Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eridine

  1. Since you have stated that the rule must exist, rather than pointing to a place where it does, would you not then agree that, currently, rules as written, Subliminal Messaging and the other cards you mentioned in fact, don't work? I of course admit that playing the game in that fashion would be pointless, but I think based on these responses I must defer to my friends perspective on the matter.
  2. An interesting view, and certainly sensible. I'm not sure if I'd agree that the Golden Rule, as written, extends far enough to support invoking it by inference though.
  3. On a similar note, I wonder what you guys think about this: Would you agree that, rules as written, Subliminal Messaging doesn't work? A friend of mine is of the opinion that it does not. He of course recognizes how it was intended to work, and knows that no TO would ever side with him on the issue, so it doesn't actually cause any play problems, but I can see his point. His reading is that since the card doesn't say on it something to the effect of "this card is active in archives," the Golden Rule doesn't apply. This is based on his reading of the golden rule saying, "conflict," which to him means that since the card doesn't have something on it that conflicts with the rule that cards are inactive in archives, the Golden Rule doesn't work. What are your guys' thoughts?
  4. Well, if we assume Grimwalker is correct about FFG's motivations, specifically that they are contractually obligated to defend the IP, then depending on how the contract is written, sending the C&D might be enough. If not, then the next thing to happen will probably be FFG filing suit against NetrunnerBD, and probably Jinteki.net as well. Don't let me distract you from your ridiculous and blatant misrepresentations though, please carry on.
  5. Are you asserting with this statement that you know what the reasons were, or that any and all possible reasons were horribly misguided and stupid? Because if there are any potential reasons that aren't horribly misguided and stupid, then you are asserting that you know for a fact that those were not the reasons. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for such a claim? Or are you rather stating that there could not have possibly been a good reason to do this?
  6. I agree with your statement that this does not deserve a boycott. I will say that I can't think of anything FFG is likely to do that, in my opinion, would, but I suppose it is always a possibility. I would like to say though, in response to your statement on the last page, "I don't think anyone has FFG's back on this one." I do.
  7. While I do think there are a number of people making this into a far bigger issue than I think it is (for example, I think a complete boycott of all FFG products is excessive) I disagree that this is a nonissue. My stance is that the C&D wasn't unreasonable. It was, however, an action that will affect people and how they play Netrunner, and an action that informs us on how FFG will act in the future regarding similar matters, both of which I think are important. Also, I am nerdraging just as hard as I can at you, I promise.
  8. I am not now and have never been employed by Fantasy Flight Games, any of its parent companies, any of its subsidiaries, or indeed any gaming company, and the only association I have ever had with Fantasy Flight Games, any of its parent companies, any of its subsidiaries, or indeed any gaming companies, has been purchasing and ejoying their products, specifically in the case of Fantasy Flight Games, Android: Netrunner. To everyone in this thread, it has been a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to continuing to do so tomorrow, but it is time for me to get some sleep. I'll see you all later.
  9. I can definitely see why you would think my posts are fishy, so I will try to explain myself. Unfortunately I don't have any explanations that can't be.countered by a suspicious mind, I guess? First, you are actually pretty much dead on about baiting information. This was innocent though, rather than due to a nefarious scheme on my part to entrap people into admitting incriminating information. I do actually have an examples of this of my non-nefariousness though. Firstly, toward Asciende: That he not admit to infringing publicly, and not speak about the contents of communications between himself and FFG publicly. Secondly, toward the general public: That they not correct me about information regarding NetrunnerDB. This would show people having knowledge about NetrunnerDB, a potentially dangerous proposition, since if FFG is mad about NetrunnerDB, they might also be mad at users. This might lead to FFG punishing people that answered my question, since it might show use of NetrunnerDB. (Similar to this was using the term API, allowing people to show knowledge of NetrunnerDB by correcting me) If this happens, I sincerely apologize, as it is not the result of intentional entrapment, but rather an innocent accident. Second, the reason I asked for his opinion was because I was genuinely curious, and that's pretty much the only thing there is to say about that. Thirdly, the reason my name on BGG is John Smith is to avoid being doxxed, because I am paranoid about such things. this might be an unreasonable paranoia, because while such things do happen on the internet, I don't think it's ever happened on BGG. (Although I might be wrong.) As I said, these statements don't actually prove that I am not a plant, but maybe they will convince you.
  10. While you are certainly welcome to your opinion on the matter, I would like to voice my response to it. The first is that they DID (and you even admitted it!) provide an alternative. I recognize that you prefer NetrunnerDB to CardgameDB (I certainly do as well) Also, they didn't make people wait for an alternative, the alternative was available before NetrunnerDB was even gone, so people didn't even have to learn something new. I again completely understand your preference for NetrunnerDB, but I do think saying that they were making people sit with their thumbs up their asses is disingenuous. @Gray (since I cant quite figure out how to quote 2 people in the same post) I...don't quite understand what you are saying. Can you elaborate/rephrase?
