Posted by maggflodd
Just(ly) wondering: why can we go on'n'on about unautherised opera hack, incl. where to get it, but cannot disclose other download links (free stuff i.e.). I n-derstand opera's own forum barring links but here? Not sh@t-stirring, would like answer...
Posted by PeterKay
This is Esato, a clean environment.
Take your sh*t elsehwere.
Posted by methylated_spirit
They've got a point though, why is ok to talk about some illegal things and not others? Is there a set policy as to "degrees of illegality" or somesuch?
Posted by maggflodd
| Quote: |
|
like some clean-cut 'go-back-to-russia'-red neck!? Can't maggflodd ask a q. without personal offence?
Posted by joebmc
Is a good point, take the P*** videos thread, it gives you links to where films can be downloaded even though many have yet to hit the cinemas, some mite consider that piracy or illegal downloading.
Posted by brix25
I was thinking the same thing in relation to that thread(P800 videos)...why then can't we get a threat telling us how to crack games(or where to get them)?
I'm all for intellectual copyrights but somethings on esato have been allowed to slide for way too long which creates a doubt any newbies mind.
How is a site that allows you to download movies not deemed illegal as opposed to people want to post links for cracked java games?
Posted by maggflodd
... Yeah, and that openly discussed opera hack comes with undeletable, constantly updated links to dodgy, free porn-sites (awkward prude that I am I dont want porn on my phone, and I don't want strangers to be able to dump it in my browser). Anyway, any thoughts from esato re. the tolerability of one illegality v. The Other? Now I'll stop being awkward...maggflodd
Posted by methylated_spirit
I don't think you're being awkward, i think you've raised a valid point. You're not allowed to link to Warez sites, but you can link to illegal movie and ringtone downloads...doesn't it basically amount to the same thing?
Posted by scotsboyuk
I could be wrong, but I think something similar to this has been discussed before, at least as far as the Pxxx videos are concerned. At any rate I agree that this is a valid point. Where exactly does Esato stand on this?
If converted videos are allowed, which break copyright then why isn't warez? Or to put it another way, if warez isn't allowed why are videos, which infringe copyright?
Someone who posts a converted telly episode won't be given into trouble, but someone who posts a link to a cracked piece of software will be. I think there should be a clear rule because at the moment it seems to be a bit hypocritical.
Posted by PeterKay
sorri for my misunderstanding maggflodd
Posted by Debu
Correct me if i'm mistaken, but, we are allowed to download full verions of software and music videos if we own a copy ourselves. However, if one is downloading a cracked version of a software, it is clear that you do not own a copy.
Posted by maggflodd
Seriously, the above must be nonsense (no offence) because it's legally, logically and esatocally non-sensical! A)owning a copy does not entitle u to disseminate or help disseminating further free or paid copies!
B)see A)...
C) we can all find illegal games but thanks to the rules we cannot, e.g., warn of specific risky sites without spelling them out(whereas all opera hack fans,e.g., can freely debate probs etc. (Hi, m.spirit) there's more...
Posted by maggflodd
| Quote: |
|
There's more... (Hi, meth. Spirit)
Posted by Debu
| Quote: |
|
Quite the contrary, dear friend, ever heard of Section 117?. Please read the following carefully:
Section 117 of the Copyright Act entitled "Limitation on Exclusive Rights: Computer Programs" permits the owner of a copy of a program to make another copy of that program in two instances. First, the owner of a copy may make another copy of that program when it is an essential step to utilize the program in conjunction with a machine. An example is loading the program onto the computer's hard drive, which makes a copy. However, in order for the computer to use the program, it must be placed on the hard drive. The second instance permits the owner of a copy of a program to make an archival copy as a backup.
The DMCA amended Section 117 to allow the owner or a lessee of a machine to make a temporary copy of a program if that copy is produced when the computer is activated for the purpose of maintaining or repairing the machine.
The Register's Report points out that the Section 117 archival exemption applies only to computer programs and not to making backup copies of other types of digital works.
The above signifies, that if you own a (legal) copy of a software, you have the right to make unlimited number of soft copies of it, for archival purposes, including soft copies made and stored on the internet. However, distrobuting the soft copues is illegal. The similar is true for videos as well.
Beig a software developer myself I must know the law and the loopholes around it.
The exact words of US Code, Title 17, Chaper 1, Section 117 are as follows:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.— Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if—
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
(d) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
(1) the “maintenance” of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
(2) the “repair” of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the posting of videos, which infringe copyright, is ok if those who are downloading them already have a copy? There are several points here.
First of all if we already had a copy then we would be unlikely to download another copy. Secondly, as has been mentioned, owning a copy of a video doesn't give one the right to download what is essentially a pirated copy of it. Even if it did, do the moderators check that everyone linking to and downloading videos already owns a copy?
Edit: In response to your last post there I think one has to emphasise the distinction you pointed out between making archived copies and distribution. The law doesn't permit one to freely copy and distribute copyright material without permission. One may very well be allowed to make copies for one's own use, but that is quite a different matter to acting as a distrubutor.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-27 17:18 ]
Posted by maggflodd
Yeah, well, thanks for the enlightening contrib. from the software dev'per. Unf.'ly this debate is exactly about the arbitrary-ness that seems to govern the dys-cussion here and in courts all over the world. You've only triumphantly shown us the noose around the loophole without adding much, and if you read back, u'll find 2 separate issues altogether and when i said 'enlightening', i didn't mean 'enlightened' - sorry!
there's more...
Posted by scotsboyuk
I don't think we should necessarily get into the debate over copyright law and file sharing etc. Let's just stick to the matter at hand, which is Esato policy.
Perhaps this would be a good time for one of the moderators to comment.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-27 17:41 ]
Posted by maggflodd
Yeah... You are exactly right, scotsboyuk! So, though i started this thread, i'll now shut my maggflodd-trap! Don't want this to turn into a lets-shut-up-the-opera-hack-fans-as-well type of debate ('if we can't, why can they? It's not fair, boohoo'). Wasn't my intention to cause sh+tstorm... I really thought there might be an unambiguous answer - obviously not... Or maybe i'm just thick'n'stubborn. Anyway, maggflodd's off
Posted by scotsboyuk
@maggflod
I think you have raised a very good point actually, but I don't see the point in getting into a discussion on the nature of copyright law since we can't change the law here on this forum. Instead we should be asking for clarification on Esato's position as to warez, copyright videos, etc.
Posted by Debu
@mag,scot: Please don't get me wrong, my point is that, since posting of vids etc. may not be entirely against the law, whereas posting about cracked versions of the software maybe; that could be the reason for the standpoint of the mods/team esato. Of course, as you mentioned the true reason can only be clarified by esato mods or laffen.
Posted by maggflodd
Scotsboyuk, right again! Also maybe start a thread for total wapwebdownload-newbies re. pitfalls, slings and arrows of 'free' stuff (I know for a fact that some, e.g., don't realise a say 500+ kb 'free' game might actually be cheaper to buy from your network as gprs-traffic costs in price included - so a 'free' game might cost u E5.oo to download, but ur network would've delivered it for E4.5o, etc...
maggflodd is off dreaming of the warmth of a Burning Bush
Posted by maggflodd
| Quote: |
|
(...chained to the dream they got you searchin' for...)
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
I'm sure there must be some reasoning behind the decision to allow videos since a decision has obviously been taken not to allo warez. It does seem to be somewhat hypocritical and confusing though.
@magg
Perhaps a sticky thread on such issues for newbies would be a good idea if there isn't already one.
Posted by gelfen
it could well be that discussing illegal activity relating to mobiles is tolerated while other such activity is not. that's the way it looks anyway.