Legal and forum rule-related discussion concerning BF2142 mini image

[Grumpy]

@siiix

because most boards at least you can talk about it in the way I did

We are not 'most boards'!

We have rules here and they must be obeyed, its as simple as that.
Just like different families may have different rules for their own households.
I dont care what is law in whatever country! Fileforums is accessable in every country just like any other site. So we have 'our' rules for every country. Those who use this site agree, when joining, to abide by 'our' rules.

Rule #1 states: "Do not discuss warez!"

And that means no warez groups, no warez files, and no warez sites!
They all fit in the 'Do not discuss warez!' category!

And you mentioned 2 warez files in your post!
No if's or but's about it.

Surely you, with your wealth of experience and knowledge, would have known and understood that!?

[siiix]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

@siiix

We are not 'most boards'!

We have rules here and they must be obeyed, its as simple as that.
Just like different families may have different rules for their own households.
I dont care what is law in whatever country! Fileforums is accessable in every country just like any other site. So we have 'our' rules for every country. Those who use this site agree, when joining, to abide by 'our' rules.

Rule #1 states: "Do not discuss warez!"

And that means no warez groups, no warez files, and no warez sites!
They all fit in the 'Do not discuss warez!' category!

And you mentioned 2 warez files in your post!
No if's or but's about it.

Surely you, with your wealth of experience and knowledge, would have known and understood that!?

maybe me and you Grumpy have a communication problem,
what you write have very little to no relevance to what I write

I said that forum RULE #1.2 is NOT strict enough NOR is it clearly state what you actually want,
I for example feel I FULLY obeyed the rule

so again this is a point of opinion and assumption,
and I can only say this because lack of clearness/detail in that section of rule,
of course you have the right to remove on your board what ever you like
it was just a friendly tip from me that Rule #1 states: "Do not discuss warez!" you might like to be a bit more specific or strict

that you have to explain now is proof enough that you know what I’m talking about
you wrote:
”And that means no warez groups, no warez files, and no warez sites!”
and still I think this is not detailed enough, but it would help

to be honest reading that rule the 1st time I got the opinion/feeling that this is a board that do not care so much about enforcing this, the section is mostly getting in to not to annoy you guys then the actual warez issue, you guys would have a lot less to moderating to do if you fix #1.2

anyhow, there is no point of continuing talking about this, I think we all clear about each other opinions now, or should be
if you disagree just ignore my tip/suggestion, I just wanted to help

[DABhand]

It doesnt matter if the rules are rewritten or not.

People still wont read them and still post away.

And to be honest you cant come along one day and try to get rules changed just because they didnt suit yourself. Doesnt work like that at all.

And I question your knowledge of what goes on.


Hackers and Crackers are different types. People removing protections are crackers, people who break into systems and do what they do are hackers.


And again you can make a backup of YOUR media if the permission is given, what you can NOT do is download media different ways from other people or receive a burned backup of someone elses media it is Illegal, no matter what peoples' Lawyer friends may say.

There is a selected few cases where games can be given out freely, mostly these are MMORPG's for example World of Warcraft, which Blizzard gives you the right to allow to give a friend a backup of your media so they can use a Trial Key.

[siiix]

Originally Posted by DABhand

#1 you cant come along one day and try to get rules changed just because they didnt suit yourself

#2you can make a backup of YOUR media if the permission is given, what you can NOT do is download media different ways from other people or receive a burned backup of someone elses media it is Illegal, no matter what peoples' Lawyer friends may say.

#1 they fit me very well, i just said they not clear, and so i had the feeling this board is WAY les strict then they owners actually attended

#2 your wrong, you DO NOT need permission, with is the same law in all strict countries
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

in fact EVEN if the digital medias T&C states that your not allowed to make a backup you are by law, the global copyright laws are above the T&C, there are several precedence cases like that you can read up on (just search)

as the other guy above also stated the license is extended to your backup
I add to this that so long as you hold the license the backup is still covered even if the original media or data is lost

what is confusing to some guys: IF you PAY for a pirated/illegal “backup” copy then even if you own a license you commit a crime

plus I do have practical experience in the matter, as might you noticed I’m no brave citizen ; )

I might like to add that #1 and #2 are not connected topics !!! one has nothing to do with the other

[DABhand]

Lets see shall we what they say here.


Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

1. the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;

2. you are the legal owner of the copy; and

3. any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

4. You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.




Not lets see a key word you neglected to read in there, there word being "authorised", as in given permission. Did you miss that word.

EDIT: You can only authorise this if you are the legally binding owner of the data, which is subject to the developer/publisher. Which you are not.

