BoLs : Lords of Battle v2

[Spack]

Here comes another question, say another group or site comes up with their own faxdex, would they get the same chance to publish thier work like BOLS? Say someone makes thier own Squat Dex, etc? I am asking this as this could come up as a bridge for you in the future to have to cross.

Yes, that was the whole idea behind having a Community Lists "race" in the AB files, other non-GW lists would be added as requested where maintainers had chance to put them. The BoLS ones went in first because they're used by players we know, and we'd had requests from various places to consider including them. All it takes is for a couple of people to ask

[Stelek]

They aren't official GW dexes, so putting them into the official AB file takes the official files and makes a mockery of them. Why aren't these files unofficial and not part of the official package? Because mkerr wants it that way? BOLS wanting something isn't a reason to change course. How awesome will the community thank them for their 'lists' if GW shuts down this project? You should know doing anything outside of what has always been the standard can get GW's attention. Haven't you noticed how GW has been acting lately? Probably the worst time to add gimmicks.

As far as spending money on legal advice goes, it's better to spend the 100$ for an hours worth of advice than risk everything, no? I don't run this place anymore, and I've spent the money before and I have done so again--why haven't you?

Your experiences in life are similar to mine, only real difference is I don't deal with trade sales but I have dealt with GW legal.

They aren't really pleasant. If they decide you've gone too far, you know they won't stop at the BOLS files. They'll tell you to stop completely. It's their heavy handed way. You should know this just from dealing with trade sales. GW isn't a pleasant company to do business with.

Move the files to an unofficial status and if GW pitches a fit, you can say they are separate and just remove them from hosting.

I looked through the site and didn't see any polls or anything about this subject, so it's not like you asked people before you did it. You are the current keepers of the AB40k files, but your duty isn't to your own wants it's your duty to be as neutral as possible.

When the guys who write 'free' game codices that replace the main games rules want to be included, and you don't agree to that request--everyone will cry foul (as they should). If you do agree to it, GW will banhammer you so fast you won't be running this site anymore. You have to realize what a dangerous path this is you've taken.

If the AB files go down, the hobby will be worse off for it. Is that a risk you should be taking on behalf of the tens of thousands of AB users who depend on you to not take risks and incur GW's wrath?

[Spack]

They aren't official GW dexes, so putting them into the official AB file takes the official files and makes a mockery of them. Why aren't these files unofficial and not part of the official package? Because mkerr wants it that way? BOLS wanting something isn't a reason to change course. How awesome will the community thank them for their 'lists' if GW shuts down this project? You should know doing anything outside of what has always been the standard can get GW's attention. Haven't you noticed how GW has been acting lately? Probably the worst time to add gimmicks.

They're under "Community Lists", the idea of which was to include any non-GW lists that are used by the playing population. The BoLS lists just happened to be the first ones to test this with as they are, at least as far as I am aware, the community lists with the widest playing audience. It was nothing to do with Mkerr - take your personal issues with him out of this debate. As to AB being "official", you know better than anyone that at no time has GW given it's full blessing to the files - they are tolerated due to an understanding, part of which includes the delay on releasing new codexes into the files, and as far as I am aware there is no requirement for the files to be restricted purely to GW printed content. Send me proof otherwise and I'll happily review my stance.

As far as spending money on legal advice goes, it's better to spend the 100$ for an hours worth of advice than risk everything, no? I don't run this place anymore, and I've spent the money before and I have done so again--why haven't you?

Personally, I haven't spent money because financially I can't afford it right now. I have a family, a car, a mortgage, and a lot of financial commitments. I pay what I need to to keep the site going (new hardware as required, taking time out from my own business to spend on working on the site and dealing with issues - for instance, taking time on this particular issue out of my work and having to cancel some freelance projects to do has cost me in the region of £350 alone this weekend). $100 might get you an hour in the US - here in the UK that would get me much less with a copyright solicitor, and I've called the solicitors I use and they don't have a slot available with their copyright specialist for at least another 2 weeks; they also suggested that I'd be looking at around £500 - £1000 in order to look into this due to the time required for research outside of the time I would spend in a face-to-face meeting. I don't have that sort of cash lying around in my wallet right now - do you?

