PDA

View Full Version : Rise and Fall of TSR (Remind you of anything?)



Bigred
04-30-2013, 12:50 PM
You've GOT to read all of this...

THE RISE AND FALL OF TSR (http://dnd-realm.simplygaming.org/t34-the-rise-and-fall-of-tsr)

Here's a little tidbit to whet your tongue...


...It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

The company was hostile to its fans, business partners, and even former associates that didn't have much clout with the company. TSR became infamous for micromanaging its licensing partners, with draconian licensing managers that dictated everything that a licensor could do, from the color of a box to exactly which piece of licensed D&D artwork the licensee would be forced to use. Even Gary Gygax himself wasn't immune. When Gygax created a new RPG system with Game Designer's Workshop called Dangerous Journeys, TSR sued him for copyright infringement...

What's that thing they say about those who don't study history...

DrLove42
04-30-2013, 12:57 PM
Except GW aren't stopping people talking about their hobby.

They're stopping people posting illegal copies of unreleased materials

RGilbert26
04-30-2013, 01:01 PM
Yeah, I find it funny that people get angry when GW asks them to stop posting pictures of unreleased stuff, without GW's permission.

DarkLink
04-30-2013, 01:10 PM
"News reporting" is protected under fair use in the USA, and I know Australia has a similar thing. It's not illegal, it doesn't threaten GW's IP or trademarks or anything and, and it pisses off a large chunk of their fan base. And even if it were illegal, public opinion will probably burn GW a lot more than any marginal benefit they'll get from taking down Nafka. Great business practice:rolleyes:.

Edit: I guess if Nafka signed a NDA then it could be illegal, but I don't know how he gets his information.

Gotthammer
04-30-2013, 01:11 PM
I think it's safe to say given how riled up Red seems to be that it ain't just "technical issues" keeping the bell from tolling.

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 01:15 PM
That was an interesting read, but I find it difficult to objectively draw parallels between TSR's situation in the mid 90's and GW's situation now. If anything GW has kept its ship afloat through the worst of the rough seas. TSR dug its own grave and directly antagonized the fan base. GW has been steadily, even ruthlessly, digging itself out of a grave that the economy tried to bury it in. It's doing the exact opposite of a lot of the things TSR did. It's not over-saturating its brand with too many unsupportable products (if anything the opposite: epic, battlefleet gothic, Mordheim? Where'd they all go? Away, in favor of more robust support for the horse that got them there.) its not licensing out its IP to everyone with a cool logo (in fact the GW based video games have been largely successful endeavors, barring that ill fated MMORPG, but hey at least they haven't made another one amirite?) and, as of yet, its not directly antagonizing its fanbase... well at least too much. Some people might consider 80 dollar riptides antagonistic, and I'd honestly be hard pressed to disagree heh.

Beating up on the fanbase in the form of penalizing the small subset of bloggers who make some sort of monetary return from reporting on GW leaks is arguably antagonistic, but its nowhere near the level of trying to shutdown all fansites and outlawing even the mention of Warhammer in internet chat forums.

I don't agree with their more draconian actions, and I really think they should modernize the way they sell and market their game related information, but saying that they are mirroring the decline of TSR is a hard pill to swallow.

You're also missing one key ingredient to this perfect storm, namely a Wizards of The Coast. GW has no legitimate competition waiting in the wings to drive a stake through its heart when its ages old vigor finally departs its ancient bones. Its a lot easier for even a sickly gazelle to go on living if all the lions are actually house cats.

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 01:37 PM
"News reporting" is protected under fair use in the USA, and I know Australia has a similar thing. It's not illegal, it doesn't threaten GW's IP or trademarks or anything and, and it pisses off a large chunk of their fan base. And even if it were illegal, public opinion will probably burn GW a lot more than any marginal benefit they'll get from taking down Nafka. Great business practice:rolleyes:.

Edit: I guess if Nafka signed a NDA then it could be illegal, but I don't know how he gets his information.

Yet with news, you still can't use copyrighted material without permission of the owner. So again fair use falls down, especially when it's stuff a company don't want people to see until a specific date.

Ordo Septenarius
04-30-2013, 01:40 PM
"They Sue Regularly" was around far before the internet. I think there's even an instance readily available in "Murphy's Rules: From the Pages of Space Gamer."

daboarder
04-30-2013, 01:42 PM
Yet with news, you still can't use copyrighted material without permission of the owner. So again fair use falls down, especially when it's stuff a company don't want people to see until a specific date.

Got a refernce or quote for that claim?

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 01:44 PM
Horrible lawsuits against people who blabbed or leaked stuff to the press?

