Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP.
Like movie reviewers?
Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.
No, attribution is not all that's necessary. Usage still needs to fall under fair use, which is shaky at best for this guy.
Fair use applies to copyrights, not trademarks. The article seems to indicate most of the writing is original. A few illustrations are included, which, if attributed are fair uses, and the World of Warcraft trademark is included as well. As long as the trademark is attributed, there's no infringement here. There just isn't.
I think this is more about Blizzard's trademarks than their copyrights.
Attribution is irrelevant in this context.
Nonsense. It's a work of non-fiction. Attribution is not only relevant, it's required.
Is it for teaching purposes? Nope
Your list is quite flippant. The book is obviously both research and educational.
teaching purposes in this context is formal education systems, not self-help guides
Please point out the phrase "formal education system" in the law? Sounds like formal education system is a euphemism for "approved by the money people." And the little guy gets left out of the free market.
but his usage within the distrubted guide is not research.
So it's research until its published, then it becomes the property of the shareholders? Sorry. Neither copyright nor trademark law supports that. There's no infringement here.
All Blizzard did was ask Ebay to remove his guide
Based on an incorrect interpretation of trademark law. The entire issue should be dismissed. This is black letter fair use.
and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.
How much are the books? Like $15 or something? $15 is ridiculous?
Now, if he is taking other published text verbatim and selling it, THAT is ACTUALLY copyright infringement. I doubt, of course, that most lawyers would recognize it, given they spend all their time trying to make non-infringing uses into infringements.
and every other free game guide site out there for "interfering with his revenue stream"
And he would be prevented from doing so by a legal concept known as "estoppel." The very arguments he is using to support the non-infringing nature of his book would be used as a defense by the game guides he claims are infringing. Estoppel prevents a party from being on both sides of an argument.
Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.
Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.
It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.
attempts to trade off the substantial goodwill and recognition that Blizzard has built up in connection with its World of Warcraft product.
Yep. And it is perfectly within the boundaries of copyright law for someone to do so, provided they don't infringe on a trademark, create a derivative product or republish copyrighted material that is not a fair use.
From the article it sounds like this is a work of non-fiction, written to help people improve their knowledge of the game. It also sounds like "big company (that makes over $80M a MONTH in subscription revenue) uses copyright law as a club against entrepreneur." As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry.
A supermarket with this kind of data can restructure their shelves and stocks to encourage the custom of these "prime" customers and discourage the ones that have low profit thresholds.
Wow. Someone who can define "the correct price" for every item being sold. I've never met anyone like that before.
Well it ain't twice the club card price. That much is fairly obvious.
So, if one store in town charges a dime more than the "club price" at another store for something to everyone who shops there, they are "ripping people off" by not charging "the correct price"?
Thank you for attempting to reduce the argument to the absurd. It didn't work. A dime is one thing. 75% is another.
Your argument is marred by the existance of certain facts. The prime fact is that nobody is forced to divulge anything to anyone to get a discount card.
No. They're just forced to get a discount card or they pay ripoff prices. The fact that a store is allowed to charge a price that is sometimes TWICE the actual price is flat out wrong on its face, club cards and other assorted horseshit notwithstanding.
Why is it a problem for you?
If even one customer is being ripped off, it's wrong. Period.
They serve two other purposes. 1) Generic demographics are still valuable. "A shopper who buys product X also buys product Y" could be valuable.
They can get that information right out of the cash register. They don't have to charge double.
I'm sorry, I missed the memo where I was obligated to justify my shopping habits to the grocery store?
Here at Trader Joe's, the privacy of our customers is of the utmost concern to us. We will never collect information for the purpose of sharing or selling it to unaffiliated third party companies. We sell food, not information about our customers.
Good, and they have my compliments. The very moment they begin offering club cards they are ripping people off just like the other stores are.
there are store specials for different products that are cheaper than the every day price
And that's fine, because they are available to everyone equally, and people are not required to hand over information that is none of the store's business. When those prices are only available to a select few at the expense of everyone else, it's a ripoff.
This may come as a shock to you, but if product revenue doesn't see a significant hit from this annoyance, and if profits from this additional advertising more than make up for any dip in product sales, then management won't give a shit.
Fine, then we'll get the legislature to outlaw it. Then management will give a shit.
We stick to the business we know: good food at the best prices! Whenever possible we buy direct from manufacturers, in large volume. We bargain hard and manage our costs carefully. We pay in cash, and on time, so our suppliers like to do business with us.
Doesn't say one fucking thing about club cards. Thanks for playing.
