|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Abandonware Legality (split...) (Read 28928 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minimalist
128 MB  Posts: 186 
|
on: February 25, 2008, 23:44
Someone should approach these software publishers for distribution rights on this old software. Either buy the rights to the software lock, stock, and barrel, or make some other arrangement. Possibly something royalty based or some such. Of course, if ya were to do something like this you'd probably have to assume the support role as well. It's not likely that the software publishers would want to do much more with this old software than collect whatever money they could for it with zero involvement. Maybe Dan could look into it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #1 on: February 26, 2008, 04:17
|
I hate to be the nagging nanny here but that site is clearly quite abhorrently illegal - it took me 3 seconds to find a copy of File Maker there. Can't publicly have links to stuff like that, although you can private message whatever you want.
|
jjbomfim
|
32 MB Posts: 55
Reply #2 on: February 26, 2008, 05:11
|
Sorry about that. I don't really know what to make of abandonware sites, especially french sites, since I know nothing of french law. I'll be more careful from now on.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #3 on: February 26, 2008, 05:40
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka" I hate to be the nagging nanny here but that site is clearly quite abhorrently illegal - it took me 3 seconds to find a copy of File Maker there. Can't publicly have links to stuff like that, although you can private message whatever you want. That's sort of a mixed message. You're publicly condemning and condoning software piracy at the same time. Essentially what you're saying is that software piracy is wrong (illegal) but if you do it in private it's okey dokey. If I were an agent for a software publisher and I were tasked with taking action against those involved with copyright infringement, I would take your post as an acknowledgement that you encouraged software piracy, and that you were providing this service for the purpose of software piracy. Under U.S. Law that would probably be enough for a civil action... Possibly even a criminal charge. But I could be wrong. After all, I'm neither a lawyer or an American. But I like to think of myself as being somewhat proficient in "covering my ass."
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #4 on: February 26, 2008, 06:25
|
Quote from: "Minimalist" But I could be wrong. I cannot see (much less control) what goes on in private messages - you could plan an entire terrorist attack on the United States there if you wanted to. There is nothing I could do about it - same with any forum. There would be no case.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #5 on: February 26, 2008, 09:42
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka"
That's what many people said about the lawsuits that the RIAA filed against them. They said that there was no case. They represented themselves, believing there was no case, and they lost. Word spread and people started taking the RIAA actions seriously. The RIAA continued to serve people for copyright infringement and they continued to win, despite attempts by defendants and their "hot shot" lawyers. The difference here is that you're openly encouraging software piracy via your private messaging system. You acknowledged that the links were to software that was being "illegally" distributed. So I would say that there is a case. I look at it this way. The phone company is not responsible for the communications that take place over their network. So if terrorists, for example, use Ma Bell to plot a terrorist attack, the phone company has no liability in the matter. Right? But... Suppose the phone company were encouraging terrorists to use their network for plotting terrorist attacks. Is the phone company liable now? Yes! The phone company is now playing an active role in terrorist activity. See what I mean?
|
jjbomfim
|
32 MB Posts: 55
Reply #6 on: February 26, 2008, 13:49
|
Relax guys, it was a mistake posting the url. And I just made a regular post, instead of a private message, because I thought the site had mostly abandonware, like the almost 20 year old game that i mentioned. I just remembered going there a long time ago for a Tetris page. Also, it was a french site. I'm pretty sure that that site is not illegal in France. That's what's complicated about it: I'm in Brazil, mentioning a french website on a U.S. forum. And no, I didn't send any PMs with any copyrighted software information. I have Civ 2 for Mac, a legally owned copy (one of the few computer games I really liked), but it was never copied or posted anywhere. I wouldn't do anything to harm this beautiful thing that is S7T ;-)
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #7 on: February 26, 2008, 23:36
|
I think the U.S. has some of the toughest intellectual property rights laws in the entire world. In the United States copyright infringement can be dealt with both in a criminal court and/or a civil proceeding. But what makes the U.S. copyright laws really hard on the average Joe, is that there's not much of a burden placed on the copyright holder to prove much by way of infringement. This has been witnessed time and again in RIAA actions. I live in Canada where the copyright laws are a walk in the park by comparison to the United States. However, I believe our copyright laws are currently under review and are widely expected to mirror America' Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I do hope that our government will see fit to stop forcing consumers to subsidize artists once the copyright act has been updated though. It just wouldn't be right to charge tarrifs on consumers for recordable media, etcetera, once the copyright laws are modified to place the ball squarely in the copyright holder's court.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #8 on: February 27, 2008, 00:00
|
In the RIAA cases, the users are the ones sued - there indeed is no case against the ISPs. In this case, System 7 Today is the service provider, and you are the user. "I cannot control what goes on in the private messaging system" is not encouraging anything - it's stating the obvious. You talk about pirating anything online at your own risk, whether it be software, music, or whatever. There isn't really any good way for anybody to see what goes on in private messaging, including myself, so I don't see how anything like that would happen in the first place.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #9 on: February 27, 2008, 00:39
|
I didn't mean for this to get into a debate. If you would be interested in a discussion on the matter, I would be more than willing to participate however. Basically, what I was trying to say is that the proverbial line as far as copyright infringement goes, in the United States anyway, is very clear. I find that a lot of people attempt to blur that line, and in most cases out of ignorance. The inherent risk in that however, is that you're taking a chance on getting caught on the wrong side of the line.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #10 on: February 27, 2008, 04:04
|
Quote from: "Minimalist" Basically, what I was trying to say is that the proverbial line as far as copyright infringement goes, in the United States anyway, is very clear. Right... don't do it, and you'll have nothing to worry about. Nobody can stop you from doing it but yourself - not even I, the holy moderator.
