40K Online
Community => Suggestions, Questions, and Comments => Topic started by: Arquarian on July 3, 2013, 07:57:58 AM
-
Relating to our site rules, specifically rule 1.
To clarify: This includes posting statlines, pointcosts and such found in the codex that you are using. Totals for a unit is ok, but cost per model, upgrade, weapon or such is not ok.
Maybe I've missed something but I can find no reference in the GW IP rules that prohibits the posting of stat lines, points costs or otherwise...
Legal: Page 4 | Games Workshop (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4&multiPageMode=true)
Can someone help me here?
I'm just trying to get to the the bottom of the argument so I can better understand our stance.
Arq.
-
That rule is common to most wargaming fora.
The section from page 4 which I believe covers it is this:
- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).
To reproduce stat lines, and points costs, would be effectively copying (albeit by hand) GW material, and would thus breach their copyright rules.
-
That rule is common to most wargaming fora.
The section from page 4 which I believe covers it is this:
- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).
To reproduce stat lines, and points costs, would be effectively copying (albeit by hand) GW material, and would thus breach their copyright rules.
That's not what "direct copy" means. The second sentence kind of gives it away.
-
Who said I was referring to 'direct copy'?
If you reproduce the points costs/stats of individual upgrades, and units, you are scanning the material in all but name. It's just a case of copying it from the book onto the computer screen via a keyboard input, rather than literally scanning it.
Yes, we play it ultra-safe here in terms of how much copyrighted information we remove, but that is because GW legal has visited this forum in the past, and has told us to change things in the past.
-
This is where the sites policy is as you say Iris, Ultra-safe and may not necessarily have to be so.
I fully agree scans, direct copies, hard or otherwise of fluff, stat lines, points costs are or can be construed under these guidelines as a breach.
However mentioning in conversation that a Dire Avenger has a toughness of 3 is not. My reasoning is that the above information is useless in its present context as you require more information in able to do anything namely the corresponding strength of a weapon / model and the to wound chart.
Whereas saying the Dire avenger is xx points would be a violation as this information can be used in its present context to build a list etc...
I'm not trying to be a smartarse and circumnavigate the site rules, that is not my aim. I simply trying to see if there is a way the site can be a little more user friendly without of course incurring any GW wrath.
Arq.
-
I'm with Arquarian on this one, it does get a little tedious reading posts where we have to talk in code because we're afraid of breaking rules (I do it myself). We've all read about space marine commanders costing the same as 20x Melta bombs or wraithlords having twice the toughness of a space marines.
Reading the GW legal bumf (I have no actual knowledge mind you) it does seem that the rules are mainly there to stop people taking/posting actual direct copies or images of their works.
Is there a way to check with GW to see what they consider permissible? Would certainly make discussing their game easier if we could actually use the correct numbers and the like.
-
Is there a way to check with GW to see what they consider permissible? Would certainly make discussing their game easier if we could actually use the correct numbers and the like.
People have e-mailed them before, but all they get in return are vague answers, and references to their IP policy. You're welcome to try yourself, but I don't think, based on past experiences, that you'd get very far.
I've never understood why people need to post stats anyway. Everyone reading the forum is highly likely to own the book for the armies which they play, so why post stats? It's completely unnecessary.
To take a made up example:
I think Evil Killer Termite Moles are great for shredding infantry because they have a S100 AP66 and 48 inch range gun
.
How is this useful? I think that it's safe to assume that everybody playing the army which includes this unit already knows this information, so why even bother posting the stats?
A far more useful statement might be:
The Evil Killer Termite Moles make for a very effective anti-infantry unit, owing to the strength, and AP of their weapons being very well suited to to shredding lightly armoured infantry. Their range makes them even more effective at this role, since it's very hard for opposing units with small arms to get into range to return fire.
No stats posted, points are conveyed eloquently, and no talking in code was necessary, because the stats aren't even required to make the point.
-
I fully agree Iris and you're absolutely correct that if expressed eloquently there is likely no need to post stats however, this is not always the case. I was recently commenting in a thread with many acronyms that I had to ask the measing of the sentence abnd this is by far an isolated incidence.
Unfortunatley there are some who are too lazy to type even the entrie word let alone a full sentence. It is in these cases where people will want to post stats rather than express themselves more eloquently.
(This poses the side issue of the use of acronyms and possibly to update of the glossary of terms we have. Its a little dated.Did I just volenteer myself?)
In your example though Iris, would not the moderators step in and moderate your example of...
I think Evil Killer Termite Moles are great for shredding infantry because they have a S100 AP66 and 48 inch range gun
to...
I think Evil Killer Termite Moles are great for shredding infantry because they have a S "of lots" AP "a low value" and "a long" range gun
which neuters the peosons post.
I will conceed that GW will have NO quarm with this moderation however,
I think there is a balance to be sought here.
-
Different moderators have different styles when fixing copyright. I normally just replies values with x, but will use wording when necessary; others may do it a slightly different way. Neither of which really causes very many posts to lose meaning in my experience, which just underlines the point I'm making about the stats not serving any purpose. Either way, the most important thing is to make sure that GW legal don't have any reason to get in touch with us.
-
I'd argue theta the most important thing is to create a solid community rather than live in fear of GW's legal team.
The issue is and the reason I inquired in the first place is that at present I believe, as WisdomLS pointed out, that many use daft and round about ways to state the obvious due to the fear of moderators in the background, ready to pounce. This does not promote free flowing conversation. the modetrators are enforcing the rules. I have absolutely no problems with that. [size=78%]My point Iris, was not concerning moderators at all but the rule itself.[/size]
-
I also agree that in generally you can just use good language to make your point in a discussion, but what if the discussion is about the stats?
Math hammer threads would be alot clearer if the poster could actually post what he means instead of saying "An autocannon str weapon VS a target with an guard toughness and a TEQ save plus an iron halo like invulnerable save."
Sure most of use know what I was saying above but it would have been alot clearer if I'd been able to just use the four numbers that I wanted to use.
Also I don't see why people should always have their codex's to hand to be able to take part in such discussions, GW's policy doesn't seem to prohibit the posting of stats just the reproduction of their physical property, there must be a way to get a clear answer on this, perhaps looking at the policy's of other forums and seeing where they draw the line.