From your blog I see you had advice on taking advertising on your own site - this is entirely different to the how the AB40k site operates, and bears little resemblance from a legal standpoint. I've already had an informal chat to a friend in our company's legal dept. On top of that, you also seem to have ignored the fact that US law doesn't apply here - the AB40k site is in the UK, the files are distributed from the UK, GW is in the UK, so UK law applies. Did you ask your lawyer directly about the AB40k files situation? Is he/she fully conversed in UK copyright law?

Your experiences in life are similar to mine, only real difference is I don't deal with trade sales but I have dealt with GW legal.

As have I - last August I had cause to call them about use of wording on various marketing materials and products I was working on. They were very friendly, very easy going, and were able to give me the advice I needed very clearly - and I had no issues with distributing my products inside GW HQ at Warhammer World to both my event attendees and the GW staff themselves, with the full blessing of GW legal. If I feel it's necessary I'll ring them and try to get a clear answer from them, but I doubt it'll be as simple as that. I'm at WHW again in August and I could see if I can arrange a face to face meeting with members of their legal dept, should the need arise.

They aren't really pleasant. If they decide you've gone too far, you know they won't stop at the BOLS files. They'll tell you to stop completely. It's their heavy handed way. You should know this just from dealing with trade sales. GW isn't a pleasant company to do business with.

My personal experience has been quite the opposite. Were you dealing with the US or UK legal dept? How long ago was this? Were you as confrontational with them as you appear to be from your blogs and your earlier posts in this thread?

Move the files to an unofficial status and if GW pitches a fit, you can say they are separate and just remove them from hosting.

I looked through the site and didn't see any polls or anything about this subject, so it's not like you asked people before you did it. You are the current keepers of the AB40k files, but your duty isn't to your own wants it's your duty to be as neutral as possible.

I thought our duty was to provide as much as possible for the gamer in order for them to make full use of the AB software? Making widely used community driven lists fits into that remit, does it not? It's not our wants we're dealing with here, it's the wants of the community that plays the game. Yes, we could have run polls, but very few AB users actually use know of this site so the polls would not have been representative of the general AB 40k playing population. By putting the files in we felt that it would enhance the usefulness of the files, and for those players that didn't want to use them they could simply ignore the option.

Other than the rants posted by you along with some of the replies you've had, and the post from Styx, I've seen nothing in the wider community about this being an issue. What I have seen is some posts on a newsgroup (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer if you're interested) from 3 people who were happy to see those lists included (one had mentioned that it would be useful if they were in there, and I pointed out they already were). If you can provide links showing widespread outrage then I'd be interested to read what everyone is saying.

Also, do you realise how much slower things will be if we have to run polls every time we make changes to the files that affect how they work? And what happens if the poll results make it so that it's not possible to get the files to match the codex lists? If you give people the ability to halt progress you will end up with problems because there are a large number of people who are confrontational by nature and cannot help causing trouble if given the opportunity - this shows up every day on sites across the web, and there's plenty of historic sociological evidence to back this up. It's human nature.

When the guys who write 'free' game codices that replace the main games rules want to be included, and you don't agree to that request--everyone will cry foul (as they should). If you do agree to it, GW will banhammer you so fast you won't be running this site anymore. You have to realize what a dangerous path this is you've taken.

Nobody is writing anything that replaces the main game rules. The BoLS lists build on the existing rules to bring in expansion lists that widen the game playing experience - those players still need to have the rules from GW, and their inclusion will have no more effect on GW sales than the AB40k files do anyway. Nothing is being removed to fit these in, and they do not affect the GW codex or expansion lists. For instance, I'd personally be happy if the team included options to enable other non-GW changes to the core files to allow players to use some of the larger community FAQs such as INAT in order to make it easier to create lists for those events as these are also often used as house rules for other events or clubs (for instance, my own club uses INAT in many cases as they FAQs are very thorough), or the Throne of Skulls event FAQs (which while they have the Warhammer World backing and in turn GW itself, they are still not core GW rules). I'm just using these as examples of where non-GW augmentations are highly beneficial to the playing community and do not detract from GW in any way; in fact, would you not agree that these events do more to promote GW, and in turn increase sales, than detract from them?

