maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:04:

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response w […]
Show full quote

Dominus wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:56:

Read it correctly: […]
Show full quote

Read it correctly:

„Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright is.“
It’s not about the law but the rules here. And the laws are different in countries. Posting links is not always guilt free ;(
And the owner doesn’t want to test laws 🤷‍♂️

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response was that banning direct links is probably prudent, but "inducing people to violate copyright" is not a legitimate concern.

My point boils down to this:
Is the rule actually:
1) don't post things that could get the site in legal trouble
or
2) don't post things that violate the admins' sense of morality, because "we" believe warez is immoral?

These two things are quite different, and in order to act in good faith one needs to know what the real intent is

I'm guessing that it's mostly (1)

I've been looking around a bit, Plasma saying that this is the only forum on which this happens isn't quite right.
the two google searches, mentioned in the first post, with vogons replaced with vcfed give some interesting reads. I even ran into some of Plasma's comments.
And vcfed also has a mention in their terms and rules 'Telling people how to pirate a software title is an example of something that is not allowable here.'
Now one can argue overthere if this means circumventing drm measures or copyprotections or just linking to a downloadable version of some copyrighted software.
And links to copyrighted software can be found, not a lot, but still they're there, just like here on vogons. Not all posts get reported by users and not all posts get read by admin&moderators.

I agree the OP is overreacting. The moderation here seems generally fair, and I'd say its above average with respect to the many other forums I've dealt with. However I think there is a legitimate point behind this that's worth discussion.

If the concern is truly to protect the site from legal action, banning direct links to warez is justified, but not simply telling some one, "hey that have that on winworld, go look it up"

maxxtherabbit, I agree.
Fun thing is google still has the original post of op in my search results using link op provided in first post and while it doesn't link directly to the download, it comes pretty close 😀
So, not quite 'just mentioned the site' .

edit: striked mistake of mine, url wasn't posted by op, but other user. link is removed now, though is/was stil visible in google search results.

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:19:

I'm guessing that it's mostly (1) […]
Show full quote

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:04:

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response w […]
Show full quote

Dominus wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:56:

Read it correctly: […]
Show full quote

Read it correctly:

„Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright is.“
It’s not about the law but the rules here. And the laws are different in countries. Posting links is not always guilt free ;(
And the owner doesn’t want to test laws 🤷‍♂️

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response was that banning direct links is probably prudent, but "inducing people to violate copyright" is not a legitimate concern.

My point boils down to this:
Is the rule actually:
1) don't post things that could get the site in legal trouble
or
2) don't post things that violate the admins' sense of morality, because "we" believe warez is immoral?

These two things are quite different, and in order to act in good faith one needs to know what the real intent is

I'm guessing that it's mostly (1)

I've been looking around a bit, Plasma saying that this is the only forum on which this happens isn't quite right.
the two google searches, mentioned in the first post, with vogons replaced with vcfed give some interesting reads. I even ran into some of Plasma's comments.
And vcfed also has a mention in their terms and rules 'Telling people how to pirate a software title is an example of something that is not allowable here.'
Now one can argue overthere if this means circumventing drm measures or copyprotections or just linking to a downloadable version of some copyrighted software.
And links to copyrighted software can be found, not a lot, but still they're there, just like here on vogons. Not all posts get reported by users and not all posts get read by admin&moderators.

I don't recall ever having a post removed/edited from vcfed due to linking archive.org or winworldpc. If you have found one, I'd like to see it. Users regularly refer to those sites, because it's understood that 35yo software long obsolete is not "pirating warez."

Similarly, vcfed has never removed any of my ebay links.

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:28:

maxxtherabbit, I agree.
Fun thing is google still has the original post of op in my search results using link op provided in first post and while it doesn't link directly to the download, it comes pretty close 😀
So, not quite 'just mentioned the site' .

My post was literally "winworldpc has XXXXX 3.0...."

So yes, I mentioned it. Not a link. Not close to a link.

vcfed banned me for cursing in one post. That is ludicrous / ridiculous. And it was about a post by TheMan, where we (first politely) asked to edit/remove the link to the former non updated driver package. And when that was unheard, then I made one post with a curse in it. And bam I was banned. Thank fucking goodness, we now have the great vogonsdrivers, thanks to the old project .

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:34:

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:28:

maxxtherabbit, I agree.
Fun thing is google still has the original post of op in my search results using link op provided in first post and while it doesn't link directly to the download, it comes pretty close 😀
So, not quite 'just mentioned the site' .

My post was literally "winworldpc has XXXXX 3.0...."

So yes, I mentioned it. Not a link. Not close to a link.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. the post with the link was from another user.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:34:

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:28:

maxxtherabbit, I agree.
Fun thing is google still has the original post of op in my search results using link op provided in first post and while it doesn't link directly to the download, it comes pretty close 😀
So, not quite 'just mentioned the site' .

My post was literally "winworldpc has XXXXX 3.0...."

So yes, I mentioned it. Not a link. Not close to a link.

Once a moderator had known a solution to a problem but he messaged like "biggest russian torrent site" and I got it. Probably that should be a better way right? Getting a nickname for WinWorld.

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:45:

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:34:

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:28:

maxxtherabbit, I agree.
Fun thing is google still has the original post of op in my search results using link op provided in first post and while it doesn't link directly to the download, it comes pretty close 😀
So, not quite 'just mentioned the site' .

My post was literally "winworldpc has XXXXX 3.0...."

So yes, I mentioned it. Not a link. Not close to a link.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. the post with the link was from another user.

It's all right. Anyway I've said all I want to say about this. I don't think any further progress will be made.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:48:

It's all right. Anyway I've said all I want to say about this. I don't think any further progress will be made.