-
The reason we're over cautious is pretty clear if you look carefully at page 3 of GW Legal to be fair
First, under So What is this IP Stuff then? they define what they consider to be their Intellectual property as pretty much being anything which they produce and isn't a physical item
Further down the page, under the section titled Very Important Bit they basically state that theGW Legal webpage isn't the full deal and even if it was they always reserve the right to go after anybody who does anything they decide to take offence to, at any time they please without any notice or need to update anything on that section of the website
In other words, if they decide to take it into their heads at any point to take offence to us posting stats they'll come after us with the legal department, so why risk posting stats at all?
-
That certainly seems a better reason, I was just going via the small snippet posted above.
-
I'd argue theta the most important thing is to create a solid community rather than live in fear of GW's legal team.
If GW's legal team think that what's being posted fails to comply with their IP policy, then there is no solid community; in fact there is no community at all, as they just ask the host to pull the plug if the site owner refuses to comply to the letter with a cease and desist order. Does that explain why we take the stance that we do?
As Changeyname points out above, that is a real possibility based on what they say on page three, so again, I have to say that the risk is too high. Yes, we probably play it soo safe, but we're hardly 'waiting to pounce' as you put it ;). Indeed my favourite days on the forum are when nobody posts excessive stats, so that I don't have to do any editing :).
I also agree that in generally you can just use good language to make your point in a discussion, but what if the discussion is about the stats?
Math hammer threads would be alot clearer if the poster could actually post what he means instead of saying "An autocannon str weapon VS a target with an guard toughness and a TEQ save plus an iron halo like invulnerable save."
Sure most of use know what I was saying above but it would have been alot clearer if I'd been able to just use the four numbers that I wanted to use.
There's nothing wrong with posting stats when they are abstract, and do not refer to any named model, or unit.
An example:
[insert number of hits here] S4 vs MEQ [insert your wound percentage results here]
[insert number of hits here] S4 vs TEQ [insert your wound percentage results here]
This would be if you wanted to assess the impact of S4 hits in general (i.e. not attributed to any unit or weapon) against MEQ/TEQ units.
If you want to used named weapons:
Autocannon: Average hits = x, average wounds vs GEQ =, average wounds vs MEQ =, average wound vs TEQ =
That's simple, and conveys the point, without using any stats about the Autocannon at all.
Also I don't see why people should always have their codex's to hand to be able to take part in such discussions, GW's policy doesn't seem to prohibit the posting of stats just the reproduction of their physical property, there must be a way to get a clear answer on this, perhaps looking at the policy's of other forums and seeing where they draw the line.
It's easy to remember most commonly used stats without having to keep looking at the codex ;).
I've already mentioned that other fora have the same rule regarding posting stat lines/points costs that Arquarian has quoted from our rules. That is, however, not a guide for us. As a private forum, the rules are determined by the site owner, not based on what other fora do, so there's always going to be some level of variance regarding the rules.
As I say, you're welcome to e-mail GW to ask for clarity, but I'm dubious as to how much you'll get.
I think that Changeyname's post covers everything else.
-
The reason we're over cautious is pretty clear if you look carefully at page 3 of GW Legal to be fair
First, under So What is this IP Stuff then? they define what they consider to be their Intellectual property as pretty much being anything which they produce and isn't a physical item
Further down the page, under the section titled Very Important Bit they basically state that theGW Legal webpage isn't the full deal and even if it was they always reserve the right to go after anybody who does anything they decide to take offence to, at any time they please without any notice or need to update anything on that section of the website
In other words, if they decide to take it into their heads at any point to take offence to us posting stats they'll come after us with the legal department, so why risk posting stats at all?
GW has an incredibly generous definition of IP unfortunately for them it itsnt one that is backed up in law as recently shown in the chapter house case where they infact lost alot of what they claim was IP they also lost the right to prevent people using a lot of logos. Also i accordance with IP law in certain countries and states reproduction of a percentage of an item is permissible given that its in the context of a review whether request by the manufacturer or not.
Case in point look at the numerous youtube videos reviewing any new codex which often involves the reviewer reading the statline out loud and often reading a rule out word for word.
As for GW legal contacting a host and having them pull a website i refer you to Faeit 212 and his currently re-established website after it was proven that it was an abuse for GW to contact a webhost direct.
The fact is that for many years GW has been the biggest boy in the playground and thrown their weight around alot. However with genuine competition from companies like privateer and mantic (often formed by ex GW employees) people have started standing up to the bully and making him do what his claimed to be able to do for years.
Do we want to have to go through this - maybe not
Will we see their attitudes changing soon perhaps
-
Could someone, anyone, please provide an example of a 40k forum getting shut down because people posted statlines and points values in the course of ordinary discussion?
What about a forum being shut down because some one said that Space Marines are T4 with a 3+ armour save?
I'd argue theta the most important thing is to create a solid community rather than live in fear of GW's legal team.
If GW's legal team think that what's being posted fails to comply with their IP policy, then there is no solid community; in fact there is no community at all, as they just ask the host to pull the plug if the site owner refuses to comply to the letter with a cease and desist order. Does that explain why we take the stance that we do?
As Changeyname points out above, that is a real possibility based on what they say on page three, so again, I have to say that the risk is too high. Yes, we probably play it soo safe, but we're hardly 'waiting to pounce' as you put it ;). Indeed my favourite days on the forum are when nobody posts excessive stats, so that I don't have to do any editing :).
I also agree that in generally you can just use good language to make your point in a discussion, but what if the discussion is about the stats?
Math hammer threads would be alot clearer if the poster could actually post what he means instead of saying "An autocannon str weapon VS a target with an guard toughness and a TEQ save plus an iron halo like invulnerable save."
Sure most of use know what I was saying above but it would have been alot clearer if I'd been able to just use the four numbers that I wanted to use.
There's nothing wrong with posting stats when they are abstract, and do not refer to any named model, or unit.
An example:
[insert number of hits here] S4 vs MEQ [insert your wound percentage results here]
[insert number of hits here] S4 vs TEQ [insert your wound percentage results here]
This would be if you wanted to assess the impact of S4 hits in general (i.e. not attributed to any unit or weapon) against MEQ/TEQ units.
If you want to used named weapons:
Autocannon: Average hits = x, average wounds vs GEQ =, average wounds vs MEQ =, average wound vs TEQ =
That's simple, and conveys the point, without using any stats about the Autocannon at all.
