I have to disagree. Are they being unreasonable? I think so.

Think about this for a moment. They have created a physical product. People hold these cards in their hands, play games with them, etc. How is it unreasonable to think that people would want a nice, online, experience with managing these cards and the decks that can be built with them? Why is it unreasonable to think that people will take pictures of or scan these cards and share this passion with their friends and gaming communities online?

I think that FFG thinking that people should sit with their thumbs up their @$$3$ and wait for FFG to do something similar... oh wait they did. They purchased the ever failing cardgamedb... an online gaming resource that isn't even mobile... *facepalm* and it looks like crap. NetrunnerDB is my site of choice because it looks like it was made by the same company doing the Netrunner card designs... It's freaking gorgeous!

No. I believe that the unreasonable opinion is when FFG thinks they know how people should enjoy their game... not even a game that FFG came up with. This is a Wizards of the Coast original... Richard Garfield designed and created this beautiful game. FFG is just the one currently irresponsibly managing this farce of a situation.

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?

I guess I will never understand the hate for CardgameDB. I guess it helps that I use it for Netrunner and Star Wars.

Though, it is interesting to note some of Darksbane's experiences with CardgameDB and FFG before the buyout.

@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?

copyright infringement becomes a whole different beast if money is involved.

let's say I have a simply fansite and use a few of the images - the rights holder of the images could ask me to take them down.

now imagine I run a fansite with those images and take donations (to cover the running costs): what happens if I get more in donations than the websites costs to run? that could be considered profit, which was gained by using those images.

running a fansite without making money is one thing, but once you make money lawyers get a lot more antsy.

as for the posts, if multiquote is too much of a hassle just use 2 posts. no one really cares about the postcounter and sometimes it looks cleaner.

Maybe I am being paranoid, but this whole thread is very fishy to me. It's almost as if the OP is trying to bait people to give him information. For example this question to Alsciende "what is your opinion on the NetrunnerDB C&D?" seems strange. I maintained earlier that this is a FFG employee and nothing leads me to change my opinion. The same OP is on the Boardgamegeek Forum under the name 'John Smith'.

Maybe I am being paranoid, but this whole thread is very fishy to me. It's almost as if the OP is trying to bait people to give him information. For example this question to Alsciende "what is your opinion on the NetrunnerDB C&D?" seems strange. I maintained earlier that this is a FFG employee and nothing leads me to change my opinion. The same OP is on the Boardgamegeek Forum under the name 'John Smith'.

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.

Hi Eridine,

Why don't you just state in this thread that you are not employed by FFG or have any association with FFG? That would convince me.

Hi Eridine,

Why don't you just state in this thread that you are not employed by FFG or have any association with FFG? That would convince me.

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.

I guess I will never understand the hate for CardgameDB. I guess it helps that I use it for Netrunner and Star Wars.

Though, it is interesting to note some of Darksbane's experiences with CardgameDB and FFG before the buyout.

I don't personally hate CardgameDB.com. For me it's the user interface that drives my use of on deck builder over another and having recently released cards in a timely manner. I used CardgameDB for a long time but it comepletely failed on my moblile devices and frankly the ability to comment, bookmark and show love to a a deck build make the online deckbuiling community more of a community.

So, it's not that I hate CardgameDB.com, I just like NetrunnerDB.com more.

There is a lot of nerdrage over this non-issue haha... FFG has the right to their own copyrights. Copyrights exist to protect inventions and inventors (Netrunner and FFG respectively). That just about settles it. *braces for nerdrage*

There is a lot of nerdrage over this non-issue haha... FFG has the right to their own copyrights. Copyrights exist to protect inventions and inventors (Netrunner and FFG respectively). That just about settles it. *braces for nerdrage*

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.

There is a lot of nerdrage over this non-issue haha... FFG has the right to their own copyrights. Copyrights exist to protect inventions and inventors (Netrunner and FFG respectively). That just about settles it. *braces for nerdrage*

FFG is certainly free to send C&D to fan made websites loved by the community.

Whether this protects their game or undermines them is another topic.

I'm a longtime user of Cardgamedb and really the reason FFG acquired it instead of NRDB or Meteor is that CGDB is one-stop-shopping for all of its LCGs.

For example, CGDB has long been the deckbuilder of choice for AGOT.