Google it dude. Plenty out there.

daboarder
04-30-2013, 01:52 PM
Horrible lawsuits against people who blabbed or leaked stuff to the press?

Google it dude. Plenty out there.

And with that youve destryed your credibility.

I could google horribly reported upon legal cases that ha e a vague bearing o the import of free use.....or you could go directly to the posted legislation. But that would be hard right?

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 01:55 PM
Some guy leaks Battlefield 3 photos. Gets sued.

Some guy leaks a Beyonce album. Get sued.

Tell you what chum, why not pass over a few examples of copyrighted, time barred stuff being linked where it was ruled fair usage by an actual Judge, and not the court of wild opinion? What's sauce for the Goose and that......

daboarder
04-30-2013, 02:02 PM
Some guy leaks Battlefield 3 photos. Gets sued.

Some guy leaks a Beyonce album. Get sued.

Tell you what chum, why not pass over a few examples of copyrighted, time barred stuff being linked where it was ruled fair usage by an actual Judge, and not the court of wild opinion? What's sauce for the Goose and that......

Some guy leaks apple iphone 5 doesnt get sued.

Some guy leams fords new car doesnt get sued.

Tell ya what chum. If you want to have an actual discussion why dont we go to the legislation like I proposed. If you want to have an internet **** waving contest....well just go away.

Defenestratus
04-30-2013, 02:07 PM
Got a refernce or quote for that claim?

can't because the DMCA specifically allows for the fair use if copy written works as long as they aren't reproduced in whole.

Furthermore the DMCA isn't even applicable to printed works, just movies and music.

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 02:09 PM
You first Mr Cholmendly Warner.

Please, link us to a case where someone leaked stuff they knew they weren't, and that stuff was owned by another company, and subsequently won the case, setting sufficient legal precedence that meant it was all ok, and nobody can ever sue on such grounds ever again.

And just to make sure.... You are aware of the difference of choosing not to sue/take action, and not having grounds to sue due to the law or existing legal precedent yes? Because if you're not, you may as well give up now...

daboarder
04-30-2013, 02:13 PM
You first Mr Cholmendly Warner.

Please, link us to a case where someone leaked stuff they knew they weren't, and that stuff was owned by another company, and subsequently won the case, setting sufficient legal precedence that meant it was all ok, and nobody can ever sue on such grounds ever again.

And just to make sure.... You are aware of the difference of choosing not to sue/take action, and not having grounds to sue due to the law or existing legal precedent yes? Because if you're not, you may as well give up now...

And......**** waving it is. Alright mate have your fun but I for one wont be wasting my time having a conversation with someone unwilling to make an effort.

Hmm so the filter doesn't pick that up?

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 02:15 PM
Translation?

Bum cakes! He seems to actually have a point, time to turn to childish insults rather than serve some shut-up sauce....

daboarder
04-30-2013, 02:20 PM
For those of you who might not know and are actually interestex. Google search your countries legislation. For example in australia the copyrightegislation is available to access for free and outlines how free use is relevant to the reporting of news, product reviews and satire. I will post a link whe I arrive at work.

GrauGeist
04-30-2013, 02:25 PM
You missed the ludicrous bit in which TSR claimed copyright over the word "Dragons".

I mean, nobody would overreach that far, would they? It would be like trying to copyright the word "Warhammer".

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 02:25 PM
For those of you who might not know and are actually interested.

Copyright law is a byzantine and wholly inhuman realm of pain and misery and should never be discussed by anyone, ever. Especially by people on the internet.

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 02:27 PM
Fair Use.....applies to stuff already released to the general public....

Oh. Oh dear....... Seems I was right..... Fair use doesn't apply in this instance.......

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 02:32 PM
Fair Use.....applies to stuff already released to the general public....

Oh. Oh dear....... Seems I was right..... Fair use doesn't apply in this instance.......

This is truth.

I think the thing sticking in people's brains is those pics you see in car mags of the latest models all camo'd up. Those models haven't been released to the public yet so you'd figure there would be grounds for legal action there, but I think there's some kind of loophole in that circumstance that makes the pictures ok so long as the vehicle was viewable from public property or some such thing. I don't know.

The real moral of the story is that if you wanted to be a copyright lawyer you probably shouldn't have spent so much time on the intarwebs and maybe went to law school.

pgarfunkle
04-30-2013, 02:34 PM
I don't have any links to back this up but my understanding is that the images are copy-write protected and reproducing them is the issue. If the images in question were photos someone had taken themselves then there's not much GW could have done about it, as it is someone is using their images without permission in a way they do not allow resulting in legal action.