If the AB files go down, the hobby will be worse off for it. Is that a risk you should be taking on behalf of the tens of thousands of AB users who depend on you to not take risks and incur GW's wrath?

I agree that the loss of the AB files would be very bad. The team are currently discussing how to deal with this, and we'll announce it when we've decided what to do. I do however think your fears are based in paranoia and a deep personal hatred of members of BoLS - you need to step back and take an unbiased look at what is going on around you. You also need to consider that you do not have all the facts at hand - you are basing your views on irrelevant discussions with your lawyer about your own site which do not apply to the way the AB40k site works, and provide no evidence to the contrary to back up your claims that you have some sort of inside knowledge on how the GW legal dept view the AB40k project in the present climate (emails or letters from 3 years ago are not fully relevant because the business position of GW has changed radically over that time).

If we decide to move the community lists out as a separate file it will be because we have based that decision on the views of the maintainers and of mature posts like those from Styx, not because you or others have tried to demand it through abusive and, to put it frankly, childish methods (and I'm glad to see that at least some readers of your blog feel the same way). If we decide to keep them in, then I hope you will respect that and not feel the need to persecute either the team as a whole or as individuals. I would also hope that you stop your slanderous comments on your blog about members of this team and any other individuals, and remove those that you have already made.

[Stelek]

I don't have any deep hatred of bols, or anyone else for that matter. Well ok there was this kid when I was a kid...

While all you've said about the UK might make it seem like it's as simple as 1-2-3 but it isn't.

AB is written in the US. The official AB files are actually hosted in the US. You know, the ones you download using AB itself.

The ones that matter for the discussion I'm having.

UK copyright law is a bit different from the US, but to answer your question about UK law--you are no more or less likely to survive a legal challenge in the UK than in the US based on derivative works.

Derivative works (which is what the bols files are) have no permission from GW to exist. Both the US and UK prohibit this explicitly.

Legally only the copyright owner has the right to authorise adaptations and reproductions of their work - this includes the making of a derivative work.

The law is essentially the same in both countries. In the US, fair use is given more weight--and since that is where AB and the 'official' files reside; GW hasn't had legal standing to issue C&D requests.

Btw, the hosting company for the datafiles might be maltese, but the location where they are hosted is in the US. Unlike companies that 'do business' in a particular state, you cannot hide your data in the US and then flout US law, and claim the laws of another country to protect you. You of all people should know this.

Fair use, specifically US fair use laws, is what has kept GW at bay. See, they can shut you down in the UK if there was a reason to, always could. Then the project moves to the US, and their ability to do anything goes away.

Their specific ability to do anything to the US file host is limited, because the laws of the UK do not apply here--and US fair use is far more forgiving and 'grey' than that of the UK.

Until you put in materials supporting derivative works which violate copyright. Then you have no defense, and specifically the data file hoster is liable for your actions.

Anyway, I didn't really follow the rest of your comments. Never really could understand your assumptions that:

1) I use my public voice to talk to gw in the same way privately.

2) Getting permission from GW to sell your own products has any bearing on this. Did you get permission from GW to sell their IP, too? If not, it has no bearing on the subject. You aren't a target, so of course GW is going to be polite. Just as I am when I talk to them privately.
Doesn't mean much though. I have dealt with GW UK legal, there is no real GW US legal team. They don't make the decisions, GW UK legal does. That's how all multinationals work you know.

As far as this:

"I thought our duty was to provide as much as possible for the gamer in order for them to make full use of the AB software? Making widely used community driven lists fits into that remit, does it not?"

There are far more community lists that have been available for much longer, and they are not included.

How it is 'used' by many people--you found this out how?

Asked a couple friends? 3 people on the internet said thanks?

Out of tens of thousands of users, I wouldn't call that 'the wants of the community'.