Also I don't see why people should always have their codex's to hand to be able to take part in such discussions, GW's policy doesn't seem to prohibit the posting of stats just the reproduction of their physical property, there must be a way to get a clear answer on this, perhaps looking at the policy's of other forums and seeing where they draw the line.
It's easy to remember most commonly used stats without having to keep looking at the codex ;).
I've already mentioned that other fora have the same rule regarding posting stat lines/points costs that Arquarian has quoted from our rules. That is, however, not a guide for us. As a private forum, the rules are determined by the site owner, not based on what other fora do, so there's always going to be some level of variance regarding the rules.
As I say, you're welcome to e-mail GW to ask for clarity, but I'm dubious as to how much you'll get.
I think that Changeyname's post covers everything else.
This is what makes this forum so inaccessible to new members. Why would a person new to the hobby bother to read these forums when they can't understand what's being said?
The answer is that they wouldn't, and they don't, and that's why this place is in terminal decline.
The forum rules completely misunderstand IP law and GW's approach to protecting it.
Quoting rules and statistics in the course of discussion is perfectly fine as far as both the law and GW legal are concerned. GW consider it a perfectly ordinary part of the hobby and they will confirm that if you email them.
-
Could someone, anyone, please provide an example of a 40k forum getting shut down because people posted statlines and points values in the course of ordinary discussion?
You're missing the point. The fact of the matter is that GW could decide to do just that, as is made clear in their IP policy, and so we take the safest path, owing to the fact that GW has monitored this forum before, has contacted the Staff before, and demanded changes to the forum before. Posting statlines is posting their IP, so if they decide they don't like it, and threaten to shut the site down, we'd have a serious problem.
This is what makes this forum so inaccessible to new members. Why would a person new to the hobby bother to read these forums when they can't understand what's being said?
The answer is that they wouldn't, and they don't, and that's why this place is in terminal decline.
The forum rules completely misunderstand IP law and GW's approach to protecting it.
Quoting rules and statistics in the course of discussion is perfectly fine as far as both the law and GW legal are concerned. GW consider it a perfectly ordinary part of the hobby and they will confirm that if you email them.
All of this is speculation on your part, and you fail to take account of the alternative explanations that I, and others, have put to you in the past, including, but not limited to, an old server, and competition from Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, not forgetting a financial crisis.
Regarding e-mails to GW legal, I can assure you that, based on written e-mails other forum members here have sent to GW over the years, they do not provide the unambiguous answers you suggest when it comes to using their IP. If you have an e-mail from their lawyers, and not just someone in their customer service department, which gives explicit permission for us to use their IP, then by all means feel free to share it here.
-
I want to address one point that is constantly brought up every time this conversation comes up.
However mentioning in conversation that a Dire Avenger has a toughness of 3 is not
Where do you draw the line? If it is permissible for you to specify the toughness, why cannot you not then go and mention the models strength? If you allow T and ST to be mentioned, it's not too far of a stretch to add in attacks as well. If you are going with those three, why stop there and prevent people from mentioning the WS as well? Or their save?
Really what it comes down to is if you limit the amount people can say at any point, there will always be argument to go one step further. So to err on the side of caution, we go with no stats. You can argue against it and put in a measure saying "excessive stats aren't allowed," but again, all comes back to the question of what is the definition of excessive and whose definition do we go by? Your idea of excessive may be 4 stats. My definition of excessive is 1.
-
What I find particularly frustrating about all this is that this site does not seem to have a clear grasp of what is and isn't acceptable from a copyright point of view and instead just take a hard line based on opinion.
For instance I reported the use of links that showed photographs of the White Dwarf but the practice was allowed to continue even though this is a breach of copyright. As far as I am aware you are legally allowed to copy up to 5% or one chapter (whichever is greater) of a published book and use it for purposes of critique. Critique is essentially what is happening in the rules forum.
-
What I find particularly frustrating about all this is that this site does not seem to have a clear grasp of what is and isn't acceptable from a copyright point of view and instead just take a hard line based on opinion.
For instance I reported the use of links that showed photographs of the White Dwarf but the practice was allowed to continue even though this is a breach of copyright. As far as I am aware you are legally allowed to copy up to 5% or one chapter (whichever is greater) of a published book and use it for purposes of critique. Critique is essentially what is happening in the rules forum.
Where do you get this information, it is purely fictional there is no finite or definitive amount of what you can and cannot copy for critique or reviewing purposes in fact it varies from country to country and i believe state to state in the US. The reason why there isnt a clear grasp is because the law is intentionally vague for a reason. If you hold IP it is for you to make a representation when you feel that it is being broken, this is commonly done by a cease and desist letter where it should be made clear what the alleged breach has occurred and what they request be done to rectify it. if you feel that you havent thats when you take it to court and make representations before a judge.
Now in the past GW has used its big boy mentality to abuse the cease and desist method making outlandish requests and knowing that often one man band businesses or forum owners are unable to bear the financial cost of going through the courts.
As i said above we may see this start to change and a large amount of IP lawyers have started to offer pro bono work in lawsuits against GW however this by no means will guarantee that you will not be left with a financial burden. Now given that we all enjoy this forum for no cost at all is it fair to ask those that do pay to take the risk of being hit with a cease and desist or a court case to take the risk.
As is said in most cases posting statlines is often unnecessary and the only place for it being a proper well written review of a codex in line with what you can see in youtube videos from the likes of Beasts of war.
-
I want to address one point that is constantly brought up every time this conversation comes up.However mentioning in conversation that a Dire Avenger has a toughness of 3 is not
Where do you draw the line? If it is permissible for you to specify the toughness, why cannot you not then go and mention the models strength? If you allow T and ST to be mentioned, it's not too far of a stretch to add in attacks as well. If you are going with those three, why stop there and prevent people from mentioning the WS as well? Or their save?
Every statistic and rule should be available for reference in the course of ordinary discussion.
Really what it comes down to is if you limit the amount people can say at any point, there will always be argument to go one step further. So to err on the side of caution, we go with no stats. You can argue against it and put in a measure saying "excessive stats aren't allowed," but again, all comes back to the question of what is the definition of excessive and whose definition do we go by? Your idea of excessive may be 4 stats. My definition of excessive is 1.
