«

[plix]

Originally posted by caseman@Nov 1 2005, 07:30 AM
we are in a grey area that is not very actionable by copyright holders, unlike the p2p music downloads.
...
just wondering which countries not covered by berne convention?......... i know, way off topic....... guide good.

No, it's not a legal grey area at all, it's an ethical grey area. The law is very clear on the points covered and it's illegal.

A list of signatories can be found in the Wikipedia article on the issue. In short: damn near every country on the planet.

[plix]

Originally posted by caseman
we are in a grey area that is not very actionable by copyright holders, unlike the p2p music downloads. tough to prosecute on grounds that you may have had original but it is lost or stolen or sold it ,and forgot to erase the download etc etc.

Since I just read over your post again I thought I should note some specifics:

• Sale of a game constitutes a transfer of license, which strips you of entitlement to play said game.
• Losing (due to theft or otherwise) does not entitle you to obtain an illegal copy of said game as this method of obtainment is not covered by the "legal backup" provision. In this case if you have not already properly backed up your copy you are out of luck.

This is exactly like "p2p music downloads" and it is exactly the reason that I raised this issue in the first place. The points you raised are not loopholes in the law, they're misinterpretations of the law. I suggest you ask one of the lawyer family members you mentioned (assuming that one of them is an IP lawyer) and you'll discover that they'll agree with what I've said.

[punch999]

Maybe you should correct the problems with it not bash it

[plix]

Originally posted by punch999@Nov 2 2005, 01:43 PM
Maybe you should correct the problems with it not bash it

I didn't bash your guide, I made specific comments about specific problems and (albeit briefly) offered clarifications. I also pointed you in the direction of a much more complete and accurate "guide" in my first response.

So now that I've offered very specific comments and provided a link to far more information you want me to rewrite it, too?

[Timpsi]

Originally posted by punch999
Maybe you should correct the problems with it not bash it

Er.. what he did was to point you a few errors in a clear and articulate way. No bashing of any kind was involved. He is right with his statements, too.

I'd like to recommend adding links to the Oldwarez List of the main page, and to the online store list. Should work much better than telling people to "check for example from CDaccess and Amazon".

EDIT: Quote added.

[punch999]

You can edit my work if you want there is no law it is open source

[plix]

Originally posted by punch999@Nov 3 2005, 06:37 PM
You can edit my work if you want there is no law it is open source

Well, aside from the fact that it's documentation (not code) means that it's already "open source" (as in speech, not as in beer). I've given you what essentially amount to patches which aren't especially difficult to apply and which you have elected not to.

Secondly, you haven't presented any form of license for the material (such as the GFDL), so I have no idea what your usage of "open source" is supposed to mean. You haven't released it into the public domain so far as I can tell, so that means that you still retain copyright. Therefore I'm not exactly sure how this document is licensed.

Finally, "open source" does not imply that you don't have to do anything. In the most immediate sense, I don't control the content of the original post, so I can't just "change it myself." Is it really so much to ask that you alter a few things yourself given that I did all the research and offered you the relevant changes?

The truth of the matter is, I've already written a much larger, more well-written and researched "guide" and I was doing you what I thought was a service by offering constructive criticisms based upon my own research. It would be a lot easier if you'd just said "thanks, but no thanks" if you have no intention of taking these suggestions into account rather than making these vague, fallacious remarks about the how your guide is "open source" and therefore the responsibility of maintenance falls upon others.

[Blood-Pigggy]

That's a strange mark of taking human speech then dissecting it to the point where you find it offensive and misplaced.

Punch was only saying that anyone can take what he made and they can edit it, nothing more, you don't have to take so many things into it, and perhaps be a little less rude next time.

[A. J. Raffles]

Well, but Plix does have a point that Punch's guide as it stands is far from complete - and Punch himself said it was work in progress, didn't he? Or has he abandoned the project in the meantime? And Plix's initial criticism was valid, to the point and in no way disrespectful of Punch's work, just pointing out its flaws, so I can't see what all this fuss is about, really...

[Blood-Pigggy]

No Raffles, in the post just above yours, he sounded extremely offended, and for some reason his remarks were somewhat rude.

I'm talking about his general attitude in the afore-mentioned post, you should've realized that yourself, nothing about his previous comments or his efforts to amend Punch.