I'd call it the wants of BOLS. Not sure if that was a red herring argument or not, but I'll respond to it and see.

As to this:

"I'm just using these as examples of where non-GW augmentations are highly beneficial to the playing community and do not detract from GW in any way; in fact, would you not agree that these events do more to promote GW, and in turn increase sales, than detract from them?"

They have caused much rancor and disagreement in the community, actually. One tournament has picked up the INAT FAQ, and people have refused to attend on that basis alone. What, you didn't know? I particularly like this part of your statement: "...my own club uses INAT in many cases..." except the parts you disagree with, which makes the FAQ useless. Throne of Skulls is far more palatable to players, but it's also not universally accepted at major tournaments around the world.

GW doesn't provide exhaustive FAQ's for a solid business reason--it costs them money, and if a book is FAQ'd properly it does indeed cost a company sales. Ask Privateer Press why they are revamping Warmachine. Yep, it's the 500 pages of FAQ's required to play is costing them sales.

Anyway, either you understand that the US fair use doctrine cannot give you legal shielding or you don't.

I have all the facts 'in hand', but it does seem as if you are woefully ignorant of them.

When you are done with your paragraph long shots at me, perhaps you'll see all I care about is the official files being clean of any possible infringement.

My last communication with GW legal was a few weeks ago. Does it matter? Why don't you have a line into GW legal and ask them when you do things that common sense should tell you might be questionable?

I do. I get answers to the affirmative or the negative. And it doesn't cost me anything but a week or two of waiting for the answer.

As far as slander goes--you point it out, and I'll delete it.

When you come around to the reality that you really cannot break the law, I guess the slander concept will also go away. Slander only works when I'm lying, see.

As soon as you remove the illegal derivative works from the official files, you won't be breaking the law. Is this enough to get you to understand the position you are in? I really don't know. I hope so.

Maybe I'm just one of those internet people that like to cause trouble. Obviously, from all the years I ran this place, that was exactly what I was about. Causing trouble with GW. Oh right, I wasn't about causing trouble with GW at all, was I now.

I'm sorry your lawyers cost so much. Mine doesn't. Helps if you keep a law firm on retainer. That little bit of $ a month goes pretty far when you don't use them for years and years.

I don't have ads on my site for two reasons:

I don't want them, I think they make most blogs look horrible.

I don't want GW to have the ability to muzzle me. Being an opinion site is worth it's weight in gold legally. Being a for free opinion site is priceless.

I note you have no ads either, so you must have figured out that putting ads up would get GW's attention. How is it the situation is apparently so different?

I won't 'persecute' anyone. Unless GW busts out the banhammer. Then I'll just be upset, like everybody else. Won't help one damn bit to yell out 'I told you so'. I told the army roster guy he was crossing the line. I told the vassal guy he was crossing the line. Both of them got zapped.

Now I'm telling you--you've put your very much beloved project in danger. Do as you will with my warning. I hope GW does nothing, and all of this is just a bit of internet drama that will go away. Of course, I said the same thing to those other guys.

[Spack]

It's late, I've got an early start at work tomorrow. I'll address a couple of points, but the rest will have to wait.

AB is written in the US. The official AB files are actually hosted in the US. You know, the ones you download using AB itself.

The ones that matter for the discussion I'm having.

The AB40k files were actually being distributed from this site, here in the UK, until recently. I have now been informed that they are no longer, so I concede that point.

2) Getting permission from GW to sell your own products has any bearing on this. Did you get permission from GW to sell their IP, too? If not, it has no bearing on the subject. You aren't a target, so of course GW is going to be polite. Just as I am when I talk to them privately.
Doesn't mean much though. I have dealt with GW UK legal, there is no real GW US legal team. They don't make the decisions, GW UK legal does. That's how all multinationals work you know.

My point was that I have dealt with GW legal on IP issues - no, they did not give me permission, but I did not expect them to either. I spoke to them, outlined what I was doing, and they responded - they were not at all how you describe, they were extremely courteous and very friendly.