The only one getting ripped off is you.
Pure fragrant bullshit.
If you're not using the card THAT THEY WILL GIVE TO YOU
I don't want the FUCKING CARD! I want a fair price on my FUCKING FOOD!
then you have no one to blame but yourself for losing money.
I have the store to blame for charging unreasonable penalties to people who exercise their RIGHT not to hand over their credit profile so they don't get FUCKED OVER buying FOOD.
Horseshit. Charge an unreasonable, confiscatory, punitive price, you force people to accept the conditions of getting the lower price. What do you want? A fucking map?
They're paying you for your information. If you don't want to sell them your information, then don't.
And pay a 75% penalty on your FOOD. Thanks for shopping at Ripoff's.
Why get so up in arms about it?
Because it's wrong. I don't like it when people get ripped off.
It's a simple business decision.
Sure would be nice if people could buy FOOD without needing to convene a board meeting.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies are required by law to maximize profits.
Oh HORSESHIT
Where do people come up with this crap?
By that logic, it would be cheaper to group the entire country into 1 large group, and have everybody in the country under the same insurance plan.
Monopolies are bad.
Then, to make it even cheaper, you remove the insurance company, and have a government run insurance plan that takes no profit.
Government monopolies are worse. Government also never EVER makes anything cheaper.
the linkage of health insurance to employment is one of the great wrongs in US history. why SHOULD an employer be expected to subsidize health care?
For the same reason that employers are expected to subsidize food.
Why should it be the responsiblity of corporations, who's only concern is to it's shareholders, and the almighty dollar, to pay for health insurance?
Why should it be the responsibility of the citizens, who's only concern is to reduce traffic, to allow Wal-Mart to use our roads and electricity?
Works both ways.
Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP.
Like movie reviewers?
Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.
No, attribution is not all that's necessary. Usage still needs to fall under fair use, which is shaky at best for this guy.
Fair use applies to copyrights, not trademarks. The article seems to indicate most of the writing is original. A few illustrations are included, which, if attributed are fair uses, and the World of Warcraft trademark is included as well. As long as the trademark is attributed, there's no infringement here. There just isn't.
You're interpreting copyright law wrong.
I think this is more about Blizzard's trademarks than their copyrights.
Attribution is irrelevant in this context.
Nonsense. It's a work of non-fiction. Attribution is not only relevant, it's required.
Is it for teaching purposes? Nope
Your list is quite flippant. The book is obviously both research and educational.
teaching purposes in this context is formal education systems, not self-help guides
Please point out the phrase "formal education system" in the law? Sounds like formal education system is a euphemism for "approved by the money people." And the little guy gets left out of the free market.
but his usage within the distrubted guide is not research.
So it's research until its published, then it becomes the property of the shareholders? Sorry. Neither copyright nor trademark law supports that. There's no infringement here.
All Blizzard did was ask Ebay to remove his guide
Based on an incorrect interpretation of trademark law. The entire issue should be dismissed. This is black letter fair use.
and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.
How much are the books? Like $15 or something? $15 is ridiculous?
Now, if he is taking other published text verbatim and selling it, THAT is ACTUALLY copyright infringement. I doubt, of course, that most lawyers would recognize it, given they spend all their time trying to make non-infringing uses into infringements.
and every other free game guide site out there for "interfering with his revenue stream"
And he would be prevented from doing so by a legal concept known as "estoppel." The very arguments he is using to support the non-infringing nature of his book would be used as a defense by the game guides he claims are infringing. Estoppel prevents a party from being on both sides of an argument.
Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.
Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.
It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.
attempts to trade off the substantial goodwill and recognition that Blizzard has built up in connection with its World of Warcraft product.
Yep. And it is perfectly within the boundaries of copyright law for someone to do so, provided they don't infringe on a trademark, create a derivative product or republish copyrighted material that is not a fair use.
From the article it sounds like this is a work of non-fiction, written to help people improve their knowledge of the game. It also sounds like "big company (that makes over $80M a MONTH in subscription revenue) uses copyright law as a club against entrepreneur." As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry.
Want ROI? Buy a municipal bond.
Employees don't provide ROI. Management does. Deal with it.
A middle manager is a road block?
SAY IT ISN'T SOOOOOOOO!!!
A supermarket with this kind of data can restructure their shelves and stocks to encourage the custom of these "prime" customers and discourage the ones that have low profit thresholds.
And price gouge everyone else.
The non-card price is just gravy.
You misspelled "ripoff."
