Some things are done better elsewhere

[jpliberty]

I created an account, and it seems like half their maps are direct copies (probably simply snatched) from CC. Germany, North America, Asia, British Isles, Italy, Africa, etc. And whoever said that there cannot be copyright on this is dead wrong. Someone else already pointed out that it's not the simple "geographical map" which is the matter, but rather the graphics. Some of those maps are maps made by people at CC, and who as far as I know haven't given that site permission to use their graphics.

So, I want to ask you, is Hasbro right in going after CC?

To use your logic, it's a slamdunk for Hasbro. To use my logic it is not.

You decide.

And, whatever either of us does, let's sure as hell avoid the logic of the black jesus.

If CC used identical graphics to what Hasbro created, then yes, they have a case. It's not a case of "my logic or your logic", it's a case of copyright law. I'm no lawyer, so I could well be wrong on some points, but I'm pretty sure the issue here are the graphics, which is also why CC had to give up Classic.

NOPE. CC gave in because CC, probably quite wisely, doesn't want to deal with Hasbro and that money, those lawyers, etc. Remember, they renamed the damned DICE here. It has NOTHING to do with who is right. It has to do with money.

Map is a map. Pure and simple. NO copyright is valid. Either the map is valid or it IS NOT. Then again, you say "graphics". What kinda nonsense is that?

I agree that one should not rip-off legitimate artwork. The Hasbro interference had NOTHING to do with that.

Neither does my casual mention of denizengames here on this forum.

[jpliberty]

I created an account, and it seems like half their maps are direct copies (probably simply snatched) from CC. Germany, North America, Asia, British Isles, Italy, Africa, etc. And whoever said that there cannot be copyright on this is dead wrong. Someone else already pointed out that it's not the simple "geographical map" which is the matter, but rather the graphics. Some of those maps are maps made by people at CC, and who as far as I know haven't given that site permission to use their graphics.

So, I want to ask you, is Hasbro right in going after CC?

To use your logic, it's a slamdunk for Hasbro. To use my logic it is not.

You decide.

And, whatever either of us does, let's sure as hell avoid the logic of the black jesus.

If CC used identical graphics to what Hasbro created, then yes, they have a case. It's not a case of "my logic or your logic", it's a case of copyright law. I'm no lawyer, so I could well be wrong on some points, but I'm pretty sure the issue here are the graphics, which is also why CC had to give up Classic.

NOPE. CC gave in because CC, probably quite wisely, doesn't want to deal with Hasbro and that money, those lawyers, etc. Remember, they renamed the damned DICE here. It has NOTHING to do with who is right. It has to do with money.

Map is a map. Pure and simple. NO copyright is valid. Either the map is valid or it IS NOT. Then again, you say "graphics". What kinda nonsense is that?

I agree that one should not rip-off legitimate artwork. The Hasbro interference had NOTHING to do with that.

Neither does my casual mention of denizengames here on this forum.

I'd just love to be in court for this one. "Your Honor. The defendant stole a map from us. That map clearly showed Kamchatka. Everyone knows Hasbro owns Kamchatka. Right, your Honor? Ah, your Honor, wake up, listen..."

Come ON!

[The Neon Peon]

I'd just love to be in court for this one. "Your Honor. The defendant stole a map from us. That map clearly showed Kamchatka. Everyone knows Hasbro owns Kamchatka. Right, your Honor? Ah, your Honor, wake up, listen..."

Come ON!

You completely fail to miss the point.

Are the maps on CC real? Heck no. They are only partially geographically accurate and game maps. They have territories, certain graphic elements, bonus groupings, territory names etc. that are unique and can't be recreated since they are nowhere near accurate enough.

You mentioned that any map can be copied that is geographical. That is correct, but only if the map is accurate. If I draw a beautiful painting of a real object, can you make a painting of that same object? Yes. Can you copy my painting? No. => Common Sense, right there.

Are you telling me that the territories on out maps are divided geographically?
Are you telling me that our bonuses are also somehow geographical?
Are you telling me that the color choices on the maps are geographical?

So when a site like this comes along, are you telling me that they should be allowed to copy and paste maps which CC has developed? That is absurd. It is like saying that I should be able to sell someone else's diary or autobiography and call it my own.

[samuelc812]

I just looked and they have the old British Isles Map by Nobunaga, and it's exactly the same

[The Neon Peon]

I just looked and they have the old British Isles Map by Nobunaga, and it's exactly the same

So are all of these maps on that site:
Africa
Asia
Australia
BeNeLux
British Isles
Germany
Hong Kong
Italy
Montreal
North America

[jpliberty]

I'd just love to be in court for this one. "Your Honor. The defendant stole a map from us. That map clearly showed Kamchatka. Everyone knows Hasbro owns Kamchatka. Right, your Honor? Ah, your Honor, wake up, listen..."

Come ON!

You completely fail to miss the point.

Are the maps on CC real? Heck no. They are only partially geographically accurate and game maps. They have territories, certain graphic elements, bonus groupings, territory names etc. that are unique and can't be recreated since they are nowhere near accurate enough.

