to 'we had to destroy that village to save it'.
-
Ron D
United States
Davis
California
Mercury is my dog's name.
I wish I had a BattleTech related UberBadge. I already bought the badge, now I just need a design.
-
grimstuff wrote: Quote: So, if you read the whole thing, thank you. I realize you're bummed, but it doesn't matter to GW, and the situation won't change. Your perspective, while trite, is completely correct. GW will probably not change. However, their fans will change, and turn into ex-fans.
The thing is, GW's fans won't change. Not generally at least. You are not GW's typical fan. I don't think most of BGG is GW's typical fan base, which is why most of their games tend to fare quite poorly here (Space Hulk was the exception). I tend to think GW's real profits are split fairly 50/50 between the "lifestyle" guys and the the procession of 12 year olds who wander through their stores. Those groups generally aren't here, worrying about whether the Space Hulk player aids got pulled. The lifers are too invested and the 12 year olds simply don't know or care; neither group is going to be impacted by this. "Hobby board gamer who may have bought Space Hulk but hasn't otherwise bought a GW product" isn't high on their list, probably just barely above "Guy who hasn't played 40K since his Squats got eliminated but still complains about it on the internet."
The other thing is this: GW has to protect their IP in ways that most board game companies simply don't need to. GW's entire business is built around their IP, the game play is secondary. GW's business really seems to be built more like a media company than a game company, but it just has the games in place of the feature films. They sell the miniatures instead of action figures, publish short fiction about the characters in their magazine, publish paperbacks about their characters through the Black Library, and license their IP for video games. When your business is really media, you need to protect your IP and what they've done is pretty standard.
That comes as a shock to people here, because we're all used to thinking that the gameplay is the important thing. Most of the companies whose games are popular here focus on mechanics, not on IP. Even games where theme (and maybe even a license) are important, they aren't central the way they are to GW. We got used to people like Vlaada Chvatil who are open and permissive with thier IP. I've seen dozens of posts with people doing things with the cartoons from the Galaxy Trucker rule book, including retheming an entire set of Dominion cards. All that does is help sell more copies of Galaxy Trucker, because Vlaada isn't worried about the possible ramifications of this on his ability to make Galaxy Truker: the Movie. Nor should he be, because it will never happen (no matter how much we all like him, his games, and the cute cartoons). Z-Man isn't too worried about the Pandemic IP in this sense and Rio Grande isn't stressing about the future of fiction based on Race for the Galaxy. This IP is basically useful only to sell more games. However, GW's is not nearly so limited. They have to act more like Disney and less like Hans Im Gluck.
Ultimately, there's a great game that's getting slammed on here because their company is acting in a way that is reasonable and prudent. That doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. At last count, it's dropped to 43 in the ratings. That hardly seems right.
Finally, I'm not a lawyer yet, but I'm just wrapping up my final year of law school, and I've got to fully agree with Quijanoth. His post is dead on. Let's stop all the Space Hulk hate just because people are upset with GW.
-
Andrew Hurp
United Kingdom
Aldershot
Hampshire
-
Seeing as we have some lawers on this thread, can we get an explanation of what would happen if they didn't protect thier IP?
I'm assuming that if they don't protect it, it all becomes fair-use and then, for example FFG could turn round and say "you know that licence fee we pay you for Warhammer: Invasion? well ... we're not paying it anymore". But I'm no expert.
I do agree that as a buisness where one of thier key resources is seen as thier IP, they must take all steps to protect it, I'm just trying to fully understand the penalties for not doing so.
Also ... the files that have been removed, could they be re-instated if they correctly showed the copyright notice, or would GW still need to give permission? I'm not happy with thier heavy handed 'remove all files' technique, but I'm happy to bet any amount you like that less than 1% of the files uploaded correctly acknowledged the copyright (they've even posted here before about the need for the copyright notice on images of thier figures).
If they could give guidelines for all files (not just images) then the files could go back up .. except that I'm sure BGG does not want to police these guidelines, hmmm. Would need a change to the approval process on this site.
Complicated isn't it .. maybe it's just easier to go "waaa" and throw all our toys out of the collective pram 
-
Keith Swingruber
United States
Ridgefield
Washington
-
...first thing we do is shoot all the lawyers.
-
Brian Morris
United States
Raytown
Missouri
2nd, 6th & 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana, 24th Michigan
24th Michigan monument at Gettysburg Pa.