So its about your shopping habits now? Not your "credit profile"?
Someone else brought up "excuse." Not me.
You want to buy their products without them knowing it?
No. Another change of subject.
You're still ignoring the fact that you do have have to sign up for a card.
Yeah you do, or you get price gouged.
Well, its simple psychology.
Right. "Do as you're told, or pay a penalty."
Is that so terrible?
Yes. Because there are people who don't have club cards. They pay confiscatory prices unfairly.
force people not to put advertising in their own stores, that'll learn 'em!
Doesn't have anything to do with advertising. It has to do with price gouging. Two entirely different things.
But don't start infringing people's free speech rights
a) Grocery stores don't have free speech rights.
b) Charging $8 for a box of Corn Flakes isn't free speech. It's price gouging.
Wow. Someone who can define "the correct price" for every item being sold. I've never met anyone like that before.
Well it ain't twice the club card price. That much is fairly obvious.
So, if one store in town charges a dime more than the "club price" at another store for something to everyone who shops there, they are "ripping people off" by not charging "the correct price"?
Thank you for attempting to reduce the argument to the absurd. It didn't work. A dime is one thing. 75% is another.
Your argument is marred by the existance of certain facts. The prime fact is that nobody is forced to divulge anything to anyone to get a discount card.
No. They're just forced to get a discount card or they pay ripoff prices. The fact that a store is allowed to charge a price that is sometimes TWICE the actual price is flat out wrong on its face, club cards and other assorted horseshit notwithstanding.
Why is it a problem for you?
If even one customer is being ripped off, it's wrong. Period.
They serve two other purposes. 1) Generic demographics are still valuable. "A shopper who buys product X also buys product Y" could be valuable.
They can get that information right out of the cash register. They don't have to charge double.
Theres no excuse.
I'm sorry, I missed the memo where I was obligated to justify my shopping habits to the grocery store?
Here at Trader Joe's, the privacy of our customers is of the utmost concern to us. We will never collect information for the purpose of sharing or selling it to unaffiliated third party companies. We sell food, not information about our customers.
Good, and they have my compliments. The very moment they begin offering club cards they are ripping people off just like the other stores are.
there are store specials for different products that are cheaper than the every day price
And that's fine, because they are available to everyone equally, and people are not required to hand over information that is none of the store's business. When those prices are only available to a select few at the expense of everyone else, it's a ripoff.
This may come as a shock to you, but if product revenue doesn't see a significant hit from this annoyance, and if profits from this additional advertising more than make up for any dip in product sales, then management won't give a shit.
Fine, then we'll get the legislature to outlaw it. Then management will give a shit.
But if you ask calmly, they'll hand you a card with an application you don't have to fill out right away EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Which leads to this question which nobody seems to have an answer for: why do they need the card in the first place?
The answer is simple. So they can charge $4.95 for a product that used to be $2.49.
It's a flagrant way to price gouge x% of their customers. Simple as that.
The opposite of discount is not penalty.
It is when the correct price is the club card price.
Half the time they don't even ask for my card, and just swipe their own.
So why have the cards in the first place? Oh, so they can rip people off.
We stick to the business we know: good food at the best prices! Whenever possible we buy direct from manufacturers, in large volume. We bargain hard and manage our costs carefully. We pay in cash, and on time, so our suppliers like to do business with us.
Doesn't say one fucking thing about club cards. Thanks for playing.
The only one getting ripped off is you.
Pure fragrant bullshit.
If you're not using the card THAT THEY WILL GIVE TO YOU
I don't want the FUCKING CARD! I want a fair price on my FUCKING FOOD!
then you have no one to blame but yourself for losing money.
I have the store to blame for charging unreasonable penalties to people who exercise their RIGHT not to hand over their credit profile so they don't get FUCKED OVER buying FOOD.
Is also a rip-off?
a) Changing the subject
b) Coupons don't require people to hand over their credit report
c) Coupons apply to one product
d) Coupons are usually provided by manufacturers
So no, coupons are not a ripoff. Yet.
No one is "forcing" you to do jack
Horseshit. Charge an unreasonable, confiscatory, punitive price, you force people to accept the conditions of getting the lower price. What do you want? A fucking map?
They're paying you for your information. If you don't want to sell them your information, then don't.
And pay a 75% penalty on your FOOD. Thanks for shopping at Ripoff's.
Why get so up in arms about it?
Because it's wrong. I don't like it when people get ripped off.
It's a simple business decision.
Sure would be nice if people could buy FOOD without needing to convene a board meeting.