Do you actually consider a reference to a single statistic excessive? Why? Or are you just being facetious?
Could someone, anyone, please provide an example of a 40k forum getting shut down because people posted statlines and points values in the course of ordinary discussion?
You're missing the point. The fact of the matter is that GW could decide to do just that, as is made clear in their IP policy, and so we take the safest path, owing to the fact that GW has monitored this forum before, has contacted the Staff before, and demanded changes to the forum before. Posting statlines is posting their IP, so if they decide they don't like it, and threaten to shut the site down, we'd have a serious problem.
I'm not missing the point. You say that the rules preventing references to statistics and rules are necessary to prevent GW from shutting the site down.
That is simply not true. The current rules are unnecessarily restrictive. They should be relaxed to allow reference to and quotation of statistics and rules in the ordinary course of discussion.
GW have no problem with that, and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. The idea that GW would set their hyper aggressive legal department onto an internet forum because people were talking about how guardsmen have WSX, BSX, shoot with SX and have a X+ armour save is a complete myth. If anyone can point to an example where that has ever happened then go ahead and throw it up.
The idea that GW would launch a legal attack on its fan base in circumstances where neither their intellectual property or profit is threatened is silly. Discussion of rules and statistics is a basic part of the hobby and GW acknowledge that.
This is what makes this forum so inaccessible to new members. Why would a person new to the hobby bother to read these forums when they can't understand what's being said?
The answer is that they wouldn't, and they don't, and that's why this place is in terminal decline.
The forum rules completely misunderstand IP law and GW's approach to protecting it.
Quoting rules and statistics in the course of discussion is perfectly fine as far as both the law and GW legal are concerned. GW consider it a perfectly ordinary part of the hobby and they will confirm that if you email them.
All of this is speculation on your part, and you fail to take account of the alternative explanations that I, and others, have put to you in the past, including, but not limited to, an old server, and competition from Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, not forgetting a financial crisis.
If the 75% decline in activity on this site were due to the GFC and competition from other forms of internet media, then other 40k internet communities which existed pre-GFC would have seen a similar decline. They haven't. They have had, maybe a marginal decline in activity, this place has become deserted. Other 40k forums have been able to replenish their population, this place has not. A big reason is because the overly restrictive and unnecessary copyright rules which make these forums inaccessible to new members. It also causes problems for long time members who don't have access to every single current codex.
Having said that, there are other reasons too. There was obviously that bizarre decision after 6th edition came out to stop people going to other army boards to seek advice about allies. That definitely would have seen a lot of discussion that would have taken place on 40konline get transferred to other forums. The fact that the tactics boards are squirreled away on their own little child boards definitely hasn't helped the amount of activity on those boards. Coupled with the slowness of the site, it's easy to see why they don't see as much activity as they once did. The tactical discussions used to be the best thing about this forum - the tactics boards should be out the front.
Regarding e-mails to GW legal, I can assure you that, based on written e-mails other forum members here have sent to GW over the years, they do not provide the unambiguous answers you suggest when it comes to using their IP. If you have an e-mail from their lawyers, and not just someone in their customer service department, which gives explicit permission for us to use their IP, then by all means feel free to share it here.
Glad you asked. Here's an email I wrote to GW a while back:
Sirs,
I am a member of a well known internet forum - 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com).
The forum deals almost entirely with the Games Workshop hobby, with a particular focus on Warhammer 40,000.
Much of the activity on the forum has to do with in depth discussion and debate relating to tactics and rules. As such, in order to communicate with clarity and precision, it is often necessary to quote statistics and rules. There is some concern from some members of the forum that quoting rules or statistics would be against GW's IP Protection Policy.
I am writing to your office to seek clarification of the extent of GW's IP Protection Policy. Obviously, there is no question that scanning pages of books, or copying great slabs of text would be innapropriate. Such behaviour would never be tolerated by the administrators of 40konline.com, but there is uncertainty as to referencing statistics and rules in general discussion relating to tactics and rules interpretation. A theoretical example might be:
Smith: I am of the opinion that the most effective fit out for Armoured Sentinels is Plasma Cannons. I have 3 of them in my army. The SX APX Plasma Cannon is perfect for killing Space Marines and Monstrous Creatures. The AVX front armour also makes it invulnerable to any S5 weapons from the front, meaning that most infantry won't be able to hurt it. At 215 points, I think they are one of the best value purchases available to the Imperial Guard. What does everyone else think?
Jones: I disagree. For 190 points, you could pick a Leman Russ Executioner, which fires 3 plasma cannon shots per turn, which is equal to the Armoured Sentinels. Additionally, an Executioner has AVX/X/X, making it significantly more durable than Armoured Sentinels, and invulnerable to anything weaker than S8 - so autocannons can't hurt it. Also, for an extra 40 points, you could purchase Plasma Sponsons which would allow you to fire 5 Plasma Cannon blasts per turn, or 4 shots while moving at combat speed, because the Lumbering Behemoth rule states: "<Removed>"
Such debates often go on for many pages and often come down to some sort of incredibly detailed discussion of the superiority or inferiority of a particular troop type or tactic based on statistical and mathematical probabilities of dice rolling. It is somewhat embarrassing to admit, but deep analysis and discussion of the merits of different troop types at a statistical level is part of what I, and many others enjoy about the hobby, and it is difficult to to do without quoting small sections of specific rules or statistics from the rulebooks and codices.
I would greatly appreciate if you would be able to confirm whether such a discussion is in breach of Games Workshops IP Protection Policy, and if so, whether such a breach would be considered merely trivial and of no concern to GW, or if it would be considered a serious infringement requiring immediate removal.
Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated by me and many others.
Kind Regards,
You can see the example conversation contains references to statistics and points values which would give the moderators here a heart attack.
Here is the very polite and reasonable reply from GW Legal:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email.
Our view is that the discussion of tactics and rules is an important part of the hobby and something that should be encouraged. However, as you may be aware, we need to balance this with protecting our intellectual property rights. The result of this is that provided that the discussion on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com) is of the nature you describe below, we are unlikely to have any issues.
This said, we urge you to use your discretion when quoting or making reference to our rules and statistics. If you are simply referencing comments and opinions to rules, or using statistics to support your arguments, then we see will view this as an inevitable and non-problematic consequence of encouraging hobby activity. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum we will take action should we find people copying vast amounts text or images.