-
I understand GW's wish and need to protect it's intellectual property. However there's a difference between a proportional response and a disproportional response. There is no need for GW to go to the lengths they've gone to. If it was you'd be seeing every game company doing it. They aren't doing it because it's not necessary.
No other prominent game company has written to BGG demanding all files be removed associated with their games. No other prominent game company has a legal disclaimer 5 long pages long on it's website covering everything from claims of ownership to anything that comes into their e-mail inbox to tattoos. Only GW seems to feel it needs to go to these extremes.
-
Andrew Hurp
United Kingdom
Aldershot
Hampshire
-
The difference is the importance of thier IP. No other gaming company is built like that, hence the comparison earlier to Disney, MacDonalds etc.
-
MSV Burns
United States
Olympia
Washington
-
Yes, yes. Of course.
The company simply *had* to do it. It would have been utterly *imprudent* not to. Merely a necessary *business* decision, nothing to see here. "What they've done is pretty standard."
Fine.
But those of us who are critical of this company's action are saying that we don't like that standard. We think that standard makes life just a little bit shittier.
And so we -- powerless indeed -- are retaliating by what few means are available to us. Changing my ratings on an apparently inconsequential (at least to GW) gaming database is what power I have, and it's what power I'll use. I don't care that they don't care.
Quote: For what it is worth, I tend to just ignore what company makes the game, and look at what entertainment I'll get from the game itself.
I can see the expedience of this approach, but it doesn't really suit my strategies for navigating our consumer culture. YMMV.
-
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
-
It's worth pointing out that I know a thing or two about copyright and trademarks, but from a UK/EU perspective. The way IP law works can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Quijanoth wrote: I see your point, fox, I'm just trying to explain theirs. What seems like hyper-aggression to the consumer is just the way business is done in the IP world.
Except that it isn't. It might be the way that the likes of McDonalds and Mastercard behave (though I can think of a couple of bloody noses that McD's have picked up along the way over here), but it's not the way that Kosmos, Ravensburger, Hans Im Gluck behave. Oh, but they're too small to count, you say. OK then. It's not the way that Hasbro behave, or Mattel as far as I am aware. Sure, Hasbro throw their weight around when the Monopoly trade mark might be affected, but you don't see them demanding that every player aid for everything that they've ever created should be pulled. No, this sort of idiocy is limited to GW.
GW have a uniquely aggressive take on what IP law means, and how far their IP extends. It's not just the usual BS regarding holding trademarks on perfectly generic, public domain terms; it's bonkers stuff like insisting that a picture taken by a fan of a GW miniature that they painted contains a line to the effect that the miniature is (c) GW. If you read their IP policy it *sounds* readable, plausable, ridiculously restrictive but with a patina of common sense applied. However, it's mostly BS. The simple fact is that a picture of a GW figure posted on the web poses no risk whatsoever to their IP, and they know it. They just want to act like jerks. There's probably some hidden reason for this - maybe they are aware of counterfeiting on a commercial scale (I'm not, but I haven't gone looking for it) and this is the opening salvo in a move to protect it. More likely it's just something to put in the 2010 prospectus to shareholders, about how they have lots of fantastically valuable IP and they actively protect it. Or maybe it's just GW behaving like total knobs yet again.
One thing, though - I would be very surprised if an English court found that more than a fraction of the material that they claim a right to suppress is actually a challenge to any of their trademarks, or amounts to a breach of their copyrights. The problem is, you spend £30-60,000 to find out. They can spend that sort of cash if they have to; BGG cannot.
-
Andrew Hurp
United Kingdom
Aldershot
Hampshire
-
Marqos wrote: And so we -- powerless indeed -- are retaliating by what few means are available to us. Changing my ratings on an apparently inconsequential (at least to GW) gaming database is what power I have, and it's what power I'll use. I don't care that they don't care.
You're not powerless. Do some research, find out under what conditions you can post the files up (like ask permission, or something). If they have enough requests for details like this, then guidelines would probably be issued.
I'm not promising that the final solution will be perfect for you, but at least it's trying to find a solution were everyone benefits.
Messing up on BGG, just damages BGG and the community here, in my opinion. I had hoped that the rating system was used to indicate the quality of a game, not a reflection on the publisher - makes the rating system worthless.
-
Nico Solitander
Finland
Helsinki
HEL
-
Quijanoth wrote: You guys realize they don't care how angry you are, right? Not trying to troll or upset anyone further, but seriously, they own the IP's, they're required to protect them in order to maintain them, and the corporation has shareholders to answer to. I'm a little surprised it took this long to hear from them. BGG is getting bigger, has "faces", and could, one day, be quite profitable if purchased by a larger media company.