|
Minimalist
|
128 MB Posts: 186
Reply #11 on: February 27, 2008, 12:42
|
The RIAA lost their case against Grokster, right? And probably Napster, too? Interesting. Wonder why they lost? Probably because Grokster and Napster made the argument that file sharing isn't just a means of infringing people's copyrights. So those services probably made the argument that they "don't support or condone the sharing of copyrighted materials and that the service is intended for the legitimate distribution of user created materials." Is that what they said? Because I could see a Judge agreeing with that line of thought. I imagine the Judge would have viewed it differently, however, if Grokster or Napster had publicly stated that users should feel free to use their service for the distribution of pirated materials... Because, you know, there's nothing we (Grokster and Napster) can do to stop it... So go ahead people... Pirate software, music, and movies on our service all you want. Is that something that you might agree with, Dan? My amateur research into the law would suggest that this is what is referred to as "shielding oneself from having full knowledge" and that doing so is equal to having full knowledge. If you suggest that people use private messaging for the distribution of pirated materials, then you should expect that people will use the service for the distribution of pirated materials. That knowledge, in my books, is tantamount to providing a service for the purpose of copyright infringement. And that, in my books, makes you guilty of copyright infringement.
|
jjbomfim
|
32 MB Posts: 55
Reply #12 on: February 27, 2008, 16:04
|
Quote from: "Minimalist" if Grokster or Napster had publicly stated that users should feel free to use their service for the distribution of pirated materials... and Quote If you suggest that people use private messaging for the distribution of pirated materials, then you should expect that people will use the service for the distribution of pirated materials. Ok, I understand what you are saying, but it is not what happened. What you state is that Dan said "You can private message pirated material here", when in fact what he said was "You can private message whatever you want". He was stating how the private message mechanism of this forum works. He wasn't stating what the forum policy was. You are assuming he is condoning piracy because he didn't explicitly state that one can private message anything one wants "except" pirated material. What you are forgetting is that he doesn't have to say that, not when talking about the way the messaging system works. He's not talking about S7T's forum policy. On the forum policy it is clearly stated that you can't post: Quote any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Imagine, for example, if he says in an informal conversation regarding software piracy, that "On S7T ou can private message whatever you want, but pirated software is against the forum's rules". He is still leaving out that you can't private message plans for terrorist attacks or that you can't send stolen credit card numbers on his site. Is he therefore condoning all these activities? No, because the forum rules are clearly stated on a page inside the forum. Quote Welcome to System 7 Today
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #13 on: February 27, 2008, 16:21
|
Quote from: "Minimalist" Is that something that you might agree with, Dan? No, you have it completely wrong. I am not providing anyone with a means to share files. I am no more liable for what you privately message each other than AOL is if you send an instant message containing a link to some warez site, or Google if you send an email with such a link. I don't understand what it is that you're not understanding, but that's just about enough of this - we've totally ruined this classifieds post.
|
sierraredd
|
128 MB Posts: 212
Reply #14 on: February 27, 2008, 22:57
|
Wouldn't it be best to split the debate part of this in to an off topic post of it's own and return it back to the original post?
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