Hopefully, this will provide an insight as to Games Workshop is likely to react to discussions of the hobby on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com). Additionally, you may also find it useful to read our intellectual property policy (Legal | Games Workshop (http://legal.games-workshop.com/)) which will provide further guidance to both the letter and spirit of the way in which we will deal with people using our intellectual property.
Yours faithfully
Group Legal Department
Games Workshop Group PLC
As you can see, GW understand that discussion of tactics and rules are an important part of the hobby that they encourage. Also, while they obviously want to protect their IP, they clearly don't have a problem with references to statistics.
What they do, quite reasonably have a problem with is copying of big slabs of their material. Referencing rules and statistics to support arguments is quite clearly okay.
Once again - the current rules which prohibit the referencing of rules and statistics in ordinary conversation are unnecessarily prohibitive. Referencing or quoting statistics, points values and rules in the course of an ordinary discussion on an internet forum is not against GW's IP policy and will not get the site shut down.
[gmod]Stats removed[/gmod]
-
Interesting discussion. For what my opinion is worth, I support the current 40k online policy. Although it maybe overly protective and likely prohibits material that does not violate copyright laws, it is both efficient and easily enforceable. 40k online places themselves in a position of risk by hosting this space for our discussion. Its important to consider their need for practicality in addition to our own individual desires.
-
I'm not missing the point. You say that the rules preventing references to statistics and rules are necessary to prevent GW from shutting the site down.
That is simply not true. The current rules are unnecessarily restrictive. They should be relaxed to allow reference to and quotation of statistics and rules in the ordinary course of discussion.
Rules can be quoted when there's genuine confusion about how they work. Page references should be used to rules which are clearly explained in the rulebook. You can see numerous examples of both situations in the rules board.
GW have no problem with that, and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. The idea that GW would set their hyper aggressive legal department onto an internet forum because people were talking about how guardsmen have stats removed is a complete myth. If anyone can point to an example where that has ever happened then go ahead and throw it up.
You continue to speak for GW as though you work for their legal department. The fact of the matter is you cannot prove that GW have no problem with it, I'll come to the e-mail shortly, and therein lies the problem. GW aggressively, and assertively, protects its copyright. Statlines, and points costs, are part of their IP, and to write them out in posts potentially breaks their IP. In view of the opaque nature of how they protect their IP, explained on page of their IP policy, they could come after us for allowing users to post stats/points costs, particularly in view of the historical context I've explained.
If the 75% decline in activity on this site were due to the GFC and competition from other forms of internet media, then other 40k internet communities which existed pre-GFC would have seen a similar decline. They haven't.
That's not actually the case. Warseer's 40K section has declined quite a bit in activity overall, and Second Sphere's activity has plummeted in recent times. You only need to go onto the SMF software forum (SMF produces the software that this forum uses), and look through all the threads from admins asking for help with getting more activity on their fora to see just how much of a problem this is. As I've said before, lack of forum activity is not just related to 40K Online, it's a big problem for a number of established communities, and new fora are finding very difficult to start up.
They have had, maybe a marginal decline in activity, this place has become deserted. Other 40k forums have been able to replenish their population, this place has not. A big reason is because the overly restrictive and unnecessary copyright rules which make these forums inaccessible to new members. It also causes problems for long time members who don't have access to every single current codex.
You're speculating again.
Unless you've been around, and asked every single newbie why they haven't posted, or asked all other newbies to other similar fora why they haven't signed up here, you can't draw that conclusion. It's barely even correlation what you're suggesting, let alone causation. As for experienced forum members, some have issues, some do not, but you need only look to Starrakatt's post (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=225838.msg2726307#new) on the subject of activity to see that experienced members often leave because they don't care much for the game any more.
In the time that I've been here, the Eldar boards have lost a lot of experienced players. This was not because of some sudden change in the rules (which hasn't taken place incidentally), but it was due to the fact that they had stopped playing the game for a variety of different reasons, or because real life started taking up too much of their time. I know this because they told me.
Having said that, there are other reasons too. There was obviously that bizarre decision after 6th edition came out to stop people going to other army boards to seek advice about allies. That definitely would have seen a lot of discussion that would have taken place on 40konline get transferred to other forums. The fact that the tactics boards are squirreled away on their own little child boards definitely hasn't helped the amount of activity on those boards. Coupled with the slowness of the site, it's easy to see why they don't see as much activity as they once did. The tactical discussions used to be the best thing about this forum - the tactics boards should be out the front.
Regarding the child boards, I can only speak for Eldar, but more threads, and discussions are still created on the Eldar Stategies, Tactics and Army List board, compared to the Eldar Forum board, since it became a child board. The child board change has made no difference to the Eldar boards in that respect.
The allies situation is easily explained. You just post in the board which represents the main army, not the allied army. If advice is only being sought on the allied component, then it's placed in the board of that ally. It's simple to follow, and stops cross posting. Remember, a number of other sites, such as Warseer, have a generic army lists board, so don't need a system like this for self-evident reasons. A generic army list board is, however, horrible to navigate, and most army lists are not evaluated very well, as they're either ignored, or tend to get buried very quickly, so it's not a good way to structure a forum in my opinion.
The slow server is a problem, and is in the process of being addressed by those with the power to address it.
Now the e-mail:
First off, kudos to you for using Smith, and Jones ;).
Note the parts that I've put into bold text in their reply, and then take a look at my answer below:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email.
Our view is that the discussion of tactics and rules is an important part of the hobby and something that should be encouraged. However, as you may be aware, we need to balance this with protecting our intellectual property rights. The result of this is that provided that the discussion on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com) is of the nature you describe below, we are unlikely to have any issues.
This said, we urge you to use your discretion when quoting or making reference to our rules and statistics. If you are simply referencing comments and opinions to rules, or using statistics to support your arguments, then we see will view this as an inevitable and non-problematic consequence of encouraging hobby activity. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum we will take action should we find people copying vast amounts text or images.
Hopefully, this will provide an insight as to Games Workshop is likely to react to discussions of the hobby on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com). Additionally, you may also find it useful to read our intellectual property policy (Legal | Games Workshop (http://legal.games-workshop.com/)) which will provide further guidance to both the letter and spirit of the way in which we will deal with people using our intellectual property.
