Release DosBox EX - Ultimate

[commander-beef]

Uplader takes risk for breach of copyright while uploading on sites like youtube, not google, so similar situation should be here. Its not on ED's head to keep repo clean, but on maintainers head if nobody will be dleegated to check repo..

No, Ed is responsible as it his server - at least that is my understanding of german law. And he is in any case the first who gets mail as a repo account is anonymouse.

Nope. like Yutube TOS said:

"7.3 You understand and agree that you are solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of posting or publishing it. YouTube does not endorse any Content or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Content."

ED is not responsible for users action / uploads, because he hasnt got a infrastructure to test anything under term of legality..

 

[thatgui]

So, because no-one knows, the correct attitude is to expect that, ad vitam eternam, you can't do anything, and therefore we just all die without replaying games which are less than 75 years old and not available through other means anymore ?

Sorry but your "conservative risk-free" attitude does not make much sense to me.

Yes, that is exactly the situation. If you don't like it thats fine, you don't have to and me neither.
But if I'm so risk free and conservative, what would people hold back on making this another "abandonware" site ? There are a lot of games out there that fit your prementioned criteria, and I guess there is always some webite that claims that a game is "freeware".

 

[thatgui]

Then if that's the case there should be moderators on the repo. ANd ways to flag entries.

And what would moderators do different, to what is happening here ?  

Nope. like Yutube TOS said:

"7.3 You understand and agree that you are solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of posting or publishing it. YouTube does not endorse any Content or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Content."

ED is not responsible for users action / uploads, because he hasnt got a infrastructure to test anything under term of legality..

Youtube can put anything they want in their terms of services, they are still bound by the law the copyright violation is done in. And Youtube is a big company with an armada of lawyers, which Ed simply does not have. A lot of legal actions in Germany are started because most people give in the second they read a letter where legal consequences are stated, thus it is a bit of a wild west situation in Germany when its about copyright.

 

[ekianjo]

Yes, that is exactly the situation. If you don't like it thats fine, you don't have to and me neither.

Sorry but the Law has something called the "reasonable man" concept, and if you can explain that you distribute something which is not generating revenue anymore, is not claimed by anyone, and is not distributed anywhere, I seriously doubt the Law would find your actions "unreasonable". The Law is far from being binary, that's why lawyers are paid to argue. 

 

[commander-beef]

Continuing from previous post:

From now ED needs to show free will to disable/remove content thats not legal [that was uploaded by 'anonymous' user], if he gets a notice. and he doesnt make it , then they could sue him. Its easy and this is the way things goes by..

 

[ekianjo]

And what would moderators do different, to what is happening here ?  

How do you remove entries on the repo as a moderator ? is there such a function ?  

if he gets a notice. and he doesnt make it , then they could sue him

Exactly. That;s how things go. You do things, and if someone tells you should'nt, you remove the stuff you have online. No need to go to court. 

 

[commander-beef]

Then if that's the case there should be moderators on the repo. ANd ways to flag entries.

And what would moderators do different, to what is happening here ?  

Nope. like Yutube TOS said:


"7.3 You understand and agree that you are solely responsible for your own Content and the consequences of posting or publishing it. YouTube does not endorse any Content or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Content."


ED is not responsible for users action / uploads, because he hasnt got a infrastructure to test anything under term of legality..

Youtube can put anything they want in their terms of services, they are still bound by the law the copyright violation is done in. And Youtube is a big company with an armada of lawyers, which Ed simply does not have. A lot of legal actions in Germany are started because most people give in the second they read a letter where legal consequences are stated, thus it is a bit of a wild west situation in Germany when its about copyright.

ED needs to show that he hasnt got a legal way to vaildate the content and thats it. And if he gets takedown [of illegal content] notice he should do: http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/14409-dosbox-ex-ultimate/#entry321685/URL]

This is the proper way to do it. 

You're bid to TOC of REPO while registering/uploading stuff, so you';re responsible for content..

 

[ekianjo]

But if I'm so risk free and conservative, what would people hold back on making this another "abandonware" site ?