I wasn't sure if GW US had their own team which is why I asked. I'm sure they do have a US legal department, most multinationals I've dealt with have localised legal departments - IBM, Microsoft, and HP amongst them. It's part of what makes them multinational, being able to deal with legal issues locally rather than rely on users in one country being experts on the laws in every other country the company has offices in.

There are far more community lists that have been available for much longer, and they are not included.

They haven't been asked for.

How it is 'used' by many people--you found this out how?

Asked a couple friends? 3 people on the internet said thanks?

Asked friends, checked around on forums, got others to ask around. Good old fashioned legwork, doing background research to see whether they were worth putting in. I had a search around about all these claimed users who don't want the lists in (I know you didn't claim that, btw), didn't find a single one on any of the 40k and gaming sites I searched on. In fact yours was the only site that mentions it, other than the post here from Styx.

Out of tens of thousands of users, I wouldn't call that 'the wants of the community'.

I'd call it the wants of BOLS. Not sure if that was a red herring argument or not, but I'll respond to it and see.

As said before, BoLS did not push for these to be included. They were not involved. Stop focussing on that unfounded and false claim.

They have caused much rancor and disagreement in the community, actually. One tournament has picked up the INAT FAQ, and people have refused to attend on that basis alone. What, you didn't know? I particularly like this part of your statement: "...my own club uses INAT in many cases..." except the parts you disagree with, which makes the FAQ useless. Throne of Skulls is far more palatable to players, but it's also not universally accepted at major tournaments around the world.

Which is why these would be optional. If people don't want to use them, they can choose to ignore them. Is the UK GT not a "major tournament"? You do know what Throne of Skulls is, right?

My last communication with GW legal was a few weeks ago. Does it matter? Why don't you have a line into GW legal and ask them when you do things that common sense should tell you might be questionable?

I just wanted to determine whether it was relevant or not. If you'd been in touch with them years ago it would not have been. It's still not fully relevant unless you discussed the AB40k files with them - did you?

As far as slander goes--you point it out, and I'll delete it.

I believe your own posters on your blog have already pointed it out. You do read the replies fully, don't you?

I don't have ads on my site for two reasons:

I don't want them, I think they make most blogs look horrible.

I don't want GW to have the ability to muzzle me. Being an opinion site is worth it's weight in gold legally. Being a for free opinion site is priceless.

And yet on your blog you inferred that you discussed advertising and it's implications with your lawyer. Were you lying?

I note you have no ads either, so you must have figured out that putting ads up would get GW's attention. How is it the situation is apparently so different?

I don't have them because I chose to remove them, I personally hate adverts on sites I visit and decided that it was unfair to force my users to have screen space used up with ads. I ran ads for well over a year on my site, at no point did GW contact me about it and I wasn't forced to do so, it was my own personal choice.

I won't 'persecute' anyone. Unless GW busts out the banhammer. Then I'll just be upset, like everybody else. Won't help one damn bit to yell out 'I told you so'. I told the army roster guy he was crossing the line. I told the vassal guy he was crossing the line. Both of them got zapped.

Those are different cases. I also told the roster guy he was crossing the line (as he was charging for the use of the site), as I have told the guy running iroster that he might be (on the assumption that he's likely to charge for this in future).

I've already discussed with a couple of other team members and had decided earlier today that I will ring GW legal tomorrow. I've got a couple of hours booked free tomorrow so it won't cost me from having to give up work. If I get the nod from them, what will you do then?

[Stelek]

"The AB40k files were actually being distributed from this site, here in the UK, until recently. I have now been informed that they are no longer, so I concede that point."

Really? This isn't where I've been getting them for...well, the whole time. Unless I manually downloaded something. Always been that way to my knowledge. The IP the files pull from hasn't changed.

GW does have a US legal team, but they have never answered IP issues. That always goes to the UK. Since that is what we are talking about, that's the only part that seems relevant.

As far as who is pushing what, if BOLS didn't ask them to be included and mkerr really didn't have anything to do with it--did you ask for permission from them? Man, it's always a different story.

I don't have anything to do with the files anymore, so nope I would not ask GW about them. Why bother?