Consensus seems to be that NRDB is collateral damage to the hubris of Jinteki.net's designer. On the Facebook group post he made on "Netrunner Geeks" his response to people telling him it was a bad idea was to say something along the lines of "hopefully FFG realizes this will be a valuable enhancement to the community" which is risibly naïve.

Speaking of other building sites, FFG has taken no action against the longstanding competing deckbuilders of AGOTcards.com, or numerous X-Wing squadron builders, so I don't think the notion that they're shutting down the competition is actually true. Quite the opposite, I think we have a reasonable basis to be hopeful that FFG and Alsciende can reach an accommodation, and I wish them all the best in that.

Like I said in another thread, legally speaking, a C&D can be "shots fired" or it can be the legalish version of asking nicely: you can't negotiate in good faith with a party who's violating your rights on an ongoing basis. Once the violation is put to rest, then they can discuss further resolution like grownups.

I'm sure FFG is acutely aware that their games depend on community support, and they still have many options available to them to both protect their rights and regain much or all of the lost goodwill.

(personally, I could care less if NRDB hosts images, if FFG lets it go text-only, I'm fine with that.)

I agree that they were well within their legal rights. "Legally valid" is not always the same as "reasonable".

In my opinion, the FFG response was "poor form" and was not the right way to handle this situation. There were so many better ways to address their concerns (which were reasonable and legitimate) other than sending in the lawyers.

I know there are some great people at FFG, because I have met some of them at GenCon. But FFG, as a whole, now feels like a bully corporation that cares only about the bottom line and not about their customers or the community that exists around this game.

So legally valid? Sure. Smart? Nope.

After consideration, I'm fairly convinced FFG had exactly zero latitude in how they handled it. Netrunner's a licensed game, and if they didn't put a halt to it, WOTC would have made them pay for it when the license came up for renewal. Against the specter of losing the license entirely, smart? Yes. Otherwise they're not showing due diligence in defending WOTC's copyrights.

After consideration, I'm fairly convinced FFG had exactly zero latitude in how they handled it. Netrunner's a licensed game, and if they didn't put a halt to it, WOTC would have made them pay for it when the license came up for renewal. Against the specter of losing the license entirely, smart? Yes. Otherwise they're not showing due diligence in defending WOTC's copyrights.

Please explain what WotC had copyrighted here. Fantasy Flight owns the card art and text. Moreover, there are tons of Magic sites like NetrunnerDB, and WotC has never sent out cease-and-desist letters to them. Why would they be concerned over Netrunner and not their flagship game? There's no evidence that anybody at WotC cares about Netrunner at all. I'm sorry, but this is some of the most groundless speculation I've seen come out of this whole thing.

Since you saw fit to say the same thing in two different threads, I'm going to give you basically the same reply.

Please explain what WotC had copyrighted here. Fantasy Flight owns the card art and text. Moreover, there are tons of Magic sites like NetrunnerDB, and WotC has never sent out cease-and-desist letters to them. Why would they be concerned over Netrunner and not their flagship game? There's no evidence that anybody at WotC cares about Netrunner at all. I'm sorry, but this is some of the most groundless speculation I've seen come out of this whole thing.

As far as other sites go, Wizards doesn't have a third-party license agreement to satisfy. What Wizards does with its own IP and what requirements it imposes on its licensees need not be the same thing. If Wizards comes to FFG and says "you're not defending our copyrights, we're not renewing the license," FFG won't have a leg to stand on by calling them hypocritical.

Every single Netrunner card says "{C} Wizards of the Coast LLC." I know for a fact, from FFG employees, that they have a licensing agreement with WOTC. So that line of argument is completely null. If you're going to argue that Wizards doesn't actually own Netrunner, or that FFG should waste time and money fighting a company whose parent company is Hasbro in court over what rights they do or don't have, just so a fan site doesn't have to get shut down...I'm sorry, you're just no longer arguing from a perspective based in reality.

Since you saw fit to say the same thing in two different threads, I'm going to give you basically the same reply.

Yeah, except I didn't copy-paste like you did. Since you're obviously a lawyer, please explain to me what the nature of this "intellectual property" is.

Since you saw fit to say the same thing in two different threads, I'm going to give you basically the same reply.

Yeah, except I didn't copy-paste like you did. Since you're obviously a lawyer, please explain to me what the nature of this "intellectual property" is.