As an analogy, imagine that IMDB, prior to the Amazon buyout, allowed posting of all of the outtakes, or of fanfilms on the same page as the original movie. Then they allowed "tipping" of an imaginary currency that could be used to buy cool avatars, or physical games, or even be sold. Someone else would be profiting from Hollywood efforts, then, right?
Same thing here, I think. Aldie and company are just intrepid web developers with a wicked good database right now, but two years from now, they could be the next hot new add on for some huge internet biz...
Point is, there could be profits on the horizon, and no intelligent corporate board is going to let that slip away, no matter how many fans they upset.
So, if you read the whole thing, thank you. I realize you're bummed, but it doesn't matter to GW, and the situation won't change. For what it is worth, I tend to just ignore what company makes the game, and look at what entertainment I'll get from the game itself. Might help. Have an awesome holiday weekend.
You're correct of course, from a lawyer's perspective - your societal role/job/duty or whatever we might call it is to practice law, serving c&ds, prosecute etc. on the behest of your clients, you are "required" to serve c&ds, business/CEOs/boards are not "required" to instigate them. There is a certain logic as to why companies are not by default run by solicitors. The business of business is to maximize its value for shareholders - business has a choice how to pursue this, this is called a strategy. GW has chosen (not required) to maximize the value for its shareholders through cracking down on fan sites. It could have chosen a different strategy, but it did not. You can compare this to the strategy of GW's competitors - they are subjected to the same kind of duties and requirements to its owners, but they have chosen to go down a different road in terms of pursuing profits and maximizing their value. Some companies see fan sites as enhancing the value for the shareholders/investors/owners, that's another strategic view. They see customers as a resource not a threat. From your perspective these companies are seemingly equally "required" to pursue GWs strategy. Yet they do not, we might ask ourselves why - what would happen if FFG pursued this "requirement"?
This leads us to the societal role of citizens, here assuming the subject position as consumers. You seem to criticize the logic of certain consumers (here on this site) because they do not adhere to the logic of a specific business strategy - and in fact resist this logic and chose to pursue "punishing" certain companies for their strategy/logic. Modern capitalism is built on the belief that consumers will steer their buying behavior towards products/companies that adhere to certain value systems (and hence the market needs not to be (morally) regulated by governments) - thus pushing out companies that are e.g. immoral. You might equally following your own logic say that consumers are "required" to boycott GW - if they chose to pursue this consumer strategy just as GW has chosen to pursue its business strategy.
There are interesting examples from the comics universe that illustrate different strategies on how to best "protect" and produce value from IP - and there are also indications that GWs aggressive strategic take can in the long-run bite them in the ass.
-
SJ Benoist
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
-
I find the OP's reasoning fundamentally flawed, and the tone somewhat condescending.
No one does what GW does, including larger, more profitable businesses (as mentioned, Hasbro). Their actions certainly were not "required" to protect their IP, else all other producers of games would currently find their IP claims in jeopardy (as no one else has taken the "required" actions of having all user-created material removed).
My point is, no intelligent corporate board is going to be indifferent to public perception of their product & practices ... especially when the segment complaining represents part of their (already niche) customer base. The situation could very well change, particularly if GW finds it's choice of actions to be harmful.
P.S. McDonald's shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread. The two companies are separated by several orders of magnitude (easily).
-
Mike Windsor
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
-
There have been some posts about GW being in financial trouble (I have no idea). If that is the case, they may be "cleaning up" IP issues in order to get some or all of the company ready for a sale. As a part of the due diligence done prior to a sale, a potential buyer would want to see what steps are being taken to protect IP. Just a thought, no inside knowledge whatsoever.
-
Mark Hendrix
United States
Talladega
Alabama
-
This was a wide-spread C&D order to many many fansites along with BGG. It means that they spent many hours logging net searches and creating a database of entities to include in the order. It was not sudden, but rathera long campaign. It did take them a while to get to BGG as they started with "BlXXd BXwl" fansites just over 2 months ago.
Looking back over the past few decades, it can be seen that GW does this periodically. Almost 10 years ago GW did something very similar in doing a C&D order on all retailers who sold their wares at discount (which affected the retailer's earnings and not so much GWs earnings). It turned out that this preceded GWs launch of GW stores in malls across America (previously having only a few in the largest of markets). This was followed by GW removing their own community forums form their website within a few years of the "retailer move."
It is entirely in their right to pursue the protection of IP rights, but it makes you wonder if the governing body has their lawyers and public relations in the same room ever!
