Lone Wolf sends Cease & Desist letters to anyone using the term 'Army Builder'

[pemerton]

So no one paid for books? For sheet music? For instruments? No one purchased tickets to the carnival or the circus or fair or the traveling theater troupe? No one supported the local preacher via tithe or charity? No one went to baseball games (or cricket, rounder, etc) or bought equipment for such?

I think you're romanticizing the preindustrial a bit much here.

I didn't say no one, I said most. Most were illiterate.

And most leisure time was not spent at circuses or fairs or being entertained by troupes - which in any event were not commercial conglomerates remotely comparable even to a contemporary opera or theatre company, let alone Disney or a commercial television broadcaster.

It has an economic impact but it's not commercial activity if no buying, selling or payment is involved.

Exactly right. And tithing was not commercial, either, although it involved the payment of money or goods.

I'm not intending to romanticise the pre-industrial. But equally, one does not want to be anachronistic about it. There is a reason that the romantics and other 19th century figures (both conservative and radical) lamented the coming of industrialism. It really did have a dramatic impact on the nature of cultural (and other) aspects of life.

 

[pawsplay]

Maybe so but no money changes hands or anything else except alcohol
and that only on special occasions. In the abasence of TV, radio or recorded music people had to entertain themselves and the musicians and singers usually got noting in return other than ego boo.

Though a fair day was all about buying and selling produce, time off for music was in the evenings after work and only an all day event at wedding and wakes and festival days.

I think virtually every society that has generated a surplus has produced professional or semi-professional entertainers. Whether you are talking about Irish fili, wandering gypsy fiddlers, Athenian lyricists, there have always been specialists, and there has always been music.

I'll disagree about "nothing in return"... no community is going to let their musicians go hungry, without cause. It's more like working for non-profit than commercial activity, but it's still an economic activity that has been with us for a long time. Musicians have traditionally played at their own wishes, but certainly it was the wish also of the community that they played.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think virtually every society that has generated a surplus has produced professional or semi-professional entertainers. Whether you are talking about Irish fili, wandering gypsy fiddlers, Athenian lyricists, there have always been specialists, and there has always been music.

I was not talking about them, they mostly played in the towns where people could afford to listen to them. If a travelling troupe visited the rural villages it was at best a one a year thing.

I'll disagree about "nothing in return"... no community is going to let their musicians go hungry, without cause. It's more like working for non-profit than commercial activity, but it's still an economic activity that has been with us for a long time. Musicians have traditionally played at their own wishes, but certainly it was the wish also of the community that they played.

They guys/gals that nowadays would earn some extra cash playing in the local bar or at weddings would in the old days play in the rambling houses ( the ones where people gahtered to swap stories and other social occasions for free. The reward was, I guess that they were guaranteed to be invited to all the parties.
This is according to old folk, around here that I asked who remembered the end of those days.

In rurral Ireland up to World War two there were probably less than a half dozen radio sets in the parish and probaly a similar number of gramaphones though I have no info on the latter, no-one ever mentioned them when talking about that era. Music that they enjoyed was live and played by local amateurs.

 

[Layander]

I have never heard of lone wolf before today and so I was looking up army builders a few days ago because I wanted something that helped me with warhammer fantasy battles. I find this debate here.
This is rediculous, your telling me that if I say I want a good army builder for Warhammer FB you will send a letter to morris? I know you dont want your product to become a generic name but sorry to late, I never heard of your product, but those were the first words that popped in my head to describe what I wanted for warhammer. That makes it pretty generic as I am sure most others have had the same thought.
Let me say this lone wolf I will continue to refer to anything that helps me build an army in warhammer as an army builder, if its made by you or if its made by someone named jim.
Sorry about your trademark but loosing it to genericy is a risk you took when you chose something that is a generic description of the program.

I am posting this because they beleive they have the right to control what people in a discussion group can say, I can call army builders anything I want and its not in your rights to stop me. If you disagree send someone over to my house so you can interupt my game sessions as we talk about what army builders work well.

From Lone Wolf
""Any website where users post information that uses the Army Builder name improperly must either remove the content or revise it, at their discretion. This often results in the content being removed, since sites are frequently reluctant to change content they did not create, and with good reason. The easiest way to avoid having posts removed in the future is to simply use a general term like "points calculator", list creator", or "roster construction tool" in reference to products other than Lone Wolf Development's Army Builder brand.""

 

[pemerton]

I think virtually every society that has generated a surplus has produced professional or semi-professional entertainers. Whether you are talking about Irish fili, wandering gypsy fiddlers, Athenian lyricists, there have always been specialists, and there has always been music.

I'll disagree about "nothing in return"... no community is going to let their musicians go hungry, without cause. It's more like working for non-profit than commercial activity, but it's still an economic activity that has been with us for a long time. Musicians have traditionally played at their own wishes, but certainly it was the wish also of the community that they played.

The contrast I drew was not economic/non-econmic, but commercial/non-commercial.

The notion that avoiding hunger - for musicians or anyone else - requires being able to participate in a market is comparatively new. Likewise for the notion of participating in cultural life.

 

[Krensky]

The contrast I drew was not economic/non-econmic, but commercial/non-commercial.

The notion that avoiding hunger - for musicians or anyone else - requires being able to participate in a market is comparatively new. Likewise for the notion of participating in cultural life.

Only because the economic concept of a market as something other then the place you went to buy or sell things is new. Similarly, people have always paid to participate in cultural life. The concept of someone being 'cultured' as a reference to social class comes from this.