So, a month later, where did those scans go?

[Silencer]

You might remember a month ago, when we were asked to remove a newspost with certain scans of an article with first ever concrete information on Fallout 3. After a third party provided us with the images of Game Informer article, we would be loathe to conceal it from half our readership - our non-American visitors, who had positively no chance of getting their hands on this U.S. exclusive.

Following the publication, on June 18, we have been contacted via my private mail by Bethesda, and after that Game Informer, with a just and civil enough demand that we delete those images. <blockquote>Please remove all scans of Game Informer Magazine from your website. This is
copyrighted material, and legal action will be taken if these scans are not
promptly removed from your website.

Thank you. </blockquote>Being the nice guys we are, we apologized and promptly complied - we did accept the possibility that it's hurting the marketability of the issue, and pulled the images from the site.

Now, here's the funny part: Try searching for "fallout 3 game infomer scans" on Google or whatnot. Some of the sites, although, replaced Game Informer scans with those from the Finnish magazine Pelaaja, since it is more troublesome for a foreign editor to contact them, BUT - you could also end up here, or here, or maybe here... Jackpot!

When we contacted Game Informer Magazine on July 3 about that, they had this to say:<blockquote>We are doing our best to take down all scans. No one should have them up.</blockquote>And yet *someone* here is getting *special* attention? In the quiet words of Mutant Harry ... How come?

Or is "our best" good enough only for cooperative, non-profit fan sites?

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Ugh. The ones on Kotaku are incomplete and small enough to be barely legible and point to NMA if people want to read them, the ones on G4 are incomplete and illegible and point to NMA if people want to read them, playing.se is a link to a forum and is people hosting the scans and not a gaming website/business putting it in their news, "N4G" is the only one that hosts them fully legible and puts it in news and even then it links back to NMA, but taking a look at the website it appears that it gets content/news stories from people posting them themselves, so it's a bit self-serve like a forum.

In fact, this is taken from the N4G FAQ:

Why become a N4G member?
As a member of N4G you can participate in discussions as well as contribute news stories to the site. You will also get access to the pending news area and news tips section which lets you read the news before it goes live on the main site. As a member you will also start collecting N4G Credits which can be used to bid on games and other items in the N4G Marketplace.


Who writes the news?
N4G is a community driven website. Instead of just having a handful of staff members N4G has thousands. This way N4G is able to cover many more news stories each day than your average game site or news blog.


Can I post news?
All members can submit news tips to the site but only qualified members are allowed to write actual news stories. Before you can post news articles you must become a N4G contributor. To become a N4G contributor you must first take a short test to make sure you understand the basics behind news posting. If you pass the test you can start to submit news stories to the pending news area. However you will not become an official N4G contributor until 5 of your news stories have been approved.

Instead of a grand conspiracy made by Da Man to bring NMA down it seems more likely that they went after you since you're the most solid offender. The more "Official" webpages are incomplete and illegible and just offer a glance at it, the onces with actual scans tend to be individuals rather than a webpage itself, and almost all of them point back to NMA as the source.

 

[Silencer]

Yay, Web 2.0 strikes again!

Excuse me if I thought that "no one" meant just that. Because, I don't know if you're aware of that, if they are available elsewhere, then NMAs compliance or non-compliance means nothing, as GI had already failed to protect the copyright, and I doubt they'd like that to happen. It doesn't suffice to take out the "most solid offender".

You are of course aware that forum administrators can be contacted to remove an individuals post?

Oh, and re-read that FAQ, would you?

 

[Brother None]

"N4G" is the only one that hosts them fully legible and puts it in news and even then it links back to NMA, but taking a look at the website it appears that it gets content/news stories from people posting them themselves, so it's a bit self-serve like a forum.

Heh. You think that actually means nobody has responsibility for the scans? You think that if someone put these scans on Wikipedia, the wiki owners couldn't be sued if they refuse to take it down?

What if someone uploads the scans to our fan art section, which is upload-for-all, does that mean we're not responsible?

Silencer was even being sparse on the links. Here, have some more scans (link to second example removed, I don't feel like playing snitch again)

Instead of a grand conspiracy made by Da Man to bring NMA down it seems more likely that they went after you since you're the most solid offender.

Yip. That perfectly explains why they went after us first, and we're not complaining of that. Now explain to us why they went after us and us alone, even after we go through the effort of providing them with a list of other offenders, multiple times?

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Excuse me if I thought that "no one" meant just that. Because, I don't know if you're aware of that, if they are available elsewhere, then NMAs compliance or non-compliance means nothing, as GI had already failed to protect the copyright, and I doubt they'd like that to happen. It doesn't suffice to take out the "most solid offender".

