Conquer Club

First time from begining of making Eastrn front map i get real help,thanks Widow Maker,if people agree i can put yours version to be final version.
Several times i ask from people to show me visual what they think,but i dont get answer, now these i call realy good help.

IP = Intellectual Property...

And in this instance - utter bollocks from Alstergreen.

C.

yeti_c wrote:IP = Intellectual Property...

And in this instance - utter bollocks from Alstergreen.

C.

Thanks yeti_c but i do know what IP means. I just did not know what he meant by IP-rights.

qwert wrote:First time from begining of making Eastrn front map i get real help,thanks Widow Maker,if people agree i can put yours version to be final version.
Several times i ask from people to show me visual what they think,but i dont get answer, now these i call realy good help.

qwert, I only touched up the version on the web. There is still a large/small issue. Scaling will not fix the problem because the circle might be off centered again. Why don't you just fix what i did and repost?

Just to make sure everyone else knew what he was on about - and I concur... IP rights -> copyright... none of these were infringed at all by you modifying the image.

C.

qwert wrote:First time from begining of making Eastrn front map i get real help,thanks Widow Maker,if people agree i can put yours version to be final version.
Several times i ask from people to show me visual what they think,but i dont get answer, now these i call realy good help.

It looks like the fellow needs a helping hand and is not fully comprehending what is being asked.

Can someone with a whole lot more esoteric knowledge than me work with him to get the map made using illustrations? ... and maybe not in a Forum as it perhaps distracts from the final goal i.e. let's get the map made.

Big clap goes to Widow maker. This is the kind of attitude we want in the foundry. Good on you Sir.

2nd big clap goes to Molecule. You have hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly the way i see things as well regarding Qwert's map. Alot of really good map makers are treated this way and alot of good maps are lost because of the way the Foundry treat them.

After all this is meant to be a fun place to be.

Ps Widowmaker borders are still pixelated

Pps..still awaiting comments from Keyogi and Andy (been very quiet in this whole afair)

WidowMakers wrote:

alstergren wrote:However, the maps posted by WidowMakers are somewhat different. Different shades of light I guess. However, I couldn’t care less. Both maps are playable. If for nothing else, (i) WidowMakers showed how ridiculous this issue is (and why the map maker must have some margin of appreciation),

First of all, I did not do this to show how I could make the map completely different. I did it to show how easy it would be for qwert to fix some of the issues that have come up. The army circles look better and they are centered more in each territory. The borders are also less jagged. Like I said earlier, 1 hour and 17 minutes. why does qwert not just fix his stuff like everyone else. to give you an example. teh great lakes was in final forge and Andy and Keyogi would not Quench because I have 1 army circle 1 pixel to high. I fixed it in 15 minutes and that was it. It is now done.

I never said you did it to show how you could make the map different. However, I did say that your “changes” are unnecessary ones. In other words, I don’t find the changes necessary. In fact, I find the changes to be meaningless since they do not add anything of value to the map.

WidowMakers wrote:

alstergren wrote:and (ii) WidowMakers committed an infringement of the map maker’s IP-rights.

secondly, I don't really know what this means. IP-rights? A copyright infringement? No where did I ever say "HEY LOOK AT THIS MAP I MADE ALL BY MYSELF".
There have been several occasions where other people have taken a map from a post and adjusted it to try and help out the map maker. All I did was visually make my recommendations. It is no different that someone else saying "Hey make the army shadows more centered and easier to see". I just did it with a picture. A picture is worth a 1,000 words. So instead of writing about fixing this and adjusting that I made a picture of my thoughts. Just fix the issues and be done.

Again, you assume too much. Playing around with a map isn’t necessarily an IP-right infringement.

What you did do however was to copy the map onto your harddrive (infringement number 1) and then reposting two images in this thread (infringement number 2 and 3). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the current IP-legislation (in fact, I’m in favor of totally disbanding all copyrights) – but that has nothing to do with this issue.

yeti_c wrote:Just to make sure everyone else knew what he was on about - and I concur... IP rights -> copyright... none of these were infringed at all by you modifying the image.