Saying that I do think that GW's legal team needs to be give a good jerk on their leash, I've been wondering recently if the legal function has been either completely or partly outsourced.

NockerGeek
04-30-2013, 02:40 PM
can't because the DMCA specifically allows for the fair use if copy written works as long as they aren't reproduced in whole.

Furthermore the DMCA isn't even applicable to printed works, just movies and music.

Actually, no. This takedown notice is covered under Title II of the DMCA, which just appends additional rules for online service providers, methods for issuing takedown notices, etc. to the existing US copyright laws. There's no limitation stating that it only applies to music, movies, etc.

Also, this isn't a matter of fair use or not; it's a matter of right of first reveal. If you posted an excerpt of an upcoming book without permission of the publisher before that book was available for sale, you can bet that the publisher would come after you with all legal tools at their disposal, because you shouldn't have access to the book yet. Once the book is out, sure, excerpt to your heart's content (so long as you don't end up reposting the entire book, of course).

DaBigNob
04-30-2013, 02:42 PM
I don't have any links to back this up but my understanding is that the images are copy-write protected and reproducing them is the issue.

GW being a douchebag is the issue.

jgebi
04-30-2013, 02:45 PM
Next person to use Australia as an example that isn't Australian I'll find you and shoot you or just beat you with a chainsword victims choice. But seriously they have a right to go 'hey we didn't want this up could you please take it down' then most likely everyone went pff what can you do, so they went and applied pressure. Their in the right on this no matter how you spin it

daboarder
04-30-2013, 02:48 PM
Next person to use Australia as an example that isn't Australian I'll find you and shoot you or just beat you with a chainsword victims choice. But seriously they have a right to go 'hey we didn't want this up could you please take it down' then most likely everyone went pff what can you do, so they went and applied pressure. Their in the right on this no matter how you spin it

Who the hell are you talking about?

DaBigNob
04-30-2013, 02:48 PM
TSR dug its own grave and directly antagonized the fan base
snip
TLDR

What? You don't think that GW is directly antagonizing their fan base? So these things aren't antagonistic?...

Taking down news sites that do nothing than promote your products and serve as unpaid evangelists?
Completely losing touch with reality with their laughable prices.
Not supporting the community in anyway whatsoever
Strongarming independant retailers with restrictive trade agreements
Relying on growing number of "direct only" products (the recent flyers book for example)
And generally acting like their poop don't stink.

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 03:02 PM
Also known as 'doing what every other company ever' does?

They aren't a charity folks. They're here to make money. And their IP and copyright are their bread and butter.

But, if your capitalism adverse, I hear things are warming up in Communist North Korea right now, so the weather sounds lovely!

End of the World
04-30-2013, 03:12 PM
Also known as 'doing what every other company ever' does?

They aren't a charity folks. They're here to make money. And their IP and copyright are their bread and butter.

But, if your capitalism adverse, I hear things are warming up in Communist North Korea right now, so the weather sounds lovely!

Maybe 'Doing what every other company ever' does is not appropriate in a niche market with a vocal, active fan base?

Mr Mystery
04-30-2013, 03:31 PM
Couldn't agree less chum.

This sort of thing happens every now and again, and the same people burn their bras, call the end times, and still struggle to get that second nail in.

And the term your looking for is a vocal minority. GW enforcing their right to reveal really isn't a big shake...

End of the World
04-30-2013, 03:45 PM
Couldn't agree less chum.

This sort of thing happens every now and again, and the same people burn their bras, call the end times, and still struggle to get that second nail in.

And the term your looking for is a vocal minority. GW enforcing their right to reveal really isn't a big shake...

I don't get the connection between radical feminist bra burning and being affected by a corporation's poor decision making. One is a response to a societal condition, the other is a response to a beloved hobby being consistently damaged by the people who were put in charge of it. As such, I don't really think this thing is cyclical so much as a legitimate response to completely reasonable concerns. I could be wrong but I'm not seeing any evidence why I am.

Just out of curiosity, what would GW have to do to anger you? They've already (Apparently) shut down a fan site that you enjoy (BOLS) and participate on, so I'm just wondering how many more toes one would have to step on before you consider it offensive. I'm not asking this to be critical of you as a stalwart GW fan but to try to understand the mind of the most hardcore fans.

As for whether the internet fans are a vocal minority or a majority I'd be willing to admit that we don't have any solid proof one way or the other. But then again, it seems rather absurd that the majority of the 20-something geek types who play the game wouldn't also be involved in at least some small part of the internet discussion about their hobby.