Yours faithfully
Group Legal Department
Games Workshop Group PLC
Note the following:
1. They urge discretion. Discretion is the approach to moderation outlined as per forum rule 1. We cannot afford to take chances with GW legal for the reasons that I've previously given. We have to take a cautious approach.
2. Copying vast amounts of texts is a vague expression. How does anyone define vast? That's a loophole if ever I saw one. It's open to interpretation, and while one post with a few stats in it may not amount to much, if we allowed everyone to do it, the sheer number of posts filled with stats would become vast by my definition pretty quickly. This is the problem.
3. They again refer you to their IP document, and so I again refer you to page 3, and Changeyname's post above.
4. This is just a standard reply which they send out to people who make these inquiries. I've seen very similar responses before to the same kind of question which you have posed. This e-mail is written by someone who works in their legal department, but does not come from one of their lawyers, and does not give explicit permission for this forum to allow you to use stat lines in the way in which you would wish.
As a result of the above, I conclude that there is no way we could safely change the policy here.
-
1. They urge discretion. Discretion is the approach to moderation outlined as per forum rule 1. We cannot afford to take chances with GW legal for the reasons that I've previously given. We have to take a cautious approach.
[...]
As a result of the above, I conclude that there is no way we could safely change the policy here.
Maybe I'm being thick, but let me bold something in red:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email.
Our view is that the discussion of tactics and rules is an important part of the hobby and something that should be encouraged. However, as you may be aware, we need to balance this with protecting our intellectual property rights. The result of this is that provided that the discussion on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com) is of the nature you describe below, we are unlikely to have any issues.
This said, we urge you to use your discretion when quoting or making reference to our rules and statistics. If you are simply referencing comments and opinions to rules, or using statistics to support your arguments, then we see will view this as an inevitable and non-problematic consequence of encouraging hobby activity. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum we will take action should we find people copying vast amounts text or images.
Hopefully, this will provide an insight as to Games Workshop is likely to react to discussions of the hobby on 40K Online (http://www.40konline.com). Additionally, you may also find it useful to read our intellectual property policy (Legal | Games Workshop (http://legal.games-workshop.com/)) which will provide further guidance to both the letter and spirit of the way in which we will deal with people using our intellectual property.
Yours faithfully
Group Legal Department
Games Workshop Group PLC
Presumably they're referring to the Smith and Jones exchange, but nonetheless they've said they don't have a problem with... well, something, and that's the only such thing to which they could be referring that jumps out at me.
Note that my intention is in no way to stir up trouble by pointing this out; merely that it's in everyone's interests that the email chain be looked at rationally by everyone that decides to pass judgment on it. Arguing gets us nowhere.
-
The problem with the part in red is what follows, i.e. 'we are unlikely to have any issues'. That doesn't constitute explicit permission from GW lawyers, and that's what would be needed, in my view, for the rules to be changed.
Note that I also ended my post by saying 'I conclude' ;). This gives leeway for other Staff members to draw different conclusions :).
-
I want to address one point that is constantly brought up every time this conversation comes up.However mentioning in conversation that a Dire Avenger has a toughness of 3 is not
Where do you draw the line? If it is permissible for you to specify the toughness, why cannot you not then go and mention the models strength? If you allow T and ST to be mentioned, it's not too far of a stretch to add in attacks as well. If you are going with those three, why stop there and prevent people from mentioning the WS as well? Or their save?
Every statistic and rule should be available for reference in the course of ordinary discussion.
So then in your mind it should be permissible to ramble off the entire stat line of a model if it came up in the course of the discussion?
Really what it comes down to is if you limit the amount people can say at any point, there will always be argument to go one step further. So to err on the side of caution, we go with no stats. You can argue against it and put in a measure saying "excessive stats aren't allowed," but again, all comes back to the question of what is the definition of excessive and whose definition do we go by? Your idea of excessive may be 4 stats. My definition of excessive is 1.
Do you actually consider a reference to a single statistic excessive? Why? Or are you just being facetious?
I was actually being serious, I think one stat is excessive. Take for instance your example of a guardsmen, if you are having a tactical discussion on either how to use the guardsmen properly or how to deal with them, 95% of the time you are dealing with someone who knows that basic stats of a guardsmen. If you are dealing with someone who knows the stats, why should you need to write out what their weapon skill or ballistic skill is?
That's why when we remove stats or people writing out rules verbatim, we tell them to operate under the assumption that the people they are talking to know the fine points of the rule / stats.
Regarding the letter you wrote, I'm just going to edit out the stats and show you how you can still have an effective tactical discussion without having to resort to posting the stats.
Smith: I am of the opinion that the most effective fit out for Armoured Sentinels is Plasma Cannons. I have 3 of them in my army. The Plasma Cannon is perfect for killing Space Marines and Monstrous Creatures due to the strength and AP value. Their front armour also makes it invulnerable to any S5 weapons from the front, meaning that most infantry won't be able to hurt it. At 215 points, I think they are one of the best value purchases available to the Imperial Guard. What does everyone else think?
Jones: I disagree. For 190 points, you could pick a Leman Russ Executioner, which fires 3 plasma cannon shots per turn, which is equal to the Armoured Sentinels. Additionally, an Executioner has much better armour all around, making it significantly more durable than Armoured Sentinels, and invulnerable to anything weaker than S8 - so autocannons can't hurt it. Also, for an extra 40 points, you could purchase Plasma Sponsons which would allow you to fire 5 Plasma Cannon shots per turn, or 4 shots while moving at combat speed, because of the Lumbering Behemoth rule."
Exact same information and no stats given.
What they do, quite reasonably have a problem with is copying of big slabs of their material. Referencing rules and statistics to support arguments is quite clearly okay.
They said they have a problem with vast amounts of stats being reproduced. To give you and idea of one definition of vast, the Rules board currently has 136,063 posts. If every one of those posts had a as many stats posted as you did in your smith and jones example, that would be 544,252 stats and rules posted.
Doesn't that seem like a vast amount to you?
-
A couple of points I've picked up from the most recent replies...
GW legal are being vague, yes because that's what lawyers do. They are NEVER going to give explicit permission for anything they can not defend. Again, this is just how lawyers operate. I know how frustrating it is dealing with these situations as I have to do it day to day.