C.

See the above post, you're obviously full of bullocks yourself.

alstergren wrote:Again, you assume too much. Playing around with a map isn’t necessarily an IP-right infringement.

What you did do however was to copy the map onto your harddrive (infringement number 1) and then reposting two images in this thread (infringement number 2 and 3). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the current IP-legislation (in fact, I’m in favor of totally disbanding all copyrights) – but that has nothing to do with this issue.

By your definition merely looking at an image online through a browser is an IP infringement then.

Do you know how a browser works... it downloads all of the data onto your machine... then assembles it for your viewing...

Thus according to your definition everyone who has been in this thread of the forum has breached IP-rights.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

alstergren wrote:Again, you assume too much. Playing around with a map isn’t necessarily an IP-right infringement.

What you did do however was to copy the map onto your harddrive (infringement number 1) and then reposting two images in this thread (infringement number 2 and 3). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the current IP-legislation (in fact, I’m in favor of totally disbanding all copyrights) – but that has nothing to do with this issue.

By your definition merely looking at an image online through a browser is an IP infringement then.

Do you know how a browser works... it downloads all of the data onto your machine... then assembles it for your viewing...

Thus according to your definition everyone who has been in this thread of the forum has breached IP-rights.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

alstergren wrote:Again, you assume too much. Playing around with a map isn’t necessarily an IP-right infringement.

What you did do however was to copy the map onto your harddrive (infringement number 1) and then reposting two images in this thread (infringement number 2 and 3). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the current IP-legislation (in fact, I’m in favor of totally disbanding all copyrights) – but that has nothing to do with this issue.

By your definition merely looking at an image online through a browser is an IP infringement then.

Do you know how a browser works... it downloads all of the data onto your machine... then assembles it for your viewing...

Thus according to your definition everyone who has been in this thread of the forum has breached IP-rights.

C.

Yes. I'm aware how a RAM memory works.

But first of all, it's not my infringment definitions. It's the U.S. Copyright Act since Widowmakers seems to be an American. (That qwert is a non-US citizen (or that the CC site may not be located in the U.S.) doesn’t matter anymore due to the Bern Convention and the TRIPS that has been incorporated into U.S. law.)

§ 106 gives, inter alia, the copyright holder a legal monopoly of reproduction and distribution.

Presumably, the copying being done by web browsers falls under the fair use doctrine in § 107 (but as far as I know, that has never been subject to a court ruling).

In which case - the law is an ass.

C.

hehehehe, just ask if you want anything else cleared up Qwert.

The thing Alstergreen is missing is that everything WM did to the map is covered by S.108... beyond a shadow of a doubt. Although quite what his hideous demonstration of meager legal knowledge was intended to accomplish is beyond me.

Widow Maker did the single most productive action this thread has so far seen; and Alstergren decided that the most productive thing he could do in return was demonstrate some superfluous legalese. I can only presume that he wanted us to swoon over the fact that he once read a law textbook.

So here it is Alster:

You demonstrated a basic understanding of American IP law; you even managed to blind a couple of posters with your deliberately skewed presentation of the aforementioned field of law. Well done you.



So now let's get back to making productive comments about how to finish this map shall we? I for one think that the WM update is marginally better than the latest Qwert version; pedantic though the requested changes were, there seems to be no real reason not to keep them now they've been done.

Any word from Qwert on this?

While the foray into intellectual property law has been interesting to me, I would like to get back to the point that I think is more relevant to the issue at hand. The two maps are for all practical purposes the same. To the extent that the second map illustrates the effects of implementing the "suggestions" it also illustrates just how trivial the "suggestions" are. One is forced to wonder just how important the "suggestions" are when they result in such an imperceptible difference. Of course, that assumes the "suggestions" have anything at all to do with the map in the first place, which I suspect is probably not the case.