The repo does not contain (as far as I know) full games. What we are even arguing currently is a RECOMPILED executable that needs the actual data to be played. So you wouldn't even be able to play Starcraft without the original games files. It's FAR from "distributing abandonware (executable + data)" that you find on other websites. And there's no advertising, so ED does not make money on the repo downloads obviously.

Seriously, the current approach is already very conservative, and while I understand that if you read the EULA in details you could feel a little uncomfortable, that kind of stuff would not get you sued without any discussion with the rights holder. There's way worse things happening out there., like stuff on Google Stuff being actual copies of copyrighted content and being SOLD as we speak. 

 

[thatgui]

ED needs to show that he hasnt got a legal way to vaildate the content and thats it. And if he gets takedown [of illegal content] notice he should do: http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/14409-dosbox-ex-ultimate/#entry321685/URL]

This is the proper way to do it. 

You're bid to TOC of REPO while registering/uploading stuff, so you';re responsible for content..

No thats not enough, in Germany there is a construct called "Störerhaftung" which basically says that everyone that participates in a copyright violation may be held responsible. Ed provides the server where the data resides on and one could even go that far and proclaim that Ed has a financial interest in filling the repo with popular software in order to propel sales of the Pandora.Hell its (as of date) not even 100% sure that internet providers can't be made liable for copyright violations that are done though their service in Germany.

 

[commander-beef]

ED needs to show that he hasnt got a legal way to vaildate the content and thats it. And if he gets takedown [of illegal content] notice he should do: http://boards.openpandora.org/topic/14409-dosbox-ex-ultimate/#entry321685/URL]


This is the proper way to do it. 


You're bid to TOC of REPO while registering/uploading stuff, so you';re responsible for content..

No thats not enough, in Germany there is a construct called "Störerhaftung" which basically says that everyone that participates in a copyright violation may be held responsible. Ed provides the server where the data resides on and one could even go that far and proclaim that Ed has a financial interest in filling the repo with popular software in order to propel sales of the Pandora.
Hell its (as of date) not even 100% sure that internet providers can't be made liable for copyright violations that are done though their service in Germany.

So you mean, server providier and domain name registrar-* and even internet line holder is responsible ? Even if dont even know that they're violating anythign? [and this is a similar situation to EDs that he doest have the control of content uploaded into repo..].

German law should be revisited then :] 

* - if you register domain name: game-pirate.de and registrat aproves it , it has the responsibility for future  breaching copyright :/

 

[thatgui]

The repo does not contain (as far as I know) full games. What we are even arguing currently is a RECOMPILED executable that needs the actual data to be played. So you wouldn't even be able to play Starcraft without the original games files. It's FAR from "distributing abandonware (executable + data)" that you find on other websites. And there's no advertising, so ED does not make money on the repo downloads obviously.

Wrong thread, this is not about Starcraft, c-b brought that example into the discussion.

Seriously, the current approach is already very conservative, and while I understand that if you read the EULA in details you could feel a little uncomfortable, that kind of stuff would not get you sued without any discussion with the rights holder. There's way worse things happening out there., like stuff on Google Stuff being actual copies of copyrighted content and being SOLD as we speak.

All this is nice, but that does not change anything:Will Ed gets sued if "Stunts" makes it into the repo ? Not very likely, but nobodoy knows for sure. Thats why I have said (over and over and over again): Let ED decide, if he is willing to take the risk to take down the game from the repo and pay a couple of hundred bucks on the lawyer fees if someone claims distribution rights, he is free to do so.

 

[ekianjo]

Will Ed gets sued if "Stunts" makes it into the repo ? Not very likely, but nobodoy knows for sure. Thats why I have said (over and over and over again): Let ED decide, if he is willing to take the risk to take down the game from the repo and pay a couple of hundred bucks on the lawyer fees if someone claims distribution rights, he is free to do so.

That's why I have been telling you he would not get sued directly. The standard procedure is to issue a warning and ask for the removal of the infringing piece. That's what happens in the real world.  