Also.

"2. you are the legal owner of the copy;"

If you download an image you are NOT the legal owner of that copy. Again your wrong on the part of downloading games is legal as a copy purpose. This basically states as I have said, you can only backup/copy YOUR original and no one elses.

And just to reconfirm this, you missed out on this part also

"Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware."


See that word Authority again in that last quote, again only IF and only WHEN the owners of the software have given you permission to distribute software then you can, but they dont.

Also you fail to realise that you only have the right to play what is on that media, you own the CD or DVD but you do NOT own the content.

So again if you didnt get permission to make a backup then you cant. No if's or but's about it.

And btw US law isnt Global.

[Grumpy]

@siiix
Everything Dabhand has said in the above post is correct.
Sorry to say but the article you linked to just contradicts everything you have previously said!

Apart from the very important parts Dab pointed out this section is also very important:

Lesson: if you want a backup copy of a lawfully owned computer program, back it up yourself.

It does not matter if they are talking about 'buying', it is still the same if you download it for free! You would be stealing from someone who has not authorized the copy!

I have a question for you, does your lawyer friend actually make any money!?

[KeelMan]

@ siiix, ich bin kein poster sondern nur leser dieses boards, aber jetzt muss ich mal was posten, sonst geht's mir weiter schlecht

merkst du nicht wie dabhand grumpy + joeforster dich veräppeln und aufziehen

das sollte unter deiner würde sein. ich würde nicht weiter hier auf irgendetwas eingehen, denn diese leute haben das gewisse brett vorm kopf

ich liebe streitgespräche , fruchten sie aber nicht und schalten sich daraufhin immer weitere frontmacher dazu mit nicht zugänglichen argumenten, die sie hinter stereotypischen, schlecht formulierten aussagen verstecken, vergeht mir schlicht die list und lust

ich empfehle daher, zieh dich zurück ich geb dir ja recht!

[GLH]

Another one who did not read the board rules.
FileForums is an english-only forum !!!

With all these discussions, we already forgot the most important rule of the boards rules: RULE #11 The moderators are ALWAYS right!

[Joe Forster/STA]

KeelMan says that we're hiding ourselves behind stereotypes etc. and suggests that siiix draws himself back. I don't understand much more of his post, though, and he seems to have missed DABhand from the list...

[DABhand]

Nahhh I was in there.


Seems he is accusing us 3 of supposedly "taking the piss"


To each their own I guess.

[GLH]

free translation of KeelMan's post:

"@siix: i'm not a post-writer, i'm only a post-reader here on FF, but now i need to post something, before i become ill.

You don't recognize that DABhand, Grumpy and JoeForster makes ridiculous of you.
This should be under your proud. I wouldn't post anything again in this thread, because this people have a board before the head.

I love heavy discussions, but if them don't come to an end, and such people don't want to understand your arguments and hide himself behind stereotype and bad formulate states, then i don't have the desire for this.

I recommend to you, don't post again in this thread and give yourself you're right."

[Joe Forster/STA]

This is a situation what we Hungarians call "milling in two mills" (neither party is really listening to the other in an argument). From the law's point of view, siiix may be right (don't wanna start discussing it again); however, this board may be stricter (in some aspects), to defend itself.

And I am STILL waiting for a short and more-to-the-point explanation from him about what his problem with the forum rules really is. As there have been days already without him giving a simple answer to my simple question - although the question has been asked multiple times and he has been around -, it is me who starts wondering that, perhaps, he only wants to show off with his legal knowledge here. Yes, it's very interesting but not very on-topic here...

[Grumpy]

This whole discussion got out of hand when siiix took offense to me deleting/editing the names of 2 warez files he posted!
He says he has used these files!
He actually should have been banned right away for using warez!
But I let him speak, even though our forum rules say No Warez!

Siiix is only trying to be a smartass by insisting it is ok by law to use a downloaded game as a backup and this is the part where he is totally wrong:

there are LAWS in any country this game is distributed that one can have at least 1 backup... how you create that backup is irrelevant (even if its downloading)...

Downloading games is against the law, doesnt matter if you pay for it or get it for free, it is still against the law. That is black and white!

I dont care if people think I am ridiculing him. I dont mind telling him how it is!
I have not yet seen one bit of evidence to say it is ok? Yet siiix himself provided the legal document which 'ridicules' his whole argument.
No where in that document does it say 'it is ok to download a game'!!

[Joe Forster/STA]

Good, then we won't have to spend time with changing the forum rules, after all...

[GLH]

Originally Posted by Joe Forster/STA

Good, then we won't have to spend time with changing the forum rules, after all...