uh yeah, so someone just uploaded master levels for doom II on archive.org

someone is missing the point.

ssshhhhhhh

leileilol wrote:

uh yeah, so someone just uploaded master levels for doom II on archive.org

someone is missing the point.

A good reminder why we only like drivers at VogonsDrivers! 😀

A fair-use case can be made for archiving hardware device drivers, but I think uploading paid-for game maps and stuff is just asking for a DMCA takedown.

SquallStrife wrote:

leileilol wrote:

uh yeah, so someone just uploaded master levels for doom II on archive.org

someone is missing the point.

A good reminder why we only like drivers at VogonsDrivers! 😀

A fair-use case can be made for archiving hardware device drivers, but I think uploading paid-for game maps and stuff is just asking for a DMCA takedown.

That hard to say what well happin

but I think uploading paid-for game maps and stuff

You do know that just about all the file on that disc where freeware WAD from idgames archive from the original at ftp.cdrom.com a long time ago
Now it all here http://www.gamers.org/

That's only one part of the disc.
The actual "master levels" are commissioned by id software and are copyrighted.

You can even buy it on Steam

shspvr wrote:

That hard to say what well happing

leileilol wrote:

That's only one part of the disc.
The actual "master levels" are commissioned by id software and are copyrighted.

You can even buy it on Steam

Only 20 where commissioned by id software there are 40 in steam ver so the other 20 most be the best picks.

Sadly it's been further inundated. There's 60 russian warez compilation cds now.

Somebody should get them removed ASAP

hah, I still have my legitimate Master Levels CD complete with the box it came in! Plus the printed Doom manual. I wonder if it's possible to find the old Uptime monthly disk magazines that were on 3&1/2" floppies? My dad used to subscribe to that when I was a kid. I've tried finding the missing ones on ebay, but they're hard to come by. I taught myself how to type on one of those. I also still have the one that had an Arkanoid clone, "Breakout." I recall him also getting Big Blue Disk. I used to look forward to those coming in the mail.

leileilol wrote:

Sadly it's been further inundated. There's 60 russian warez compilation cds now.

Somebody should get them removed ASAP

And this shows the fatal weakness of DMCA in that it requires that the copyright holder be the one to make a complaint before a takedown notice can be issued. That is why the abandonware sites are still around, because they know that not every copyright holder is going to come forward and make a complaint. If one does, they're like "Meh, so we have to delete one file, we still have hundreds of others". It shouldn't require hundreds of complaints against a warez site owner to get the site pulled. One should be all it takes. They should change it so that anyone can make a complaint about copyrighted material being illegally distributed. I would personally have every abandonware site on the internet taken down if that were to happen.

And what if you were wrong? What if you mistakenly made a complaint about a program that a publisher did in fact expressly, legitimately release to the public as freeware with every intent of having it being distributed far and wide?

Or what if someone didn't like something you said, found your website, and deliberately made a false complaint about the files you were distributing?

Or what if the copyright holder doesn't actually care in the slightest about what happens to his or her work and can't possibly be troubled to give his or her consent to it being copied?

in this case, there's 60 isos filled with commercial software. There should at least one who would give a stink to send a DMCA

though it'd be just easier to let the archive.org cd maintainers know. like Jason Scott. He's not the one uploading these by the way

sliderider wrote:

leileilol wrote:

Sadly it's been further inundated. There's 60 russian warez compilation cds now.

Somebody should get them removed ASAP

And this shows the fatal weakness of DMCA in that it requires that the copyright holder be the one to make a complaint before a takedown notice can be issued. That is why the abandonware sites are still around, because they know that not every copyright holder is going to come forward and make a complaint. If one does, they're like "Meh, so we have to delete one file, we still have hundreds of others". It shouldn't require hundreds of complaints against a warez site owner to get the site pulled. One should be all it takes. They should change it so that anyone can make a complaint about copyrighted material being illegally distributed. I would personally have every abandonware site on the internet taken down if that were to happen.

As a lawyer, disagree. This would allow you to assert rights that you don't have, possibly against what the actual rightsholders want. The copyright holders are the only ones with the right to decide what happens to their properties, and if they choose to indulge or ignore certain violations, that is also their right.

Imagine if we allowed this in other areas of the law -- perhaps I don't care that my neighbor's tree hangs over my yard even though it constitutes trespass. Why should the person across the street, or anywhere else, be able to force my neighbor to cut the tree?