 

[thatgui]

So you mean, server providier and domain name registrar-* and even internet line holder is responsible ? Even if dont even know that they're violating anythign? [and this is a similar situation to EDs that he doest have the control of content uploaded into repo..].

German law should be revisited then :] 

* - if you register domain name: game-pirate.de and registrat aproves it , it has the responsibility for future  breaching copyright :/

In theory this may be possible, but I guess it would be hard to prove that a domain registrar would benefit from a copyright violation or at least that his profits are not negligible.
But yes, german law is totally borked in that regard.

 

[thatgui]

Will Ed gets sued if "Stunts" makes it into the repo ? Not very likely, but nobodoy knows for sure. Thats why I have said (over and over and over again): Let ED decide, if he is willing to take the risk to take down the game from the repo and pay a couple of hundred bucks on the lawyer fees if someone claims distribution rights, he is free to do so.

 That's why I have been telling you he would not get sued directly. The standard procedure is to issue a warning and ask for the removal of the infringing piece. That's what happens in the real world.

Thats true, he may not get sued if he is willing to sign a cease and desist letter (which should not be taken lightly, usually this means you declare that you won't do anything like that for the rest of your life) and pays a compensation + lawyer costs.

 

[ekianjo]

you dont pay lawyer costs with cease and desists letters.

 

[commander-beef]

you dont pay lawyer costs with cease and desists letters.

Thats i just wanted to write

Because they're sending C&D letters before any legal action.. 

 

[thatgui]

you dont pay lawyer costs with cease and desists letters.

Ok, so we have a company that thinks its copyright is violated and assigns a chancellery to pursue this. The chancellery sends such a cease and desist letter (this is a free translation, in Germany this is called "Unterlassungserklärung", maybe thats where the problem lies) to a specific person. This person sign it and sends it back. Who is gone pay for the lawyer ? The company that thinks its rights are impinged ?

 

[commander-beef]

C&D letters are only created by biggest corporations and they're buying the chancellery time in "packets" for example: They pay for sending 100 x C&D letters about xxx $   not for any particualr letter and no matter where will they send it.. So , why somebody should pay for it if corporation is not paying it per 1 letter.. Its in corporation hands to pay these kind of costs, because its not the part of legal court action.

 

[thatgui]

C&D letters are only created by biggest corporations and they're buying the chancellery time in "packets" for example: They pay for sending 100 x C&D letters about xxx $   not for any particualr letter and no matter where will they send it.. So , why somebody should pay for it if corporation is not paying it per 1 letter.. Its in corporation hands to pay these kind of costs, because its not the part of legal court action.

Not around here, there was a quite famous case some months ago, where people were accused of watching an illegal video stream (I know its a different case, but the underlying "payment" model is the same). They all got a letter from a rather small company in Switzerland (actually the letter was from a chancellery in Germany, that was mandated to act on behalf of that company) with a demand of signing a cease and desist letter and a demand for paying compansation and lawyer fess.

 

[commander-beef]

C&D letters are only created by biggest corporations and they're buying the chancellery time in "packets" for example: They pay for sending 100 x C&D letters about xxx $   not for any particualr letter and no matter where will they send it.. So , why somebody should pay for it if corporation is not paying it per 1 letter.. Its in corporation hands to pay these kind of costs, because its not the part of legal court action.

Not around here, there was a quite famous case some months ago, where people were accused of watching an illegal video stream (I know its a different case, but the underlying "payment" model is the same). They all got a letter from a rather small company in Switzerland (actually the letter was from a chancellery in Germany, that was mandated to act on behalf of that company) with a demand of signing a cease and desist letter and a demand for paying compansation and lawyer fess.

ah, i heard about it. And that was done legally but it was wrong ethically AFAIC because they're having only IP's and they're unsure even what names/surnames under these IP's were. It was "lawyer's scam". They though that if the downloaders will send info with apologising to damage done, then they could sue them , because they said they download something.. it was a provocation.. and freakin' 'lawyers scam'. best answer /action you can do is not to send any returning letter and not convicting to anything..