Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alsciende

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lyon, Rhône-Alpes, France

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you for that advice. I only shared a part of a sentence from the letter, because people were dead curious to know the reason of the C+D. But you're right that I shouldn't have. I'll keep any further communication (assuming there will be any) entirely private. Thank you for your kindness, Eridine.
  2. I'd rather keep my sentiment private while I have a chance to have a dialog with FFG. And there's still so many unknown elements that any opinion is highly conjectural, anyway. The only thing that I can say, I already said: I'm surprised and sad, and I hope they'll revise their decision and allow me to continue under a mutually-agreed set of rules.
  3. @Eridine, to start with the end, it's always my great pleasure to have a conversation with civil people, even (and particularly) when we disagree. I'm glad that you presented another point of view in a respectful manner (in no small part because FFG has not yet replied to my letter.) I wouldn't call the images "high-res", but that's bickering over words. What I'm trying to say, mainly, is that those images cannot be used to counterfeit the cards. At least, no more than the ones provided by FFG themselves. I shouldn't have used the term "criminally". I meant "harmfully". Arguably, providing 1200dpi versions of the card would enable true counterfeiting of the cards by a professional printer, and that would be more harmful to FFG than those 72dpi images. Now, on the legal angle of the discussion, the level of harm I'm causing is irrelevant (I guess), as long as I'm infringing on their copyright. That's ok, I get that. But if we talk about the reason that FFG could have to grant me a licence to use their copyrighted material, it's different. Since I'm not causing any harm to their company (arguably, I'm even supporting their activity), since the material I'm putting online is already online, one could hope that they'll agree to grant me a licence to continue operating, within certains boundaries and under certain rules. Unless they have other motives to shut me down, of course. As you said, they may want their tools to be the only tools available. I'm fondamentally opposed to this idea, but I know that it's perfectly within their right. A:NR is their creation.
  4. Hi Eridine, I'm the owner of netrunnerdb.com, thanks for posting an explanation of your opinion here. I'd like to add a few things. You think that FFG has a couple of good reasons to send a C&D. I'd like to adress the first one. You are saying that netrunnerdb.com provided high-res card art through its API. That's at least as vague as speaking of IP instead of copyright. Netrunnerdb.com is hosting 300x418 pixels images of the cards. Jinteki.net was (it's not anymore) hotlinking these images on its pages. The API has nothing to do here. 300x418 pixels images are exactly what fantasyflightgames.com is hosting, and far less than what cardgamedb.com is hosting for some cards. A card you all know, on netrunnerdb.com (300x418): The same card, on fantasyflightgames.com (300x418): The same card from cardgamedb.com (430x600): So, did netrunnerdb.com provide criminally-large versions of the cards? No. The images that jinteki.net hotlinked to on netrunnerdb.com are provided by FFG itself on its websites. I'm not saying here that I have the right to use these images even if FFG doesn't want me to. But I didn't and I don't provide "high-res" versions of the cards. Or at least, be specific about what is "high-res" and why it's harmful for one website to host them and not for another. Your second reason is that FFG acquired a deckbuilder and would want other deckbuilders to close to foster traffic and usage of its acquired deckbuilder. I can't argue with that. It's not factual, it's a matter of opinion. FFG can forbid the usage of all its copyrighted material to everyone if that's their wish. (Here we can note that FFG cannot, in fact, forbid the existence of a deckbuilder that would not use any trademark or copyrighted material.) Is it a good reason? I think that's to everyone to decide for himself.
  5. Adrian Herber already started an online petition at Change.org.
  6. Here it goes : http://netrunnercards.info/set/asis :-)
  7. I saw in the announce about the Regional Championship that "The top player at each Regional Championship wins a coveted Golden Ticket, which grants him or her a first round bye and free entry to four days of global competition at the 2013 FFG World Championship Weekend". But I fail to see the advantage of being awarded a bye, since it means I'll have 6 prestige points, 0 match points and 0 opposition points for the round, placing me definitely being the top quarter of the competition, with no way of winning back those missing points.
  8. Don't forget Lemuria Codecracker (Criminal, core).
  9. Sorry, I meant to post it in "Rules Question", but apparently fumbled.
  10. What happens if, during a Run initiated by Sneakdoor Beta (Criminal, core), Sneakdoor Beta is trashed, and the run is successful? Does the replacement effect still take place?
  • Create New...