You mentioned that any map can be copied that is geographical. That is correct, but only if the map is accurate. If I draw a beautiful painting of a real object, can you make a painting of that same object? Yes. Can you copy my painting? No. => Common Sense, right there.

Are you telling me that the territories on out maps are divided geographically?
Are you telling me that our bonuses are also somehow geographical?
Are you telling me that the color choices on the maps are geographical?

So when a site like this comes along, are you telling me that they should be allowed to copy and paste maps which CC has developed? That is absurd. It is like saying that I should be able to sell someone else's diary or autobiography and call it my own.

You wrote: "...you completely fail to miss the point..." do I fail to miss it or do I miss it?

Same logic applies to your statement about me as to your understanding of the Issue(s) involved in the Hasbro crap.

It ain't EVEN about denizengames, but yeah, let's make it that...let's pick on them now cause Hasbro is too big. LOL

[samuelc812]

I am now very annoyed by that site

[Night Strike]

This thread (or at least the intent) promotes a site that is not CC. Off to the Tower.

[FabledIntegral]

I'm surprised it's even allowed. If I owned CC this would be locked and set invisible...

[e_i_pi]

Actually, the thread includes the fact that a rival site is breaching copyright on several individuals rights. I don't see

a) Why this should be in Tower
b) Why it should be locked and invisible

The mapmakers have a right to know about this and discuss it. In fact, it should be brought to their attention. Action should be taken, at the very least a "Cease and Desist" order should be sent to the website.

Of course, I can see why the powers that be would think it a better option to sweep it under the carpet in a forum that is full of shit and meaningless threads. Don't want to ruffle any feathers now do we, let's just pretend like everything AOK, come join us, bury your heads, the sand is fine!

[owenshooter]

Actually, the thread includes the fact that a rival site is breaching copyright on several individuals rights. I don't see

a) Why this should be in Tower
b) Why it should be locked and invisible

The mapmakers have a right to know about this and discuss it. In fact, it should be brought to their attention. Action should be taken, at the very least a "Cease and Desist" order should be sent to the website.

Of course, I can see why the powers that be would think it a better option to sweep it under the carpet in a forum that is full of shit and meaningless threads. Don't want to ruffle any feathers now do we, let's just pretend like everything AOK, come join us, bury your heads, the sand is fine!

well, this wasn't the OP's intent. his intent was to show how superior the other site was. i mentioned the blatant theft of CC maps created by cartographers on this site... the OP refuses to answer that... his rational is, "i was on that site first, so they must have been created first", and it is just flawed logic. well, he has yet to make any valid point or to back up any statements in his first post, so i'm done with this garbage thread. you can't start a thread about one thing and just take it off topic to attack CC and the loss of the classic map and the people that own and run the site. the OP stated the other site is better and listed many reasons that several people debunked. that other site is garbage and lifts maps wholly original to CC... period... the black jesus is still right...-0

[ahunda]

I just registered there, and they seem to copy CC in many ways (lifted maps, same scoring formula, ...). After a short glance, CC seems vastly superior to me, but I personally have to agree with the OP, that "some things are done better elsewhere":

- They have a good looking Classic map.
- They have separate score boards for Individual & Team score, 30 Days & All Time.
- They have a good looking Classic map.
- They have the option of minimum point requirements for joining games.
- They have a good looking Classic map.

[Artimis]

Signed up to GS, now lets see what my first impression is:

• GS seems slower than CC to navigate, it has this whole clunky and unwieldy feeling to it, bad.
• They don't even host their own forum, it's via yahoo groups, so I need to signup for that independently, bad.
• The graphics seem like they're straight out of a 8-bit console game, adds to the overall clunky-ness of the site, very bad.
• Some of the maps do look similar, in fact I'm playing jpliberty on one almost identical map now. See here: North America Looks like a right royal ripoff, very bad.

All in all, a bad first impression on what the OP purports to be a superior gaming site.

[strike wolf]

At one of CC's competitors, denizengames.com (Grand Strategy) there are some features which are vastly superior to what is offered by CC.

Some of these include:

1) on first turns, everyone gets the same amount of armies: 3. That makes it far more fair than here, where if one gets a bonus on the drop one gets it and can play it. Also, it eliminates much of the "advantage" for going first...and that is another improvement over CC. Moreover, you get the same 3 armies NOTWITHSTANDING which map you play...so, number of territories don't matter on the first round, on all first rounds you get 3 and so does/do your opponent(s). It really is vastly superior to the NOT THOUGHT OUT SYSTEM HERE. It truly removes some of the turn order and drop advantage, and who would argue that is a bad thing?

2) at denizengames, Clickable is integrated into the site; you don't have to download a dubious and unreliable plug-in to get the advantage of clickable, because clickable is inherent in the game play (sorry if that makes the plug-in creators mad, but the simple fact is I've never been able to get the damn plug-in here to work nearly as good as the integrated system over at denizengames).

3) Surrender button. That speaks for itself. There is NO reason not to include that here. A VASTLY better gaming experience and the way they handle it at denizengames makes me wonder why CC hasn't included this obvious enhancement at CC.

There are some other advantages, but the only one really needing mention is the map resolution. FAR superior over there to what one gets here.