I approve all the comments, so yes I read them. Let me see:

Someone anonymous said:

Posting into a thread to suggest Bols are commercially gaining could be slanderous (although difficult to prove)

BOLS is commercially gaining. It's not slanderous. If you aren't sure how a copyright infringer with an ad supported website is making money off of someone elses IP, you really need to talk to a lawyer soon.

If you get the nod from GW that they don't care, that's great. Doesn't reduce your liability until it's in writing though.

Good luck getting it in writing, by the way.

I never could.

If you say they said it's ok, yep that'll be good enough for me. I won't even check. This whole discussion is tiresome, I don't seem to be getting the law through to you but perhaps you'll figure it out yourself.

There are plenty of free legal services available where you can get help.

Law school students are one I'd highly recommend. They haven't passed the bar yet so can only give you advice. There are literally hundreds of message boards on the internet where you can get friendly advice from participating lawyers. They'll put a nice disclaimer up, just like all the free medical advice forums do--but if you'd rather pay for an obvious call, then by all means.

[Spack]

"The AB40k files were actually being distributed from this site, here in the UK, until recently. I have now been informed that they are no longer, so I concede that point."

Really? This isn't where I've been getting them for...well, the whole time. Unless I manually downloaded something. Always been that way to my knowledge. The IP the files pull from hasn't changed.

Do you check the IP address of everything you download? The files were distributed direct from the same server hosting this site while there were issues with the main hosting site. I guess you must not have bothered checking during that time.

GW does have a US legal team, but they have never answered IP issues. That always goes to the UK. Since that is what we are talking about, that's the only part that seems relevant.

Odd, I spoke to Jill Stevenson (very easy to deal with, had a nice chat about an hour ago) and she made it very clear that GW legal do not discuss issues outside of GW. Their department only answers questions from inside GW itself, and deals with reported infringements. They have not, and will not, discuss any IP issues (or any other issues for that matter) with anyone outside of GW itself. The only information they will give regarding IP queries is to direct callers to the GW IP policy on the website, and to talk to a solicitor if there are still outstanding queries. They will not discuss IP issues with solicitors either - they are an internal legal team, full stop. It was a very pleasant chat, but ultimately with no result either way.

I also spoke to a solicitor through Out-Law.com and while he couldn't give me a definite answer (that would require hiring a solicitor, and he told me that I would be looking at a bill in the region of £1000-£2000 minimum for this) he did point out that GW's IP policy basically gives it the ability to do anything it likes regarding it's IP at it's discretion. It doesn't matter if we hired a solicitor who stated that we would not be infringing - GW could simply take action anyway if it wanted to because it's policy allows that. So, whether I had a solicitor on retainer or not, it's irrelevant, we're better off not pursuing would would ultimately be a waste of time and money. He did also point out that as the AB40k team itself is not making any money out of this, and that we fit within the GW IP policy, then as it stands it would be unlikely that GW would take action. They would also be unlikely to take action against BoLS (and I'm sure BoLS have looked into this too) because the lists are not being sold, or directly generating revenue for the site.

As far as who is pushing what, if BOLS didn't ask them to be included and mkerr really didn't have anything to do with it--did you ask for permission from them? Man, it's always a different story.

Yes, we asked permission. No, Mkerr was not involved. When has my story changed? I've maintained from the start Mkerr was not involved with this. BoLS isn't run by just one person - surely you know that, right?

I don't have anything to do with the files anymore, so nope I would not ask GW about them. Why bother?

You seemed to be suggesting that you dealings with GW IP (which I've already shown would have been a "no comment" response anyway) had some relevancy to the situation here. I thought I'd ask for clarification, and you've just shown that your situation is not relevant at all. Thank you.

I approve all the comments, so yes I read them. Let me see:

Someone anonymous said:

Posting into a thread to suggest Bols are commercially gaining could be slanderous (although difficult to prove)

BOLS is commercially gaining. It's not slanderous. If you aren't sure how a copyright infringer with an ad supported website is making money off of someone elses IP, you really need to talk to a lawyer soon.