RealGenius
04-30-2013, 03:54 PM
You missed the ludicrous bit in which TSR claimed copyright over the word "Dragons".

You mean like trying to sue for the use of "Space Marine"? :)

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 04:04 PM
I'm not asking this to be critical of you as a stalwart GW fan but to try to understand the mind of the most hardcore fans.

I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Being relatively unaffected by something doesn't generally place one in the column of "hardcore fan." In fact, it does the opposite.

A lot of what I'm hearing isn't so much slavish GW fanboyism as marginally disinterested acceptance.

"Oh, GW did some goofy stuff again? Those cads, when will they learn? Oh well, guess I'll go buy some more space marines since I like space marines."

If anything I'd use the term hardcore to describe people who are so emotionally invested in the product that they deem it necessary to crusade for wargaming justice by decrying the evils of capitalism as it relates to their beloved hobby.

Caitsidhe
04-30-2013, 04:07 PM
I think that the history of TSR has lots of funny and educational lessons to teach. The only one that really matters, however, is that it is not a good idea to get into an adversarial relationship with your market consumers. Blaming and attacking the very people who promote and play your game is the height of idiocy.

End of the World
04-30-2013, 04:08 PM
I think this is a bit of a misnomer. Being relatively unaffected by something doesn't generally place one in the column of "hardcore fan." In fact, it does the opposite.

A lot of what I'm hearing isn't so much slavish GW fanboyism as marginally disinterested acceptance.

"Oh, GW did some goofy stuff again? Those cads, when will they learn? Oh well, guess I'll go buy some more space marines since I like space marines."

If anything I'd use the term hardcore to describe people who are so emotionally invested in the product that they deem it necessary to crusade for wargaming justice by decrying the evils of capitalism as it relates to their beloved hobby.

And individual with 3000-odd posts on a forum concerning a single topic seems like a hardcore fan to me, but what do I know.

I'm not trying to say anyone's a fan boy, I just want to understand the "loyalist" position better.

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 04:11 PM
You'd be surprised the rate at which internet forum posts can accumulate for your average forumite. Hell I'm sure I've probably got like 10,000 or so posts on a cookware forum somewhere and I don't even own a dutch oven.

No but seriously, hardcore is a completely subjective adjective that can be used derisively or positively dependent on the connotations, and can be applied to almost anyone or anything if you skew it right. My post was mainly to illustrate this reality and attempt to engender a more meaningful discourse than "casuals vs. hardcores" which is probably the second worst argument to be had on the internet.

Ghostofman
04-30-2013, 04:16 PM
While we're getting tied up in copyright/IP issues, the core article makes are good point. The antisocial behavior of TSR wasn't just about turning profits, it was about a business plan and management decisions that didn't hold up well in a changing market. TSR acted like jerks because the alternative was the expensive and risky proposition of taking a long hard look at thier operation and revising it, from the ground up in some cases, to handle the changing landscape.

Now we see GW pulling a lot of similar stunts (going after unrelated books and products for infringement, suppressing online retail sales, ect) . While well within their rights to do, the question becomes: Is this indicative of a larger problem within the business?

While I don't think the sky is falling, I do often get the feeling that GWs business practices still have one foot in the early 90's...

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 04:20 PM
I think its pretty obvious where GW's business shortcomings lie. They quite simply refuse to invest in appropriate infrastructure unless it becomes absolutely necessary, and even then they implement new services and products in the most boneheaded way possible.

They are basically trying to ride that gravy train until the wheels fall off, with the only glaringly strange facet being that, for the most part *COUGHFINECASTCOUGH* their main product actually DOES get better. Oddly enough this seems to be serving them well enough. They neglect everything you'd think would be necessary for a modern business to function (proper marketing, product transparency, customer interface, community building and brand recognition, competitive pricing, innovative information media solutions etc.) but still churn out some really nifty miniatures, and so people keep buying them.

All signs point to an OJ complex. you can literally murder white women, but hey! you're the JUUUICE!

Wolfshade
04-30-2013, 04:30 PM
Actually, no. This takedown notice is covered under Title II of the DMCA, which just appends additional rules for online service providers, methods for issuing takedown notices, etc. to the existing US copyright laws. There's no limitation stating that it only applies to music, movies, etc.

Also, this isn't a matter of fair use or not; it's a matter of right of first reveal. If you posted an excerpt of an upcoming book without permission of the publisher before that book was available for sale, you can bet that the publisher would come after you with all legal tools at their disposal, because you shouldn't have access to the book yet. Once the book is out, sure, excerpt to your heart's content (so long as you don't end up reposting the entire book, of course).

