Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Erik Setzer <mailman@yourdoorstep,com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:49:07 -0500
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:23:14 -0500, Myrmidon <imnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <rvlcj35tjmbptc69ub99pmk0gdi0r0la63@xxxxxxx>,
mailman@yourdoorstep says...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:12:14 -0800, "Ishkabibble"Oh, and let's not forget when they screwed multiple web sites and
<spook66(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
"Erik Setzer" <mailman@yourdoorstep,com> wrote in message
news:s1eaj3hl88sdbc19kc6jg52u89d716bq6b@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:34:37 GMT, "Doctor Rock wrote:
"M Roberts" <unknown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7010484.stm
[ Mr Jones said despite Games Workshop's "admiration" for Damnatus it
could
not change its policy and allow the film to be shown.
He said Games Workshop was not acting "malevolently" but that this was a
case where an agreement has "failed to be reached". ]
more like GW's legal sphincter has once again "failed" to unclench,
despite
the retention of unhealthy quantities of copyright. yet they're more than
happy to splatter explosive license-diarrhea over anything that's
guaranteed
to turn a profit.
I lost my respect for GW's legal eagles when I was woke up one morning
by a knock on the door and found a certified envelope with a letter
threatening legal action if a section of my website wasn't modified.
A small section at that. No e-mail, no warning, just "If you don't do
this now, we will sue you." Totally pissed me off that they'd pull
such heavy-handed BS on their fans who are helping them to make money,
with no profit to ourselves.
It's even more ironic if you remember GW's Webway section on their
site with featured fan sites. Pretty much every one of them had GW
fluff word-for-word from somewhere, artwork plastered all over their
site, and a number of other blatant IP violations. Yet here GW is
spotlighting them while telling the rest of us they'll take legal
action over much less significant violations of their ridiculous IP
policy.
Now what exactly did you have that meant that GW would be losing millions of
ooblecks or whatever funny alternate reality money they seem to bank with?
Really, really old fluff. Ancient stuff from Rogue Trader. That was
it. Basic descriptions of the galaxy, the Imperium, and various
races.
players with their 'Now it's NOT ok (when it had been for ages before)
to post Chapter Approved articles' crappola. After all, why give
players errata and free updates, when you can SELL errata to your
players via 'Codex Chapter Approved' instead? Particularly since the
Crusader didn't have rules available anywhere except C.A. and of course
the Codex was months away from coming out. Ass-hats...
Yeah, that one was great. "Oh, you need to remove this stuff."
"Sorry, we found out it was really okay." "Oops, now we realized
we're going to sell this, you need to remove it. For real."
Reminds me of the crap they pulled with the BFG articles. Andy posted
a LOT of stuff to the BFG list and sent them to us for posting on the
website to get opinions, then later GW prints the final versions and
ends up sending an email to remove the articles. They were on the
website first!
Bunch of idiots.
--
Erik
Insert soulless sig file here.
.
- References:
- Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: M Roberts
- Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Doctor Rock
- Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Erik Setzer
- Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Ishkabibble
- Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Erik Setzer
- Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- From: Myrmidon
- Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- Prev by Date: Re: New Ork Codex
- Next by Date: Re: Plastic Baneblade rant/review [model]
- Previous by thread: Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- Next by thread: Re: Damnatus makes the BBC [GW]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