Every single Netrunner card says "© [year] Wizards of the Coast, LLC." Ipso facto, FFG recognizes and affirms that WOTC has a copyright stake. It is breathtakingly inane to suggest that they should revise that stance.

Every single Netrunner card says "© [year] Wizards of the Coast, LLC." Ipso facto, FFG recognizes and affirms that WOTC has a copyright stake. It is breathtakingly inane to suggest that they should revise that stance.

Again, it's more plausible that FFG acted alone. There's just no reason for WotC to care. They're not even selling the game. They're just getting tribute from Fantasy Flight.

The core set rulebook says "Netrunner is a TM of R. Talsorian Games, Inc." So, AFAIK, the trademark is the name of the game itself, but since that word never appears on the cards, it's not at issue here.

It goes on to say "Netrunner is licensed by Wizards of the Coast LLC. © 2012 Wizards." So, that would be the original game. As the ANR apple hasn't fallen far from the ONR tree--and while you're free to disagree--the evident fact is that FFG acknowledges that its game comes from their game, and is not about to split hairs on what can or cannot be copyrighted.* So, "what I think that copyright covers" is more like "whatever FFG thinks it does," which might be quite broad in order to stay on Wizards' good side.

In any case, it's some quantity of design that's part of the cards, hence the indicia on every card. Therefore it falls to FFG to safeguard its BP's IP, lest it blow back on them come license-renewal time. I think that these factors explain why they might have felt they had no leeway in quashing possible copyright violation.

Of course it sucks. Of course it's on them for not having Acceptable Use guidelines published a long time ago. This was foreseeable and preventable--that alone makes it kind of a **** move. But I for one find it a lot easier to move on with some kind of handle on whys and wherefores, even if it's only "plausible" and not "confirmed." Too many people, not at all limited to participants in this forum, seem to be engaged in some kind of motivated reasoning where any explanation is rejected out of hand because they're more comfortable with seeing this as some kind of evil overlord picking on the little guy narrative.

*as well they should, because to do otherwise would only mire them in lawsuits which might be valuable from a precedent-setting perspective but in the short term would be unprofitable for FFG.

Long term mtg player and decided to try netrunner.

Finding OCTGN is the main reason that I've pursued playing and learning the game.

Then I find netrunnerdb and it's also helpful. So I went and bought about half of the datasets so far.

Then I found Cyberdeck on my Android (pun intended) phone Google Play which I was using to browse the cards and learn the cards, learn the game...

So then you trash netrunnerdb

which trashes Cyberdeck

What's next OCTGN... then you've lost a player.

Since you've trashed netrunnerdb and the community that it had.

And Cyberdeck and the small community that it had.

FFG should have to at least provide the same type of resources ...

Netrunnerdb was gaining you a following and you've shut that down...

If they were printing t-shirts and selling fake cards then sure you go after them..

You should have offered that kid a job and made it an official site of FFG...

It's easy to break things and that is all most people can think of...

And for this supposed to be a cyberpunk game and you shut down a cyberpunk feel site.

I would have never done that.

You should be sucking up to that site and saying that you can work together... link to it and sell t-shirts and cards and grab corporate information.

FFG Corporation 1 - Shaper Netrunnerdb 0

xsdogstar

Any speculation as to the reasonableness their actions is just that, speculation. None of us know why they decided to take the action they did in the manner they did, you included Grim. While some scenarios are certainly more likely, few are entirely impossible. Not to mention, it's much more likely to be a blend of issues with the purchase of cgdb influencing their decisions in some way just as their lawyers recommendations to protect their IP does.

Reiterating the point made previously: something being legally right does not make it morally right. Even still, if their actions were sound and methods reasonable, they've still poisoned the community their customers have fostered and will certainly lose some amount of sales over this. Consumers can speak the loudest to corporations with their money and I've a feeling FFG will not be making as much this quarter as they otherwise could have. The community is still hurting from this.

I have been told by people with experience that clauses requiring licensees to diligently defend the licensor's IP are standard issue in many industries. I don't feel that my position is entirely speculative at all: I think it best accounts for all available facts. The other competing theory, that FFG decided to quash a CardgameDB competitor for arbitrary reasons, does not account for all the facts and is contradicted by other several facts.

But unless you actually have inside knowledge, then it is still speculative regardless of how plausible it is. And as I said, it can even be as complex a motive as having been influenced by both factors.