Suggesting the BoLS is commercially gaining directly from the AB40k files distribution is slanderous. Repeating claiming that Mkerr had a hand in this is slanderous. Claiming that a member of the AB40k team was coerced by any BoLS member into including these is slanderous.

I never could.

And it's plainly obvious, because you can't get anything out of GW legal - they don't deal with anyone outside of GW itself, and you're not in GW.

If you say they said it's ok, yep that'll be good enough for me. I won't even check. This whole discussion is tiresome, I don't seem to be getting the law through to you but perhaps you'll figure it out yourself.

I spent some time today going through the GW IP policy and figuring out where we stand. I also spoke to a solicitor. I personally don't see an issue from the AB40k standpoint, including the community driven lists doesn't change how we fit into the policy.

There are plenty of free legal services available where you can get help.

Law school students are one I'd highly recommend. They haven't passed the bar yet so can only give you advice. There are literally hundreds of message boards on the internet where you can get friendly advice from participating lawyers. They'll put a nice disclaimer up, just like all the free medical advice forums do--but if you'd rather pay for an obvious call, then by all means.

But it's only advice, and would have no more weight than the chat I've already had today with a solicitor. I did trawl up something interesting in the policy though - you know your site infringes it, don't you? It's also part of the reason why your post here was deleted. Here's the relevant quote from http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conte ... 02&start=4

Forums

We have no problem with people using forums to express their love (or even hate) of the hobby. We would, however, ask people to bear in mind that the hobby is for people all ages. Please be careful of the language used and the topics discussed.

Your blog is a forum (in the literal sense, "a medium of open discussion or expression of ideas"), and the language you use could easily be considered infringing the above policy section. You also don't appear to include the standard GW IP policy disclaimer on your site either, at least I couldn't find it.

I've also passed the IP policy and the details of this situation that apply to each section of the policy to a colleague in the legal department where I work to look over in his free time. My intial chat with him early this afternoon was encouraging (he personally sees no issue, he's gone through each part of the policy and my notes and at first look thinks we comply), but as I've already stated it doesn't matter what anyone outside of GW says as they can do what they like; and it doesn't matter what anyone inside GW says - and they won't anyway - because they can change it at their discretion anyway.

[Stelek]

Lots of talking, pretty much none of which I have anything to say to.

You say mkerr didn't have anything to do with it, then he didn't. I doubt it, but meh whatever. You seem to just take this whole thing personally, which is nothing new.

I never did notice the AB update system pulling files from here in my IP transaction logs. If you put in a misdirect, I don't see it. Not saying it didn't happen, just saying I don't have a record of it.

Your understanding of both GW's policy and US law seems a little short.

Did you just ignore these sections?

"As always, we cannot allow third parties to obtain money from our intellectual property."

"Placing scans or copies of any Games Workshop material on an e-mail list or news group is a violation of our rights and amounts to a serious infringement. Please do not participate in this activity, and if you are aware of it, please write to the legal department on the following email address: Legal@games-workshop.co.uk"

"The same would be true of any painting companion or guide - you must not make money from Games Workshop intellectual property without a license."

"Importantly, if you are creating a solely GW-focused fanzine, do not sell your fanzine and do not obtain any sponsorship."

"We would probably not have a problem with anyone creating animations based upon our intellectual property - as long as there is no commercial connection to that creation."

"We cannot allow users to make and or sell derivatives of our copyright protected material or our trademarks on the café press or any similar websites."

I mean, it does seem pretty obvious BOLS breaks those rules in all kinds of ways. So I guess I could be as snarky as you and ask if your in-house legal guidance is versed in US copyright law.

This isn't a shot at BOLS, it's a rumor aggregate site and GW doesn't seem to mind it. You seem to think if one site is allowed to do something then AB40k3 will be held harmless. As you've discovered, GW reserves the right to do anything they want to. They will give you better answers if you have a lawyer ask though.

As far as my site goes, a very good copyright lawyer from the Associated Press reviewed what I post a few weeks ago.