The process, in this case at least, has been disgraceful, and I would think that those who have prolonged this spectacle should be ashamed of themselves.

Dancing Mustard wrote:The thing Alstergreen is missing is that everything WM did to the map is covered by S.108... beyond a shadow of a doubt. Although quite what his hideous demonstration of meager legal knowledge was intended to accomplish is beyond me.

Widow Maker did the single most productive action this thread has so far seen; and Alstergren decided that the most productive thing he could do in return was demonstrate some superfluous legalese. I can only presume that he wanted us to swoon over the fact that he once read a law textbook.

Actually, in my post the reference to IP-law was the least interesting thing. It was merely put in there as a point on the actual greatness of WidowMakers' maps. But, since people obviosuly had little to say about my opinions re the maps, well. It's up to them.

Just to end this: If you in any case whatsoever would seriously state that an issue falls under § 107, well, then you don't know much about the fair use doctrine. The case law gives very little guidance except by making use that fair use determinations are very, very difficult and made on a case by case basis. Dunno if WidowMaker's copying is fair use, wouldn't think so.

tahitiwahini wrote:While the foray into intellectual property law has been interesting to me, I would like to get back to the point that I think is more relevant to the issue at hand. The two maps are for all practical purposes the same. To the extent that the second map illustrates the effects of implementing the "suggestions" it also illustrates just how trivial the "suggestions" are. One is forced to wonder just how important the "suggestions" are when they result in such an imperceptible difference. Of course, that assumes the "suggestions" have anything at all to do with the map in the first place, which I suspect is probably not the case.

The process, in this case at least, has been disgraceful, and I would think that those who have prolonged this spectacle should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree. And concur with you here.

As I stated above, WidowMakers' maps merely shows that Qwert's map is perfectly fine.

yeap whatever it means; let's get the map made and worry about the litigation after. (don't call me as a witness, i was at theater the whole time!)

The issue is the map not the b/s IP discussion lol.. Some of us are waiting to play the map.. ahem *cough cough* cut the b/s out prz lol

tahitiwahini wrote:While the foray into intellectual property law has been interesting to me, I would like to get back to the point that I think is more relevant to the issue at hand. The two maps are for all practical purposes the same. To the extent that the second map illustrates the effects of implementing the "suggestions" it also illustrates just how trivial the "suggestions" are. One is forced to wonder just how important the "suggestions" are when they result in such an imperceptible difference. Of course, that assumes the "suggestions" have anything at all to do with the map in the first place, which I suspect is probably not the case.

The process, in this case at least, has been disgraceful, and I would think that those who have prolonged this spectacle should be ashamed of themselves.

The difference to imperceptible to you, Tahiti, because you do not make map or spend time in the foundry. Do you think that qwert is alone in this level of criticism? Do you think that most maps just glide their way to through the foundry process on a bed of rose pedals? They don't. In developing my maps, I have received tons of what I thought was futile and unnnessary criticisms. I even contemplating give it up because I thought the process was so retarded. But I did make the changes, and you know what, the map is better for it. In fact it came to the point where I had no problems making changes no matter how small, I even added ducks. If i had the 'cojones' that qwert had my map would be stuck in the foundry with 50 pages of bullshit. But instead, I yielded to the changes and its the 3rd most active map on the site. The same goes for every map maker and every map. There is a reason why numerous maps have made it through the foundry in the past five months while qwert's was languishing. Do you think qwert gets more criticism then other maps? It doesn't, qwert just refuses to make changes. So the only person who should be ashamed for prolonging this spectacle is qwert, the person you have taken upon yourself to hail as the martyr of the foundry.