Quite clearly the letter produced by Underhand shows GW are implying that general information regarding their IP can be stated in the course of general discussion. However they go on to say that 'vast amounts' of copying would be frowned upon and likely actioned against. They leave this statement sufficiently vague so should they wish to ignore their letter and proceed with action anyway they can do so. Nothing unsurprising there. They are effectively leaving us with enough rope with which to hang ourselves.
So now its up to us as a community to decide how much rope we are to use. Currently the rope is very short and the chance of being hanged scarce. The aim of this thread was to address that issue and see if there was room for maneuver.
Unfortunately the impression is being given that the forum rules are not available for discussion.
A small side note, I believe using the name '40Konline' , though not a direct infringement itself, is skirting VERY close to a infringement of GWs IP policy much more so than the occasional comment on a models stat.
Also where is the disambiguation between "Dire Avenger has a toughness of 3" which is skirting as a breach of this sites rules, but is not itself a breach of GW IP and using the name "Catachan" which is a GW trademark? Strictly speaking the latter should be moderated to "the well known Imperial jungle death world" , no?
-
You need to learn your legalese before you start babbling.
1- I *AM* familiar with IP rights and what can, has and will be done to protect them. If we allowed people to post stat lines, GW can and would come down on us like a ton of bricks. We have evidence of this from the past from much less than a full stat line.
Underhand says:
Every statistic and rule should be available for reference in the course of ordinary discussion.
Not only no.. but hell no. This is the very thing that we need to AVOID.
I would rephrase that statement to be:
Every statistic which is used in the course of ordinary discussion should be referenced to the appropriate page/location in the rulebook.
In other words, as we have said a number of times, in multiple places: We are not a replacement for the rulebook(s). You should OWN (or at least have access to) the ACTUAL rulebooks and reference the specific page or location of the rule or stat which you are discussing.
2- the use of 40K for this site, 40Konline has nothing to do with IP. If there was an infringement, it would be a TRADEMARK infringement, which is a different ball of string, entirely.
-
I would rephrase that statement to be:
Every statistic which is used in the course of ordinary discussion should be referenced to the appropriate page/location in the rulebook.
In other words, as we have said a number of times, in multiple places: We are not a replacement for the rulebook(s). You should OWN (or at least have access to) the ACTUAL rulebooks and reference the specific page or location of the rule or stat which you are discussing.
Whilst I agree that when people question specific rules pointing them to the answer in the rulebook is a good answer as they will get the actual rule and not our interpretation of the rule.
On the other hand using page references in general discussion would be incredibly annoying and close to unreadable, the idea of discussion is a free flowing back and forth and the OP's initial post was about how he thought the site's quite strict (in comparison to other 40K sites) policy on posting of stats was making the site less popular to both new and old users.
Having to read posts with my rulebook on my lap wouldn't help this situation any.
-
a Trademark can be an expression which relates to an entities IP. It can be argued that " 40K " is an expression of the futuristic world of table top war games more properly know as Warhammer 40,000, owned by Games Workshop. My point was if GW wanted to take issue I would have thought this would be a more obvious one than posting the Strentgh of a Dire Avenger. As we would expect however, it is more likely they would create a huge list of infringements.
And no one is babbling Kindred.
This thread seems to be quite emotive and I'm not so sure why or how this has come about.
The point as I said in my previous post was to see if there is any way through discussion the forum rules can be opened up for discussion. This seems not to be the case. The site is privately owned, is not a democracy and therefore the rules are the rules. I'm happy accepting that, though sad this is the case.
I too wrote to GW legal last week asking for some clarification. I did not mention this site (or any other) by name and will gladly share any reply I receive not matter what the outcome.
-
Kindred - could you give an actual example of what GW complained about in the past that has resulted in the site having such restrictive rules?
Every few months, there is a thread like this, where some well meaning member asks why the rules are the way they are. That's not unreasonable - the rules of this site clearly go beyond the GW IP Policy - both it's strict wording and its intent as evidenced by the reply from their legal department. Arguments to the contrary are nothing but nonsense based on second hand gossip, rumour and the speculation of people who clearly have no legal training. The words and meaning of the GW IP Policy and the letter from the GW legal department are clear.
Unfortunately, the only explanation ever given is that at some vague point in the past, GW contacted someone from 40konline and said something that scared the people in charge enough to result in the most extreme IP protection rules of any 40k online forum with which I'm familiar. If that's the case, then even if GW were overreaching their rights to defend their IP, then I doubt any reasonable person would criticise the site owners for putting in place an IP protection policy in line with what GW demanded. One could hardly expect the owners of the site to risk a costs order by fighting them in the courts.
Having said that - if you were to give an actual example of a post that GW complained about (obviously with actual stats xxed out since otherwise you would just be reposting something that caused offence), then it would probably go a long way to stopping any thread like this ever starting up again.
Otherwise, all the members of this forum have to go on is the wording of the GW IP Policy and a letter directly from their legal department, neither of which seem to support the current IP protection rules of these forums.
-
Just to clear up one thing. As far as I understand it, 40K is not a GW trademark. Warhammer, however, is, which is why the site is not, for example, called Warhammer 40,000 online. Kindred will correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's my understanding from looking at pages 6, and 7 of GW Legal's (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=6&aId=3900002&start=7&multiPageMode=true) page.
Underhand: As I've said to you, the letter from GW's legal department is anything but clear. It is a generic reply which has been sent to others in the past, and is opaque in the all the areas I explained above.
As for examples, I'll leave Kindred to go into more specifics, since he has greater authority than I do, but I am able to refer you to this thread (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=209749.0) for evidence that GW legal patrol the forum, and have asked for changes to be made. Before you make the counter argument that the thread isn't about copyright, the principle remains that it could just as easily have been about that, owing to the nature of how they enforce their IP policy as explained on page 3 of the legal section of their website.
-
You are asking for proof that doesn't exist. Not because we made it up or anything like that, because this is not the first site the rules were developed on. Many of you probably do not remember the EldarOnline days, before the change was made that had EldarOnline and 40k.ca as two separate websites that shared a forum. If you accessed the forums through EldarOnline, you were able to reach the Eldar forums. If you logged in from 40k.ca you were able to reach the army specific boards for every other race.