Just thought I'd mention it.

First two, maybe mention these as suggestions in Suggestions and bug report forums.

third one, the surrender button has been suggested more than once here and the idea has never sat well with the masses.

[strike wolf]

you left out how they steal maps from CC... the black jesus has spoken...-0

Oh no I didn't leave that out.

ONLY AN IDIOT would suggest that is the case.

Or, have you not pondered the Hasbro communication with CC?

Do you think Hasbro was in the right? If so, explain to me why CC had to cede the map when it IS a map of the world.

And, once you get into that area, tell me why CC cartograpers somehow create something unique because they "redraw" or somehow get wrong the shape of a coastline.

COME ON.

You CANNOT steal a map of fixed geography. CANNOT happen.

And, as always, SCREW the black jesus.

The map is a graphical representation of something and is under the copyright of the mapmaker … CC has no authority over the map. It can only be published as long as the maker wants to, and the maker can take it anywhere (but no one from here has).

*The Copyright Agreement
The author retains copyright on their work, and gives Conquer Club permission to use the imagery free of charge, for as long as Conquer Club sees fit on the Conquer Club website. Conquer Club cannot sell, lease, or lend the right to use the images to anyone else. The author swears that their map is their own work, or a legal derivative work and by submitting it, do hereby claim all responsibility for that being true.

.44

MAPS of the world, or of parts of the world CANNOT carry a copyright...or, am I stupid? NO. NO way. You CANNOT claim copyright over taking a picture of Mt. Everest because someone beat you to it. And, so too here. You CANNOT claim that these maps are your maps. Cannot be done, very simple. Maps are maps, when they reflect actual territorial boundaries ("actual" meaning those which exist or have existed in the real world") those boundaries CANNOT be claimed as intellectual property.

No one "stole" over at denizengames just as CC didn't steal the Hasbro stuff.

Very simple.

And, you can't have it both ways. It seems obvious that anyone finding that denizengames stole MUST conclude that CC is a thief. I do not.

Of course, and thankfully, I am not burdened with the logical limitations of the black jesus.

Tell that to hasbro.

[cutebastard71]

This is something completely personal and thus probably biased yadda yadda but that site (denizenwhatever) is just plain ugly.

[pimpdave]

You know, reading threads like this makes me miss ConquerClub.

Too bad I won't be renewing on principle. Too bad it's an individual moderator's fault.

I still must wonder if anyone in the leadership has the humility to do what needs to be done to ensure customer retention. I mean, shit, considering what the economy is like right now, I can't understand why ConquerClub isn't doing more to keep their customers.

Especially when it's something as small as a short PM.

[JACKAZZTJM]

he convinced me im gone cya guys

[Carnifex]

I created an account, and it seems like half their maps are direct copies (probably simply snatched) from CC. Germany, North America, Asia, British Isles, Italy, Africa, etc. And whoever said that there cannot be copyright on this is dead wrong. Someone else already pointed out that it's not the simple "geographical map" which is the matter, but rather the graphics. Some of those maps are maps made by people at CC, and who as far as I know haven't given that site permission to use their graphics.

So, I want to ask you, is Hasbro right in going after CC?

To use your logic, it's a slamdunk for Hasbro. To use my logic it is not.

You decide.

And, whatever either of us does, let's sure as hell avoid the logic of the black jesus.

You're aware that the Classic Map is now gone right?

None of the maps on CC are the same as any official RISK map now.

However Grand Strategy, while having some superior ideas, is overall a poor copy imo.

[Utafar]

At one of CC's competitors, denizengames.com (Grand Strategy) there are some features which are vastly superior to what is offered by CC.

Some of these include:

1) on first turns, everyone gets the same amount of armies: 3. That makes it far more fair than here, where if one gets a bonus on the drop one gets it and can play it. Also, it eliminates much of the "advantage" for going first...and that is another improvement over CC. Moreover, you get the same 3 armies NOTWITHSTANDING which map you play...so, number of territories don't matter on the first round, on all first rounds you get 3 and so does/do your opponent(s). It really is vastly superior to the NOT THOUGHT OUT SYSTEM HERE. It truly removes some of the turn order and drop advantage, and who would argue that is a bad thing?

2) at denizengames, Clickable is integrated into the site; you don't have to download a dubious and unreliable plug-in to get the advantage of clickable, because clickable is inherent in the game play (sorry if that makes the plug-in creators mad, but the simple fact is I've never been able to get the damn plug-in here to work nearly as good as the integrated system over at denizengames).

3) Surrender button. That speaks for itself. There is NO reason not to include that here. A VASTLY better gaming experience and the way they handle it at denizengames makes me wonder why CC hasn't included this obvious enhancement at CC.

There are some other advantages, but the only one really needing mention is the map resolution. FAR superior over there to what one gets here.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Guess what we have that they don't have over there?

A good diverse community and awesome highly active forums. That is why I hardly visit there anymore it lacks forums, there is hardly any communication.

That site was founded by a former CC member and most of the site's starting collection of maps used to be CC Originals.

Grand Strategy is the spawn of Conquer Club. So STFU