I'm not 100% sure of what you're trying to say here, but it seems the gist of it is that, since it's already leaked onto the internet, they shouldn't bust anyone for hosting it since it's already on the internet. I wouldn't think I'd have to say it, but that's pretty silly. Taking out "The most solid offender" would be akin to busting a pirate group that releases a game, rather than going after every person who downloaded the game. You'll take losses since it's already out there, but if you slap a warning/legal action on the main source of it it reduces the chances of the same thing happening in the future. Yes, it's a single Fallout article from a Fallout fanpage instead of a giant magazine pirate group (I assume there are some out there) but their exclusive Fallout preview was probably meant to be a big draw to that issue.

You are of course aware that forum administrators can be contacted to remove an individuals post?

Of course. I can't speak for the magazine, but they might've gone after NMA specifically since it was cited as the source in almost all of the articles. While they could go after the stragglers, since they all point to NMA being the source GI might figure that they wouldn't come up with magazine scans on their own, instead regurgitating them from elsewhere.

Oh, and re-read that FAQ, would you?

What am I looking for?

In reply to Brother None

"N4G" is the only one that hosts them fully legible and puts it in news and even then it links back to NMA, but taking a look at the website it appears that it gets content/news stories from people posting them themselves, so it's a bit self-serve like a forum.

Heh. You think that actually means nobody has responsibility for the scans? You think that if someone put these scans on Wikipedia, the wiki owners couldn't be sued if they refuse to take it down?

What if someone uploads the scans to our fan art section, which is upload-for-all, does that mean we're not responsible?

Silencer was even being sparse on the links. Here, have some more scans (link to second example removed, I don't feel like playing snitch again)

Of course they have responsibility for the scans, however if GI is acting as I was speculating above they might not think it's worth it to go after them. And the Russian article points to NMA again, the Nuka Cola article actually did not mention NMA and seemed to be the first stand alone complete article rip, even if it probably horked it from NMA itself. That seems like another big target if GI was so inclined.

Instead of a grand conspiracy made by Da Man to bring NMA down it seems more likely that they went after you since you're the most solid offender.

Yip. That perfectly explains why they went after us first, and we're not complaining of that. Now explain to us why they went after us and us alone, even after we go through the effort of providing them with a list of other offenders, multiple times?

What I've said above, plus the fact that is is all speculation. I'm not one to think of a conspiracy as the most likely answer, but since it all IS speculation all I can offer is a simple argument as to why they might go after NMA and NMA alone. Assuming that they are going after NMA alone, as other webpages who have removed the scans might simply have done so without leaving a message saying they got a slap on the wrist.

 

[Kan-Kerai]

Is there a point to this news post, other than "Help, help, we're being oppressed"?

Is this some kind of underhanded way to draw attention to sites still carrying the scans so Game Informer knows where to look, while still appearing to be on NMA's side?

Kidding.

This is a really touchy topic.

OK. We all know that Bethesda doesn't like us very much. Is that anything new? It's interesting that NMA hasn't been blacklisted yet. Wonder if what I've heard about them being afraid to do so is true. NMA is far more powerful than RPGCodex, that Star Trek gamer forum (it was tiny), or anything Bethesda has blacklisted.

This is going to reach a tipping point eventually, though. It'll be interesting to see how the Boys from Beth try to handle it.

Back to the scans.

I might have all of the scans (All of them- GI, PCG, the works) saved on my hard drive, Game Informer. I might have transcripts, too.

If I do, what's to say I didn't TOR up and dump scans to a few image hosting sites? What's to say I wouldn't do so in the future? What's to say there aren't other people who have done/who will do exactly the same thing?

What's to say I wouldn't offload them to a memory stick and wipe the sectors of my HDD they resided upon if GI tried to come after me for it personally?

You can't win this, GI. It's impossible to stop the flow of information forever. Not to mention that it's heinous to charge for (EXCLUSIVE!) sycophantic drivel in the first place.

The truth will set you free. Lies will set you back $3.29... or the cost of a plane ticket.

 

[Brother None]

Of course. I can't speak for the magazine, but they might've gone after NMA specifically since it was cited as the source in almost all of the articles. While they could go after the stragglers, since they all point to NMA being the source GI might figure that they wouldn't come up with magazine scans on their own, instead regurgitating them from elsewhere.

We provided them with links to all these sites. Would it really have been this incredible effort plus plus to ask them to take down the scans? Do you honestly think sites like Kotaku, n4g and g4 would not comply if GI asked that of them? Apparently, they didn't even bother to mail them.

That's a logical conclusion, not the twist of logic you're making.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Of course. I can't speak for the magazine, but they might've gone after NMA specifically since it was cited as the source in almost all of the articles. While they could go after the stragglers, since they all point to NMA being the source GI might figure that they wouldn't come up with magazine scans on their own, instead regurgitating them from elsewhere.