It eventually changed to the 40kOnline that we all know and love today, but before all that, the site was just EldarOnline. If I remember correctly it was just a forum that was black and yellow. The one thing I definitely remember is that to be able to browse the forum unmolested you had to download a pop-up blocker because you would get 4 or 5 pop-ups every time you clicked a link.
I may be mistaken but I joined that forum in 2000 or 2001. The rules were the same then as they are now, and that board is long gone.
So asking for a post that gives proof from 13+ years ago just is not feasible. Again, something I could be mistaken on is the fact that the site changed from EldarOnline to 40kOnline is because GW contacted Raine, having an issue with the name of the website. But again, that was a long time ago and my memory just ain't what it used to be.
Other than that, one example that we do have is that a number of years ago, we had a disgruntled member who decided he was going to attempt to take the website down because of the way he was dealt with after he violated our rules. He contacted GW Legal and told them that we were actively condoning copyright infringement by allowing people to post excessive stats and copies of their rules. They did contact Raine about it and it was only because of our rules and demonstrating our strict adherence to them were we able to convince GW that we were doing the exact opposite of what was claimed.
-
Having joined this community in early 2002 I certainly do remember the EldarOnline site :D As a long serving Craftworlder it was the biggest appeal for me that the site was a haven for the Eldar community on the web.
GWs IP policy changes every so often. in light of recent events i.e. Chapter house, "Space Marine" I would have thought GW may have changed their Policy. It would be prudent, and I don't know if this is being done, to look again at their Policy and amend our own rules if appropriate.
If this is done then great.
-
Our policy has not under gone review, nor will it. The recent events with Chapter house and the Space Marine book have not had a large enough impact for us to relax on our stance regarding stats and such. We have had interactions with GW legal in the past and we wish to avoid it at all cost. If that means you guys have to have a tactical discussion without posting unnecessary stats, then so be it.
Most of the people in this forum have been around long enough, when you say "Plasma Cannon" they know what you are talking about.
-
GML & Irisado - so do I take it then that after all of this, neither of you guys even know what GW complained about way back in the day? Is that right?
-
GML explained it all to you in his reply.
There are records of this, but I can't link you to them, as you don't have the permissions to view them. In summary, GW legal insisted that the forum change its name from EldarOnline, because it breached their IP, and GW legal also followed up on the complaint from the difficult user GML referred to. I wasn't here at the time, but this material is available to all Staff members, and I have seen it.
Note, however, that some material is also no longer available at all for the reasons GML gave you.
This really isn't some kind of conspiracy ;).
-
actually, I thought that Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer 40K was trademarked, but according to that list, it's not actually...
Interestingly enough, Warhammer Online *IS* tradmarked and registered... warhammer 40K online is not.
As for examples... no. I have seen them. I have dealt with them. I don't feel like digging stuff up just to "prove a point" which you should be willing to accept. After all, why would we lie about it?
-
This really isn't some kind of conspiracy ;).
We did have that one plan to really mess with the members of the community though...
Yes, like Irisado said, we don't conspire about anything. Nothing to see here, move along!
-
kingsofsand.com
eldarbattles.com
doomgivers.org
wheelsofkhemri.com
During 2002-2007 these were shut down over copyright-concerns with a CAD-notice from the legal department of GW to their respective hosts. These are the only ones I could think of off the top of my head without going on a dig trough my history (I am mobile s, meh).
Yes, GW shuts sites down, with simple notes to the providers, or a CAD to the actual sites.
We have had exchanges with them in the past, but as we err on the side of caution and they have seen that we have gotten out from under any looming shadows so far.
-
A few notes
- GW is relentless in their bullying tactics to "keep their IP safe".
This has been proven in the past with many cease and desist orders. Even to previous versions of this forum as we have seen. - Most of these cease and desist orders are not legal and would not hold up in court.
This has also been proven and we saw it recently with the "Space Marine" incident on amazon.com. - Even with the previous point being true, GW still succeeds with the majority of their Cease and Desists. Simply because the affected parties do not have the means to fight back. GW takes this to their great advantage and so preforms these actions as they see fit.
It would seem that this forum falls into the group that does not desire or does not have the means to fight GW on such issues, and so goes the extra mile to keep GW happy.
Personally I would prefer to have less strict rules here at 40konline, but if the owners and mods aren't interested then here is where we stay. Because if it does come to legal action it is the site owner who has to deal with it. (which is who by the way?)
-
The owner of the site is Purple Raine.
-
The owner of the site is Purple Raine.
Thanks, nice to know.
-
This is all getting a little cyclical now.
Can I just point out this thread (http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=226765.msg2729587;topicseen#msg2729587)
In my mind the mod has acted perfectly. Warning others before any future post in the thread potentially lands us in trouble.
Of course some slip through and require a retroactive edit by the mods. After all they're only human ;D
+++EDIT+++
I've finally had a reply from GW legal and as anticipated it is as wooly and vague as many were expecting.
I sent this...
Dear GW legal team,
I have been passed your contact details by Games Workshop customer services department.
My query is with regard to avoiding possible infraction of GWs IP policy by a fan website when its members post comments while discussing their hobby.
Please find attached my original e-mail to your customer service department. For convenience I have copied the original query below.
QUOTE
If I am in conversation with another member on a website would the website be in breach to GWs IP policy if I was to state the following.
Dire Avengers have a strength of 3
2.Dire Avengers are 15 points per model
3.A 10 man units of Dire Avengers with exarch with all snazzy bits and bobs is 210 points
4.Dire avengers state line is WS8 BS8 S10 T9 W80 I10 A50 Ld12 Sv1+
I very much look forward to your clarification
UNQUOTE
I would like to reiterate that this query is to establish a better understanding of GWs IP policy so that any possible infringement can be avoided. I also understand GW reserve the right to object to any use of its IP within or without the guidelines made public at any time. This query is in no way intended to set any kind of precedent.
Kind regards
John
I received this...
Hi John
Thanks for your email. I’m afraid that we can’t check or approve posts for forums. You will just have to ensure that you comply with intellectual property/copyright law and our intellectual property policy. All that I would add is that we own the copyright in the text in our books and we would consider copying of that text to be an infringement of copyright.
If you require advice on intellectual property law then you will need to speak to an independent legal advisor, as I unable to give you any advice myself.
Regards