Since I criticize, comment, and teach without profit, I am covered under Title 107. My use of actual IP is very small (amount and substantiality) and the effect upon the IP seems to be...buy these models to make this list. Note any attempt by GW to muzzle me would likely be tossed solely on free speech grounds, and not even get to copyright.

Not making money gives me a big amount of protection in the US.

Maybe you should just ignore everything I say, and go with your 'concept' of copyright law? I just hope you don't actually get involved in a copyright case, you'll find your 'concept' is flawed badly.

I'm also assuming you took your own opinion when taking that shot at my site instead of asking a lawyer about it like I did.

Anyway, maybe if I stop giving you advice you'll take some.

[Spack]

This has gone beyond tiresome now. You've warned us, fine. I personally don't think there's an issue here, and nor does the person I'm currently talking to about this. The team are discussing how to go forward with this. If things go belly up, feel free to say you told us so. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it now, as would most, if not all, of the rest of the AB40k team.

You seem to just take this whole thing personally, which is nothing new.

Of course I take things personally when you repeatedly make slurs about my competence. You obviously are not fully versed in copyright law either or else you wouldn't be paying a lawyer do any work.

As far as my site goes, a very good copyright lawyer from the Associated Press reviewed what I post a few weeks ago.

Since I criticize, comment, and teach without profit, I am covered under Title 107. My use of actual IP is very small (amount and substantiality) and the effect upon the IP seems to be...buy these models to make this list. Note any attempt by GW to muzzle me would likely be tossed solely on free speech grounds, and not even get to copyright.

I'm also assuming you took your own opinion when taking that shot at my site instead of asking a lawyer about it like I did.

It doesn't matter how little IP you're using, you're still using it. You infringe at least 2 of the GW IP policy sections yourself. Why do you feel that you have to keep pushing it to others and yet don't take your own advice? Jill at GW was very insistent on that IP policy - so why did your lawyer see fit to advise you that it doesn't apply to you?

Fine, my understanding of copyright law is flawed. Yours is too, that's very apparent. Feel free to give Jill Stevenson at GW legal, her extension is 4124 and you'll get the same answer I did - GW's policy is printed on their website and you should refer to that. I showed you where you fail to comply - you have no more legal standing than we do.

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing more to discuss with you. What happens now is up to the team as a whole, and be assured that it will be discussed (as it has been for some time, before we'd even considered putting these community lists in).

[Stelek]

Sorry, which two sections do you think I violate?

I'm just curious.

Obviously everything I've said has just been parroted from said lawyer.

Including the statement I don't infringe on GW's copyrights in any way--the best way to tell if you do is to report yourself, as I did about 8 months ago. When you don't get a followup contact from GW, odds are what my lawyer says is true, eh?

Calling GWUK legal won't be of much benefit, since the person you'd need to call is apparently in the US. You know US copyright law applies to me, and UK copyright law applies to you, right?

Certainly seems you've gotten a non-answer from GW UK on your actions confused with my answer from a US copyright attorney confused as one and the same.

They certainly are not the same.

[Spack]

Sorry, which two sections do you think I violate?

I'm just curious.

The section about forums - the language used on your site. And the fact that you don't appear to any of the GW disclaimers on your site that are required if there is any reference to their IP of any kind.

Calling GWUK legal won't be of much benefit, since the person you'd need to call is apparently in the US. You know US copyright law applies to me, and UK copyright law applies to you, right?

So what happened to GW UK being the only legal dept to call, and that there is effectively no US legal dept. That's rhetorical by the way.

Certainly seems you've gotten a non-answer from GW UK on your actions confused with my answer from a US copyright attorney confused as one and the same.

No, I referred to your claim that you'd had an IP answer from GW legal. A claim that GW UK legal says cannot have occurred, and as you already stated GW US defers to UK on legal matters so GW US would not have given you an answer either.

While you contradicting yourself is amusing, the entire debate is at an end.

Further posts about this from anyone other than members of the AB40k team will be considered as breaking rules (5) and (9) from the first section of our site rules, and rule (7) of the second section. Action will be discussed between site members and taken as we see fit.