Hater Depot wrote:

sliderider wrote:

leileilol wrote:

Sadly it's been further inundated. There's 60 russian warez compilation cds now.

Somebody should get them removed ASAP

And this shows the fatal weakness of DMCA in that it requires that the copyright holder be the one to make a complaint before a takedown notice can be issued. That is why the abandonware sites are still around, because they know that not every copyright holder is going to come forward and make a complaint. If one does, they're like "Meh, so we have to delete one file, we still have hundreds of others". It shouldn't require hundreds of complaints against a warez site owner to get the site pulled. One should be all it takes. They should change it so that anyone can make a complaint about copyrighted material being illegally distributed. I would personally have every abandonware site on the internet taken down if that were to happen.

As a lawyer, disagree. This would allow you to assert rights that you don't have, possibly against what the actual rightsholders want. The copyright holders are the only ones with the right to decide what happens to their properties, and if they choose to indulge or ignore certain violations, that is also their right.

Imagine if we allowed this in other areas of the law -- perhaps I don't care that my neighbor's tree hangs over my yard even though it constitutes trespass. Why should the person across the street, or anywhere else, be able to force my neighbor to cut the tree?

Except that it is already allowed. Local police and the federal authorities have been relying on tipsters to point them in the direction of criminal activity or to gather information since this country was founded. Why can I point my local police in the direction of a crack house or the location of a murder suspect but not a copyright violator? According to you, the tipster has no business getting involved so the authorities should not be allowed to use their information, right?

Oh, and when the price I pay for software goes up due to the cost of combating piracy, then I do have a say in the matter. I have every right to call the authorities just like I have every right to notify a store employee if I see a shoplifter. Then you have the issue that if someone has knowledge of a crime that is being committed, they have no right to withhold that information from the authorities. If a copyright holder witnesses an unrelated crime, you can't say they have the option of withholding information from the authorities so where do they get the right to withhold information from the authorities about a copyright violation if they witness it?

I also fail to see a distinction between if I report my next door neighbor for running a bootlegging operation out of his basement and an abandonware site. The authorities will respond to my call and investigate the pirate next door even though he's not copying anything I own, so why wouldn't they investigate a website on the same charge?

sliderider wrote:

Why can I point my local police in the direction of a crack house or the location of a murder suspect but not a copyright violator?

A crack house constitutes a considerably larger threat to the neighborhood at large than a copyright violator. As for the "location of a murder suspect", I find it quite confusing as to how one would become certain of said suspect's identity and his or her location, unless the authorities are actively seeking said suspect.

Then you have the issue that if someone has knowledge of a crime that is being committed, they have no right to withhold that information from the authorities. If a copyright holder witnesses an unrelated crime, you can't say they have the option of withholding information from the authorities so where do they get the right to withhold information from the authorities about a copyright violation if they witness it?

Withholding information from authorities when said information is requested is very different from actively bringing such information to the authorities at one's discretion.

I also fail to see a distinction between if I report my next door neighbor for running a bootlegging operation out of his basement and an abandonware site. The authorities will respond to my call and investigate the pirate next door even though he's not copying anything I own

Oh, will they? Have you tried that lately?

Jorpho wrote:

A crack house constitutes a considerably larger threat to the neighborhood at large than a copyright violator. As for the "loc […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

Why can I point my local police in the direction of a crack house or the location of a murder suspect but not a copyright violator?

A crack house constitutes a considerably larger threat to the neighborhood at large than a copyright violator. As for the "location of a murder suspect", I find it quite confusing as to how one would become certain of said suspect's identity and his or her location, unless the authorities are actively seeking said suspect.

Then you have the issue that if someone has knowledge of a crime that is being committed, they have no right to withhold that information from the authorities. If a copyright holder witnesses an unrelated crime, you can't say they have the option of withholding information from the authorities so where do they get the right to withhold information from the authorities about a copyright violation if they witness it?

Withholding information from authorities when said information is requested is very different from actively bringing such information to the authorities at one's discretion.

I also fail to see a distinction between if I report my next door neighbor for running a bootlegging operation out of his basement and an abandonware site. The authorities will respond to my call and investigate the pirate next door even though he's not copying anything I own

Oh, will they? Have you tried that lately?