It seems that this issue has been over looked.

Also, with all due respect BigRed, I am not sure that this is "40k General" perhaps the corporate section would be better.

Power Klawz
04-30-2013, 04:32 PM
It seems that this issue has been over looked.

Also, with all due respect BigRed, I am not sure that this is "40k General" perhaps the corporate section would be better.

But that would require people to scroll all the way down to wherever that is. There are WAAAYYY too many subforums in this place.

Mr Mystery
05-01-2013, 02:58 AM
Just out of curiosity, what would GW have to do to anger you? They've already (Apparently) shut down a fan site that you enjoy (BOLS) and participate on, so I'm just wondering how many more toes one would have to step on before you consider it offensive. I'm not asking this to be critical of you as a stalwart GW fan but to try to understand the mind of the most hardcore fans.



What would it take for GW to anger me?.... Well, it would have to be pretty severe. Because you see, in my life, my primary concerns are, in no particular order... 1. Getting to and from work. 2. Hitting targets at work. 3. Having enough money to see me through the month. 4. Ensuring my bills are paid on time, every time. 5. All those other little things which tend to take up one's attention in the course of life.

The actions of a hobby company whose products I happen to enjoy really really don't bother me in the slightest. Faeit knew what he was posting up, and knew it was still officially under wraps, and that he shouldn't be doing it. Has he tried to portray himself as some kind of martyr? Not to my knowledge. Though there are others determined to act the martyr in his stead.

As for minority/majority. Once upon a time, I used to work for GW (2010. I now have a proper sensible career type job) as a store staffer. During this, I got sent out to various stores. And most customers whilst of course aware of the internets, weren't forum members, or particularly interested in becoming them. Mostly because the internet is a pretty toxic place to be if you're a nerd, mostly because other nerds make it that way, and they generally have better things to do with their time. Like, get on with the fun of enjoying your hobby without others making you out to be some kind of freakish lickspittle for enjoying the product you've spent several thousand pounds on.

And seriously....go take a look around.... The majority of people whining are serial whiners. They whine here. They whine on Whineseer. They whine on Dakkadakka. Their noise/signal ratio is low, and they decide they are the majority, even though there's a hardcore of what, no more than 50 amongst those sites?

DarkLink
05-01-2013, 12:32 PM
And of course we get all these internet lawyers who don't know what the **** they're talking about. "Oh, but GW has to protect their trademarks", but if an actual lawyer steps in with an educated opinion, who cares.

NockerGeek
05-01-2013, 01:04 PM
And of course we get all these internet lawyers who don't know what the **** they're talking about. "Oh, but GW has to protect their trademarks", but if an actual lawyer steps in with an educated opinion, who cares.

Actually, the lawyer commentary has been very interesting to read - for instance, Sean_Obrien and Janthkin's discussion over on DakkaDakka. What everything seems to come down to is whether or not Natfka's posting of leaked info falls under fair use, and that may depend on whether or not a lone independent blogger can be considered a journalist and thus get the use of leaked materials considered news reporting. The judge in the Johns-Byrne Co. v. Technobuffalo did eventually decide that Technobuffalo was a news outlet, especially in the case of posting leaked materials, especially since they had reporters, an editor, etc. On the other hand, the judge in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox decided that a blogger is just an opinionated individual, and not an actual journalist because there's none of the standard hallmarks of traditional journalism (journalistic training, editorial oversight, etc.). It's admittedly a grey area, and not even actual lawyers can seem to agree.

I do stand corrected in that fair use does not care if the material has been published or not (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the US copyright code), so if the post on Faeit212 does qualify for fair use, then I would concede that GW's legal team overstepped their bounds, and I would hope a counternotice is being drafted as we speak. I can't blame GW for taking action that they think would be covered under the law, but if they were wrong then I agree that they should get their hands slapped for doing it.

Mr Mystery
05-01-2013, 01:42 PM
Yet if its a grey area, a company should explore it.

Also, anyone know where Nafka is based? Jurisdiction informs far more than any given case law. UK Fair Use requires the info/image/what have you to have been released to the public, ruling out stuff not released.

DarkLink
05-01-2013, 02:07 PM
Australia, I'm pretty sure, and they apparently have fair use definitions similar enough to the USA's from what I've seen.


Actually, the lawyer commentary has been very interesting to read - for instance, Sean_Obrien and Janthkin's discussion over on DakkaDakka.

I meant the internet "lawyers", not the actual lawyers who happened to also be posting on the internet. I'm one of the former, so I'm guilty too;).