And another thing, I find your lengthy diatribes quite amusing, considering you have no idea what your talking about. There is this book in the foundry about Eastern Front. The books is over 100 pages long, and many pages spill over into other peoples threads, by qwert, and to other websites, by qwert. And you come a long and read 5 pages and present your 'expert' opinion. great, now stfu. I know there is a deep seeded need for you to come across as a voice of authority and it really does work well in other threads, you know the ones about probabilities and such, where you know what you are talking about, but it doesn't work here. Qwert has been obstructive and immature and the fact that you cannot see that is proof of your ignorance in the subject. So please, keep your 'wisdom' to yourself in this matter. The foundry process works and is the reason why the maps on this site and particularly in the last 6 months have all been top notch, we'd like to keep it that way.

mibi wrote:

tahitiwahini wrote:While the foray into intellectual property law has been interesting to me, I would like to get back to the point that I think is more relevant to the issue at hand. The two maps are for all practical purposes the same. To the extent that the second map illustrates the effects of implementing the "suggestions" it also illustrates just how trivial the "suggestions" are. One is forced to wonder just how important the "suggestions" are when they result in such an imperceptible difference. Of course, that assumes the "suggestions" have anything at all to do with the map in the first place, which I suspect is probably not the case.

The process, in this case at least, has been disgraceful, and I would think that those who have prolonged this spectacle should be ashamed of themselves.

The difference to imperceptible to you, Tahiti, because you do not make map or spend time in the foundry. Do you think that qwert is alone in this level of criticism? Do you think that most maps just glide their way to through the foundry process on a bed of rose pedals? They don't. In developing my maps, I have received tons of what I thought was futile and unnnessary criticisms. I even contemplating give it up because I thought the process was so retarded. But I did make the changes, and you know what, the map is better for it. In fact it came to the point where I had no problems making changes no matter how small, I even added ducks. If i had the 'cojones' that qwert had my map would be stuck in the foundry with 50 pages of bullshit. But instead, I yielded to the changes and its the 3rd most active map on the site. The same goes for every map maker and every map. There is a reason why numerous maps have made it through the foundry in the past five months while qwert's was languishing. Do you think qwert gets more criticism then other maps? It doesn't, qwert just refuses to make changes. So the only person who should be ashamed for prolonging this spectacle is qwert, the person you have taken upon yourself to hail as the martyr of the foundry.

And another thing, I find your lengthy diatribes quite amusing, considering you have no idea what your talking about. There is this book in the foundry about Eastern Front. The books is over 100 pages long, and many pages spill over into other peoples threads, by qwert, and to other websites, by qwert. And you come a long and read 5 pages and present your 'expert' opinion. great, now stfu. I know there is a deep seeded need for you to come across as a voice of authority and it really does work well in other threads, you know the ones about probabilities and such, where you know what you are talking about, but it doesn't work here. Qwert has been obstructive and immature and the fact that you cannot see that is proof of your ignorance in the subject. So please, keep your 'wisdom' to yourself in this matter. The foundry process works and is the reason why the maps on this site and particularly in the last 6 months have all been top notch, we'd like to keep it that way.

Well i must say that issue in widow version not been colours of all map,but for army circe i can agree that hes better.
Mibi i realy dont understand you,i can not understand many words of english language and when i dont understand something i ask from people to show me visualy what i must change,widow show how he see a map but Major issue not colours of map,but if people like widows point of view my map i can apply these. Maybe you see these map diferent and if you want you can show me yours visual point of view.

qwert wrote:Well i must say that issue in widow version not been colours of all map,but for army circe i can agree that hes better.
Mibi i realy dont understand you,i can not understand many words of english language and when i dont understand something i ask from people to show me visualy what i must change,widow show how he see a map but Major issue not colours of map,but if people like widows point of view my map i can apply these. Maybe you see these map diferent and if you want you can show me yours visual point of view.

qwert I have no problems with your map. My standards are much lower than the foundry at large.

I've noticed the foundry has developed in the recent months an attitude of perfectionism. Most mapmakers are currently adhering to this local unspoken social norm, and qwert broke it, since he's not that good at English to begin with and can't possibly pick up on the subtleties that go unsaid. So now, he's getting all sorts of shit for it, and so are people who either didn't pick up on this new silent trend, or didn't care that much about having extremely stringent standards to begin with.