2 years ago there was a raid of a flea market seller of bootleg music less than half a mile from where I live. The cops had absolutely no complaints from anyone about what he was doing, only an officer who observed him selling. If they would arrest him without a complaint from the public or from a copyright holder, why wouldn't they arrest him if I tipped them off?

Don't forget that cops earn their promotions and pay raises based on making arrests and prosecutors earn theirs based on convictions. If I call the cops and tell them my neighbor is running a large scale bootlegging operation, they'll be all over it.

sliderider wrote:

2 years ago there was a raid of a flea market seller of bootleg music less than half a mile from where I live. The cops had absolutely no complaints from anyone about what he was doing, only an officer who observed him selling. If they would arrest him without a complaint from the public or from a copyright holder, why wouldn't they arrest him if I tipped them off?

Offhand: because the cops have better things to do, perhaps. Or because it would be too difficult to prove their case, possibly due to the sellers learning to better evade detection.

An officer observing someone selling is one thing, but I can recall reading about some unusual cases in which citizens have gotten into considerable trouble in trying to take the law into their own hands.

sliderider wrote:

I also fail to see a distinction between if I report my next door neighbor for running a bootlegging operation out of his basement and an abandonware site. The authorities will respond to my call and investigate the pirate next door even though he's not copying anything I own, so why wouldn't they investigate a website on the same charge?

There is a fundamental difference between notifying the parties with the rights and power to take action (in your examples of 'tipsters' above) and actually taking action yourself (as would be the case in issuing DMCA notices for content you do not own or hold the copyright for).

I disagree that you should have the right to issue DMCA notices for content you don't hold copyright for. You should at most, function as a 'tipster' and notify the copyright holders and it is up to them to take action if they wish.

I don't want every busybody with too much free time trying to single handedly take down the entire internet, much like I don't want vigilantes roaming the streets murdering drug dealers. Let the parties with the power and the rights to take action, do so.

DonutKing wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between notifying the parties with the rights and power to take action (in your examples of 't […]
Show full quote

sliderider wrote:

I also fail to see a distinction between if I report my next door neighbor for running a bootlegging operation out of his basement and an abandonware site. The authorities will respond to my call and investigate the pirate next door even though he's not copying anything I own, so why wouldn't they investigate a website on the same charge?

There is a fundamental difference between notifying the parties with the rights and power to take action (in your examples of 'tipsters' above) and actually taking action yourself (as would be the case in issuing DMCA notices for content you do not own or hold the copyright for).

I disagree that you should have the right to issue DMCA notices for content you don't hold copyright for. You should at most, function as a 'tipster' and notify the copyright holders and it is up to them to take action if they wish.

I don't want every busybody with too much free time trying to single handedly take down the entire internet, much like I don't want vigilantes roaming the streets murdering drug dealers. Let the parties with the power and the rights to take action, do so.

Who ever said I would be the one issuing the takedown notices? I never said that. All I said I would do is report the website to the authorities and they would be the ones issuing the takedown notices. The copyright holder should not even need to be contacted if the crime is blatantly obvious. There is absolutely no difference between me reporting a crime to the local police and reporting a crime to whatever regulatory agency issues the takedown notices. Using my example above, if a police officer sees a bootlegger selling clearly illegal material from a flea market booth, why can't that same police officer make an arrest if he is sent a link to a warez site and can see for himself all the copyrighted material that is being pirated? The officer makes the arrest of the flea market bootlegger without contacting any of the copyright holders, doesn't he? It would be ridiculous to make that a requirement simply because of all the time that it would take to get every copyright holder who's rights were violated to swear out a complaint.The same should apply to websites.

Jorpho wrote:

sliderider wrote:

2 years ago there was a raid of a flea market seller of bootleg music less than half a mile from where I live. The cops had absolutely no complaints from anyone about what he was doing, only an officer who observed him selling. If they would arrest him without a complaint from the public or from a copyright holder, why wouldn't they arrest him if I tipped them off?

Offhand: because the cops have better things to do, perhaps. Or because it would be too difficult to prove their case, possibly due to the sellers learning to better evade detection.

An officer observing someone selling is one thing, but I can recall reading about some unusual cases in which citizens have gotten into considerable trouble in trying to take the law into their own hands.

And if I email a link to an abandonware site to the local police and they can see for themselves that copyrights are being violated, how is that any different than an officer seeing a flea market bootlegger breaking the law? Both the website and the bootlegger are committing the same crime. If the bootlegger can be arrested after being observed by an officer, why is the website owner exempt?