  11. Well, it being on Github is pretty compelling evidence that they were not and weren't planning to make money with it. (I would point out however that the subscription to OCTGN is optional. This is not ultimately very important, since it still leads to OCTGN making money from FFGs copyrighted material, but I do think your statement was possibly misleading to someone not familiar with OCTGN) Anyway, regarding these C&Ds, I don't think it can really be argued against that the idea of FFG wanting to stop people using their copyrighted material and that the idea that the idea of FFG wanting to shut down online gaming gaming platforms are that unreasonable. Whether or not FFG making the decisions they made in this case will end up being a poor business decision is certainly debatable though. That said (it being debatable) I do think we have, at this time, nowhere near enough information to come to any kind of firm conclusion on the subject.
  12. Completely understandable, of course. I actually really shouldn't have asked, or at least been smart enough to know you're smart enough not to respond. If I may give one more piece of advice: I noticed you shared in another thread the contents of the C&D FFG sent you. I would suggest that unless they specifically tell you they don't mind you sharing it, that you keep any communications with them regarding this matter private from this point on. I realize this will probably disappoint a great many people who will be clamoring for news about this, even me, but it would be unfortunate if something like that were to jeopardize these proceedings. I would also recommend potentially speaking with an attorney of some kind, as you may be approaching the hour when that sort of thing might be helpful, although you probably aren't there yet. (I hope these suggestions don't alarm you, as they aren't intended to, and they really shouldn't) This does not constitute legal advice, et cetera, et cetera... (Also, to clarify a bit, those were definitely suggestions, not things I think are neccessary. I do think you could probably handle this on your own, given the intelligence you've displayed, but it's never a bad idea to seek advice.)
  13. @Alsciende I hadn't even considered the actual very tangible harm that could be caused if the images were of high enough quality to allow counterfeiting on the scale of say, passing at an official tournament. I think this is actually an excellent definition of "high-res," far better than the one I selected, which was simply, "whatever the actual owner chooses to display." While you are of course infringing, as you have admitted, it is interesting that you have shown me a display of possible harm, as I thought for a while trying to come up with one and I was unable to. Thanks! (by the way, if I may make a suggestion, you probably shouldn't admit on a public forum to things like infringing on someones copyright) At the beginning of this thread I was simply trying to debunk a number of misconceptions people seemed to have over a number of legal realities, not trying to imply that my personal perspective was that, "harm is irrelevant, any infringement needs to be shut down." (not to say that's what you took my stance to be, just making sure to clarify) By actual stance (to again clarify) is pretty basic. A company should adopt whichever practices benefit them the most (within reasonable ethical guidelines, of course. Slavery is bad) This forces them to walk a fine line between maximizing their profit while still maintaining the good will of their consumers and expanding their consumer base. Companies sometimes make poor decisions when trying to walk this tightrope. Sometimes they realize this quickly enough to make a course correction, and sometimes they don't. I think it is too early to tell if this was a poor decision, and if it was, if they will make that course correction. I will say I certainly still think it's possible that this is a poor decision, but if it turns out to be, I believe they are intelligent enough to correct it once that becomes clear. I do also think it's possible this is not a poor decision, although it will perhaps take longer for that to become clear. The next couple weeks should be an interesting time vis-a-vis this situation, I think. By the way, I have a question for you: This thread was titled "Post here if you don't find the NetrunnerDB C&D unreasonable" I of course have no issue with people with different opinions posting here, and I am very glad you posted here, as we can get information, "straight from the horses mouth," as it were. (Also because, as I mentioned before, you are a pleasure to speak with) Anyway, if I may ask, because I don't think you have quite stated it directly, what is your opinion on the NetrunnerDB C&D? Also, more specifically, do you find it unreasonable, and, whatever the answer, why? I apologize for putting you on the spot, but I am very interested in your answer to that question. I am, of course, also interested in the answer of anyone else who would care to respond.
  14. I have tried to keep to facts and opinions thus far, now I am venturing more into speculation, and I hope anyone with more solid information will correct me. As far as I understand it, they shut down netrunnerdb for two official reasons, because it was competing with cardgamedb and because it was hosting images . They shut down Jinteki because it was making (or planning to make) money, and because it was, while not hosting, displaying images hosted elsewhere. They shut down Jinteki without having a replacement program in place, but there is another program available that doesn't have any of the problems that led to the demise of netrunnerdb and jinteki.com, or any other issues that I am aware of that are easily actionable causes for FFG to shut them down. I am speaking of OCTGN, and I would again recommend you check it out. It's the program I use for online play, and once you learn to use it, it works pretty well.
  15. Your statement confuses me a little bit, I'd like to ask for a little clarification. Do you agree that the same or a similar solid legal justification exists for the C&D that was sent to Jinteki.com, but you just didn't mention it because you actually cared about the site, or do you see a difference, legally speaking, between the two sites? On a seperate note, give OCTGN a try.
