[OT] Internet Stores no longer able to sell Games Workshop Products

[Zaruthustran]

Uh, no.

(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)

GW can decide not to sell product to Internet retailers. But GW has zero grounds to forbid Internet sales.

If I buy a physical good I own it, and can sell it however I like. I can sell it in a dirt store. I can sell it on the side of the road. I can sell it on eBay. I can sell it on the Internet. I can sell it via members-only club. It's mine. I can make it not-mine by whatever means I wish.

GW can try to stop online retailers from stealing and using GW images, but there is nothing stopping an online retailer from taking their own pictures of the box that's sitting in its warehouse.

I predict GW spends a lot of time and money trying to figure out which hobby distributors retailers are still selling to online retailers. And once they do figure it out, then the distributors simply add another layer and the online retailers buy it from the grey market.

This will result in slightly higher prices and crummy images on online shops selling GW.

Net effect: fewer sales for GW, disgruntled GW players move to Wizkids or WotC games.

-z

 

[Tiefling]

Re: Uh, no.

I believe GW cut out the middleman a long time ago. If I'm not mistaken they have their own distribution channels. So a store is in essence buying directly from GW. However, I'm not sure if that is the case.

Makes sense.

(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)

GW can decide not to sell product to Internet retailers. But GW has zero grounds to forbid Internet sales.

If I buy a physical good I own it, and can sell it however I like. I can sell it in a dirt store. I can sell it on the side of the road. I can sell it on eBay. I can sell it on the Internet. I can sell it via members-only club. It's mine. I can make it not-mine by whatever means I wish.

See, that's what got me. According to that guy on TMP they didn't just say that they would stop shipping you stuff if you didn't comply, but that you had 90 days to liquidate your inventory. I can't figure out how they could make you do that.

 

[Fast Learner]

Re: Uh, no.

(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)

That is clear, unfortunately.

GW can try to stop online retailers from stealing and using GW images, but there is nothing stopping an online retailer from taking their own pictures of the box that's sitting in its warehouse.

Yes, there is a thing stopping an online retailer from taking their own pictures of the box that's sitting in its warehouse and posting them on the net. It's called copyright. Buying something doesn't give you ownership of its copyright, regardless of what mp3 thieves tell you. It simply doesn't work that way.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Y'know, I couldn't care less what that bunch of jerks does anymore. Ever since I ordered some figs from them a few years ago and they took over a month and a half to send my my order and were total jerks on the phone when I called to ask where my order was (big breath), I have refused to buy any of their products ever since. Recently, the quality has been good, but it's still nowhere near the quality of Rackham, Reaper, or I-Kore IMO. (How many figures holding one weapon up in a static pose can one company make?) This is just another example of the GW ego. Hopefully, they will lose money on the deal and make room for better companies in the over-GW-saturated minis market.

Kane

 

[mac1504]

It's all about the bottom line

I think the reasoning behind it is plain and simple: GW is trying to fatten their bottom line. Which, for the purely captialist at heart, is not a problem. It is how they go about it that irks many.

I would love to see more people voice their opinions about GW with their wallets, and give the smaller miniature companies out there a chance. Estimates place the miniature industry at around $150 million a year. GW reported taking in about $90 million of that, and Wizkids about $30-$50 million (IIRC). So, yes, GW doesn't technically have a monopoly- but they sure own the lion's share.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Re: Re: Uh, no.

Yes, there is a thing stopping an online retailer from taking their own pictures of the box that's sitting in its warehouse and posting them on the net. It's called copyright. Buying something doesn't give you ownership of its copyright, regardless of what mp3 thieves tell you. It simply doesn't work that way.

Actually, since copyrights are pretty specific, unless GW had a copyright on the boxes that stuff is shipped in, it's more than legal. I'd assume all they'd take the copyrights on are stuff like labels and designs, images, etc. As long as you don't show those, you're golden. You've gotta love loopholes.

That said, since GW is the copyright holder, they have the exclusive right to determine what can and can not be used by anyone. That whole "I bought it, it's mine to do with as I please" argument rarely stands up before a court. In fact, because of the derivative works clause of copyright law, owners of a copyright own any material based off that copyright (that isn't a parody, of course).

So, to give an example, fan fiction is not owned by any of it's authors. It's owned by the owner of the property it is based on. That is why, for example, Robert Jordan can (and has) enforced his right over fanfic authors to not use his property. This clause can (and again, has) extend to web sites, including images. This includes pictures of items.

And no, I'm not a lawyer either.

 

[megamania]

This is not new for Games Workshop to do boneheaded threats in an attempt to better their direct profits (forgetting long term affects). I have heard of them helping smaller stores get going and they WATCH the business. If it does exceptional well suddenly that store has shiping problems and a new neighbor- a Games Workshop direct store.
These people are not player freindly. To them it is alll about the bottom dollar. My biggest fear is IF they have found a way to enforce this, how long before others do it?

I am curious about hearing their reaction to Neal's publically anouncing their phonecall. I know he dislikes their practices and is not overally quiet about it. I just hope they didn't set him up for slander/liability or something to place fear into others.

You go Neal- keep up the good battle at Warstore.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Re: Re: Re: Uh, no.

Actually, since copyrights are pretty specific, unless GW had a copyright on the boxes that stuff is shipped in, it's more than legal. I'd assume all they'd take the copyrights on are stuff like labels and designs, images, etc. As long as you don't show those, you're golden. You've gotta love loopholes.

And no, I'm not a lawyer either.

I'm also not a lawyer,

but copyrights do tend to include trademarks and product names (or names of product lines). Taking a picture of a Warhammer (tm) box showing spacemarines on the cover will violate copyright because the trademarked name is on the box and the images are clear - these are subject to copyright as well, I believe.

What else are you going to be taking a picture of - a blank cardboard box?

As a non-businessman, non-lawyer I too cannot understand the marketing/business rationale behind this decision. It seems strange to say the least. What IP are GW losing by being sold on the net and how does this action preserve it?

 

[TalonComics]

I believe GW cut out the middleman a long time ago. If I'm not mistaken they have their own distribution channels. So a store is in essence buying directly from GW. However, I'm not sure if that is the case.

Actually, no, that isn't correct. If I remember correctly GW tried that back in the mid 90's and it didn't work. About the same time GW started an aggressive tactic to get retailers to buy direct from them. I remember many calls where GW tried to get me to order 1 to 2000 dollars of product without me ever having carried GW products before. Needless to say I didn't do it.

Since that point my regular distributor once again carried GW product but not at the same discount as other products. However, the GW discount is about the same as the WotC discount cap.

I think GW is doing this just to keep money going to their own stores, many of which, share the same "mall-style locations" as the WotC stores did. As WotC found out the hard way, mall locations suck.

~D

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Uh, no.

So, to give an example, fan fiction is not owned by any of it's authors. It's owned by the owner of the property it is based on. That is why, for example, Robert Jordan can (and has) enforced his right over fanfic authors to not use his property. This clause can (and again, has) extend to web sites, including images. This includes pictures of items.

That's not entirely right - the fanfic writer still owns the copyright in their work, even if it's a derivative work. In the example, both Jordan and the fanfic writer could hold copyright in elements of the work. Likewise with a photo of an artwork, the photographer might have copyright in the photo, but the owner of the copyright in the artwork could also have rights in it. Copyright is not either-or.

Re GW - it seems clear they want to monopolise internet sales of their products in order to make more money. GW are nasty, but most people knew that already.