We provided them with links to all these sites. Would it really have been this incredible effort plus plus to ask them to take down the scans? Do you honestly think sites like Kotaku, n4g and g4 would not comply if GI asked that of them? Apparently, they didn't even bother to mail them.

That's a logical conclusion, not the twist of logic you're making.

It would be logical to simpy send an email to those places, however I was trying to come up with a reason as to why they wouldn't do that as they apparently haven't done it, and my conclusion didn't seem too unreasonable to me.

 

[Brother None]

It would be logical to simpy send an email to those places, however I was trying to come up with a reason as to why they wouldn't do that as they apparently haven't done it, and my conclusion didn't seem too unreasonable to me.

What, extreme laziness? Yeah, I guess it's possible.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

It would be logical to simpy send an email to those places, however I was trying to come up with a reason as to why they wouldn't do that as they apparently haven't done it, and my conclusion didn't seem too unreasonable to me.

What, extreme laziness? Yeah, I guess it's possible.

Well, that or trying to go after the perceived "Source" of the problem.

 

[Brother None]

Like I said, going after the source makes sense, going after the source alone would be either lazy or suspicious. You pick which one you want to apply.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

Like I said, going after the source makes sense, going after the source alone would be either lazy or suspicious. You pick which one you want to apply.

My reasoning behind going after the source alone was along similar lines as to what Kan-Kerai was saying (And I think as you said earlier), once it's out it's basically impossible to completely remove it. So they might've thought the best course of action was to give a warning to NMA since they thought of you as the source, and then not worry about the rest as it would simply show up again elsewhere like a hideous internet-hydra. Yes, it'd be no effort at all to send warning emails to the other webpages especially when you supply them links, but this line of reasoning makes some sense to me.

Certainly doesn't seem like a very important thing to me at least. They're not kicking down your door, and if people still want the information badly they can find it many other places easily.

 

[xdarkyrex]

It does seem a bit odd and jiggly does have a good point, but this does would be an almost hard to believe case of extreme laziness.

Did those other articles go up before or after your scans were removed?

Maybe they realized they didn't catch it quick enough and immediately gave up.

Or maybe everyone is out to get NMA

 

[Brother None]

Did those other articles go up before or after your scans were removed?

All those scans went up over the weekend, before we were asked to remove our copies.

 

[Briosafreak]

I don't know why people are rationalizing this, it's a pretty clear cut case of double standards. There's not even a conspiracy, a lot of places uploaded the scans and got away with it, while NMA was targeted with a cease and desist order, just for being NMA.

More clear than this is quite impossible, and why people are trying to come up with excuses is beyond me.

 

[frissy]

They wanted to fuck with you.

Stop whining, and stop giving everybody else up for the treatment just because you got it.
________
BUY EASY VAPE

 

[Brother None]

They wanted to fuck with you.

Stop whining, and stop giving everybody else up for the treatment just because you got it.

Man, I love you and all, frissy, but that's one hell of a weird return post to make. Still glad that you're back, you rascal you.

We're not "giving everyone else up" with this post. Cookiemonster posted these links in reply to the original "scans deleted" newspost, for everyone to see, and as noted in this newspost, those links already reached the GI editing room way before this newspost (2 weeks before).

But again, dude. "Whining"? Man. Hell of a return post

 

[Silencer]

That seems like another big target if GI was so inclined.

Or another non-mainstream fansite that can be targeted? Fallout3.net have already shit their pants and removed their scans, even before they were contacted by GI.

But those other sources aren't, well, difficult to find. It's 5 minutes googling, tops. If the scans at NMA were hurting marketability, so do thay. if they're not, then yes, we are being targeted specifically.

Is there a point to this news post, other than "Help, help, we're being oppressed"?

No. We're Jewish

 

[frissy]

There is a difference in giving them the info that they already know, than to let them use the info they already have. Now they can ALWAYS blame you for the "revealing" of the other sites.

How? Because you said so, and probably in a email so it's written and documented. Just a stupid move me thinks.

As for them only trageting NMA well...you haven't really played ball with them so I'm not too suprised. It has NOTHING to do with legal issues, it's just a way of showing that you crossed the line for them (it's not just a scan issue, it's all the negative karma we're giving Bethesda...). As for the "line" well... I think you didn't even come close the "real" line that would have actually made some legal problems.

You bullied them, now they bullied you with some legal paper. Happens all the time. If you had really crossed the line then there wouldn't have just been a paper (been there, done that). Now you just need to find a new way to pick a fight
________
Full melt hash

 

[Silencer]

There is a difference in giving them the info that they already know, than to let them use the info they already have. Now they can ALWAYS blame you for the "revealing" of the other sites.

So? I'll just blame Google in turn

I guess frissy's post sums it all up nicely.