  16. To Alsciende: You are correct, some of my phrasing was poor there. My use of the term API was vague, but I thought the way I used the term would help communicate the it's meaning and the situation as I understood it to people who were unfamiliar with what was happening. Of course, this was nullified by the fact that the images were being hotlinked to, rather than being specifically and purposefully made available through your API, as I thought was the case. My apologies for the mistake. As to whether or not the images are "high-res," it is true that I never provided a definition, but I am comfortable with saying that images that match the quality used by the people that produce the product are of high enough quality to deserve that moniker. I will admit that it is possible that that term might have a specific industry meaning that those images do not fit, in which case I will withdraw that statement. Also, I do not believe I claimed that it was harmful for one site to host them over another, just that it was an infringement for a site to host them if that site isn't owned by/hasn't been granted a license by the owners of the copyrighted material in question. As to netrunnerdb.com providing "criminally large" versions of cards, I agree that they weren't, because the size of the infringing item isn't a factor in whether copyright infringement rises to the level of being a criminal matter, as opposed to (as in this case, and far more commonly in general) being a civil matter. (if you are interested in the relevant factors taken into account in determing whether copyright infringement rises to the level of criminality, check 17 U.S. Code § 506 (a)(1)) Even though these pictures were not criminal, they certainly were infringing, whether or not FFG had posted them on their website. I would lastly like to thank you very much for responding to my thread, compliment you on the stellar work you did on netrunnerdb.com, and just say that while this is the first time that I have personally interacted with you, I do spend a decent amount of time both here and on BGG, and so I'd like to take this opportunity to compliment you on being a beacon of civility on the internet.
  17. Sorry it took me a while to respond, I meant to be more active in this thread on its first day. The reason this is my first post is because this is the first time I've felt I've had something to add on an issue. I've been lurking the rules forum here and on BGG for a very long time (on that note, CommissarFeesh, you do an excellent job there helping people out) I suppose I've no way to prove I'm not an FFG employee, so it doesn't really bear commenting on.
  18. The cease and desist letter recently sent to NetrunnerDB by Fantasy Flight Games has been a hot topic lately in the Netrunner community, and many people feel strongly about it, with many opinions going around about it. I thought I would share mine. Before I give those opinions however, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions I've seen bandied about on this subject. First, I have seen a number of people say that if FFG doesn't assert their intellectual property rights in this situation, they could lose them. This is categorically false. What we are talking about here are copyrights. The type of intellectual property that you can potentially lose rights to if you do not defend them is trademarks, and that can only happen in rather narrow circumstances. Second, people have been talking about fair use. I am not going to go into a detailed explanation of fair use, although I encourage anyone interested in it to research it themselves. (if people really want me to give an overview of fair use as it applies here, I will) The reason I bring this up is because NetrunnerDB's use of Fantasy Flight Games's copyrighted material does not fall under fair use. Third, and finally, some people (although not very many) have mentioned that since NetrunnerDB is hosted in France, they are not subject to American intellectual property laws. This is also false, due to something called the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention is basically an international agreement between 168(!) countries to enforce each the copyright laws of all the other countries. France ratified in 1887, the United States in 1989 (slight edit here, the site is in fact hosted in the Netherlands, which signed on in 1912. I was a bit mixed up because the designer lives in France. My apologies for the mistake). Because of this, NetrunnerDB being hosted in France does not mean they are exempt from recognizing American copyrights, such as those held by Fantasy Flight Games. Anyway, now that I've given some facts, I'd like to give my opinions. My understanding of the situation, that leads to me finding Fantasy Flight Games's action reasonable is thus: First, FFG has given a lot of leeway to the fan community in using their copyrighted material for a very long time. From OCTGN to Netrunnerspoilers.com. Then, Jinteki.com came along. For those that hadn't heard of Jinteki.com, it was a browser based Netrunner client that was in development. I am not sure how far along it got before it got a C&D. NetrunnerDB was supplying Jinteki.com with high-res card art through its API. This, I think, is one reason, and a pretty reasonable one, that NetrunnerDB got a C&D. Second, FFG recently acquired CardgameDB, and, most germane to this topic, its deckbuilder. This seems a compelling reason to crack down on other deckbuilders. In my opinion they would have done better to acquire Meteor Decks (netrunner.meteor.com) or NetrunnerDB, as I think they are superior deckbuilders, but they chose CardgameDB. Putting all this together, FFG is well within their rights, and if I am correct in my understanding of the situation, had a couple of pretty good reasons to send a C&D. There is definitely an argument to be made about it upsetting the community, but as long as they upgrade CardgameDB to be on par with other deckbuilding sites, I really don't see the harm at all in their choice here. What are your guys thoughts?
  • Create New...