-
P. Rehberger
United States
Burlington
Wisconsin
-
SJBenoist wrote: I find the OP's reasoning fundamentally flawed, and the tone somewhat condescending.
No one does what GW does, including larger, more profitable businesses (as mentioned, Hasbro). Their actions certainly were not "required" to protect their IP, else all other producers of games would currently find their IP claims in jeopardy (as no one else has taken the "required" actions of having all user-created material removed).
My point is, no intelligent corporate board is going to be indifferent to public perception of their product & practices ... especially when the segment complaining represents part of their (already niche) customer base. The situation could very well change, particularly if GW finds it's choice of actions to be harmful.
P.S. McDonald's shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread. The two companies are separated by several orders of magnitude (easily).
For an example of a permissive IP usage that has gained huge financial benefits, see Star Wars. My kids love the fan-art, love the home-brewed videos, love the people dressing up--but that doesn't stop them from buying Star Wars videos, LEGO kits, toys, etc, etc. Star Wars clearly "gets" the positive value of viral advertising; GW clearly "gets" the concept of pissing off customers virally. I will add GW to the list of stores I will not recommend or use, along with TRU, We'll see down the road who wins this one, GW or the average internet users.
-
Kai Bettzieche
Germany
Ladenburg
-
So, this is all about protecting intellectual property, did I get this right?
If yes, then please answer the following:
Terms like
"Orcs", "Elves", "Eldar", "Dwarves", "Wyverns" .. Who exactly invented those?
With whose inventions are GW making money?
And last but not least: What exactly is their problem?
-
Quijanoth
United States
Crown Point
Indiana
-
I expected the response to be fairly dynamic. BGG doesn't disappoint. Listen, to those of you who feel cheated and victimized by GW...try to think of it as if you were the CEO of Games Workshop. Most of us here enjoy role playing and what have you...it'll be fun.
Okay, so it is the 1980's or so, and you make up these really clever names and images for existing fantasy archetypes, and a few concepts of your own, Then you copyright those names and images, and proceed to spend copious amounts of money building the brand by writing books, making miniatures, and so on. Now, twenty some years pass, and several websites start allowing users to create new material directly based on the names and images you created and copyrighted that are not only free, but can allow the writers to make a "virtual" profit from their efforts. Allowing use of this sort could both dilute the market for the products you create, and deprive you of the ability to publish similar products based on your own idea for money (however minute).
If you choose to let this happen long enough, another company (not just private citizens) can come along and start using your clever ideas for profit. Because you have "abandoned" your copyright. But, if you defend your creations, you maintain your profitability for a little while longer. Plus, you already pay lawyers retainers to make sure you can remain profitable by preventing the damage to your brand and maintaining your copyrights. Try to remember that all IP protection really provides is a legal monopoly for a limited time.
The downside is, of course, a percentage of your "loyal" customers feel like the effort they spent using your ideas without your permission is unfair and they react by boycotting your products and badmouthing them on the internet. So, do you bite the bullet and anger some of your customer base, or do you go out of business by having nothing left of your original ideas to market and profit from?
Maybe I'm being 'trite' or 'condescending', but honestly, it seems somewhat entitled for BGG (and other fansites) to be angry with a company for aggressively defending its only defensible IP asset. The point was made above that GW isn't Disney or McDonalds or even Hasbro...I agree completely. Disney and Hasbro own enough copyrights that they can't feasibly defend every misuse of them all of the time. GW, on the other hand, depends on the wholeness of their (very few) protect-able copyrights. Why, for example, would EA pay to license the "Utramarines" and "Tyrannids" if they didn't have to? Given GW's detractor's logic, EA could just make a "fan service" video game called, say, Dawn of War 2, post it online for free and accept "donations" for it, and that would be okay.
On a final note, I don't really have a horse in this race. I've played quite a few GW games in the past, but I've always sort of equated brand loyalty to school spirit: nice if you have the time, but not for me personally.
I was seeing a lot of angry people on the boards (which makes me sad), and just wanted to (hopefully) explain the reason a company would do something like this. Hey, I firmly believe you can vote with your dollars (pounds, Euro, what have you), and if enough of you are displeased, maybe it will matter to GW, and their lawyers will advise them to just allow the kind of use of their copyrighted material that BGG was permitting. But seriously I doubt it. Peace, love, and commerce.
-
United States
Jeffersonville
Pennsylvania
-
Stop making sense - I can't hear the angry mob.
-
|
|