I guess the take-home message is that either qwert must cave and also become a perfectionist, or the foundry must loosen its standards.

ClessAlvein wrote:I've noticed the foundry has developed in the recent months an attitude of perfectionism. Most mapmakers are currently adhering to this local unspoken social norm, and qwert broke it, since he's not that good at English to begin with and can't possibly pick up on the subtleties that go unsaid. So now, he's getting all sorts of shit for it, and so are people who either didn't pick up on this new silent trend, or didn't care that much about having extremely stringent standards to begin with.

I guess the take-home message is that either qwert must cave and also become a perfectionist, or the foundry must loosen its standards.

Qwert could be accused of many things, but not of not being a perfectionist. His maps are great. Putting it out there as it is now, would certainly only serve to raise the general standards of the maps, not lowering it.

If there's an unspoken, social norm in the Foundry forum that a mapmaker must do all the changes that people suggest (which seems contrary to the rules posted), well… that seems to be the problem, not Qwert.

Even though some people seem to believe that the only ones entitled to an opinion is the ones who hang around in the Foundry forum 24/7, well… All we outsiders are saying is that we like the map and that we don’t see what possible good those proposed changes could do. And, under those circumstances, we believe it’s the map maker who reasonably should have the last call. Not whining map-wannabes.

alstergren wrote:Even though some people seem to believe that the only ones entitled to an opinion is the ones who hang around in the Foundry forum 24/7, well… All we outsiders are saying is that we like the map and that we don’t see what possible good those proposed changes could do. And, under those circumstances, we believe it’s the map maker who reasonably should have the last call. Not whining map-wannabes.

OK I think someone needs to explain the foundry process to those people who don't frequent the foundry itself:

A map-maker must implement all suggestions made unless he/she can argue successfully in favour of either keeping it the same or implementing one option over another. I'll give you some examples:

1) Someone argues that they think the font is boring and should be jazzed up a little and made more fancy. The map-maker can successfully argue that a more complicated font will make the labels harder to read and, perhaps with the aid of examples, he/she is perfectly right in making no change. There is a valid argument for making no change.

2) Someone argues that the colour of a continent is too dark and that it makes the labels hard to read. The map-maker argues that he/she likes the colour and doesn't personally find it hard to read. Other people comment saying that they too find it difficult to read the labels with the present colour so the change must be made.

3) There is debate over a certain object, for example the appearance of some mountains. Some people like one type, some people like another type. The map maker prefers one type but everyone can see there is a case for both. A vote is taken and comes out in favour of the first type, the type which the map maker also likes best, so we go with that.

4) A suggestion is made about adding shadow to a title. The map-maker has no particular preference, and the majority of the foundry do not mind either way either. Only a few people want the change, but there is no reason not to implement it because adding the shadow is in no way detrimental to the map and there is no argument for not making the change. The shadow is added.

This is the process which EVERY map presently passes through. Siege, San Francisco and 8 Thoughts were all required to enact every comment unless a valid argument could be presented against it. Being fed up of making changes is not a valid argument and everyone else in the Foundry knows it. This is a site which many pay for access for, and the 'perfectionism' we have in the foundry, which may seem annoying to outsiders, allows us to create quality maps for the paying public without giving us graphical dungheaps like the Middle East, which was quenched before the current standard existed.

If you want a large amount of shitty anyone-can-do-it maps go to Landgrab. I'm afraid we have standards in the foundry, and we have rules which are there for a very good reason by which every map-maker must abide, whether its Keyogi (a Mod), Myself or Qwert. Those rules continue to turn out brilliant maps month after month. Qwert has only himself to blame. We had this farse with the borders, and eventually after months of arguing he gave in and made them look better, to our collective relief. Unfortunately it has happened again and will continue to happen.