Who knows... mods might be busy removing all the references to the site mentioned or they might as well be having a beer and a laugh.

Thanks for the turbo XT bios.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:04:

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response w […]
Show full quote

Dominus wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:56:

Read it correctly: […]
Show full quote

Read it correctly:

„Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright is.“
It’s not about the law but the rules here. And the laws are different in countries. Posting links is not always guilt free ;(
And the owner doesn’t want to test laws 🤷‍♂️

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response was that banning direct links is probably prudent, but "inducing people to violate copyright" is not a legitimate concern.

My point boils down to this:
Is the rule actually:
1) don't post things that could get the site in legal trouble
or
2) don't post things that violate the admins' sense of morality, because "we" believe warez is immoral?

These two things are quite different, and in order to act in good faith one needs to know what the real intent is

Again, I am not a lawyer and the law varies with jurisdiction, but IMHO, "inducing people to violate copyright" in more general terms, could fall under "inducing (encouraging/helping/assisting) people to commit a crime" which may potentially be a crime in and of itself in at least some jurisdictions . Also, there is likely a difference between telling someone that "illegal drugs are sold in area x" or that "website y has illegally downloadable software" and for example, "knowingly driving someone's bank robbery getaway car" or "knowingly providing tools to someone for use in a crime" . There is also likely a difference between saying "site x has software y (specifically) available for download illegally" versus saying site "site x has some software for download, but some/most/all of it is illegal to download" . Finally, there is the aspect of the type of site and what should reasonably expect to know about it . Archive.org is a legitimate website that benefits from a specific status (and legal exemptions). This is not to say that everything on it is legal to download for everyone in all cases. However, there is a analogy to be made between, for example, buying stolen merchandise from a legitimately licensed, well established, pawn shop which will provide a receipt and buying something at well below market value from a some random dude whose path you just crossed in a parking lot.
How all that relates to mentioning a site, mentioning its potentially illegal content or sharing a link to said content is an interesting exercise, IMHO .

Additionally, AFAIU, intent can be a very significant factor in a legal context. To illustrate this, consider someone getting into their car and driving off while someone (child playing hide and seek, homeless person, etc) is hiding/sleeping/etc under said car. Let's then assume that the person hiding is badly injured, maimed or killed as a result of this . The question of whether the driver knew that someone was under the car (saw him or heard him) would presumably play a significant role in the type of legal fallout to follow (if any). (Obviously, there would need to be proof of how things played out, like for example, a building's security camera footage that shows someone's limb sticking out from under the vehicle and the driver bending over to look at the limb and then getting into their car, but that's beyond the scope of this thought exercise).

To summarize my train of thought :

I believe that point 1 is likely the main intent of mods and the site owner :

1) don't post things that could get the site in legal trouble

but I believe that point 2

2) don't post things that violate the admins' sense of morality, because "we" believe warez is immoral

is more of a corollary of point 1 if it is restated as
2)Don't post things that if not removed could be construed as the admin's tacit tolerance for potentially illegal activities, could undermine appearance of "good faith" and/or could be construed as "criminal intent".

IMHO, this is all made in an attempt in attempt to be extra diligent in avoiding legal issues . You may see this is as admins taking a moralizing position, while I see this as being an abundance of caution while trying to navigate complex and ambiguous legal waters .

Criminal intent (mens rea) by itself is never a crime. It is simply a necessary element of proving guilt. An action is still required.

I can harbor a limitless amount of criminal intent (and I do indeed 😀 ) without being guilty of anything if no action is taken.

Anyway enough of the jailhouse lawyer act, time to let this one die I suppose

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 20:59:

Criminal intent (mens rea) by itself is never a crime. It is simply a necessary element of proving guilt. An action is still required.

I can harbor a limitless amount of criminal intent (and I do indeed 😀 ) without being guilty of anything if no action is taken.

Anyway enough of the jailhouse lawyer act, time to let this one die I suppose

mmmh, letting someone die.... isn't that a criminal action ? 😁

(agreed, let this fade away until some necromancer digs it back up)

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 20:59:

Criminal intent (mens rea) by itself is never a crime. It is simply a necessary element of proving guilt. An action is still required.

I can harbor a limitless amount of criminal intent (and I do indeed 😀 ) without being guilty of anything if no action is taken.

Anyway enough of the jailhouse lawyer act, time to let this one die I suppose

I don't disagree (unless thought crime is a thing somewhere and, if it is, I think I would rather not know about it 😉 ).

What I meant was that, if someone was to read on Vogons that software x was downloadable on site y and that someone actually downloaded the (pirated) software, got caught and then tried to partly pin it on Vogons to (spread the blame), whether it could be construed that there was intent (by Vogons) to knowingly assist that said someone in breaking the law .

No idea how plausible or likely that is .

I also agree that pretty much everything that was worth saying has been said already, unless maybe if someone with an actual law degree and relevant actual experience was to chime in.

I'd just like to say that the world isn't black and white.
There are situations that are in a gray area.
Sometimes it depends on the situation and a human individual must make a decision.
If something is appropriate or not, for example. This decision is very individual, though. And the context matters.
One moderator may see it from this perspective, while another one would see it from another.
The tricky thing is, that there might be no absolute wrong / right.
Both types of decisions may make sense from their point of view.
This is like "the glass is half full/half empty" situation.

Sometimes it's really helpful if the other person can read between the lines, also, I think.
If something doesn't need to be explained in very detail, I mean.
Because, that can backfire quickly. Not only does it set things into stone, because people feel pressure to settle things quickly,
but also because everything that's written is indexed by search engines.
Personally, I think, that rules are needed, sure, but it might be favorable
if we (of our own free will) would see them as guidelines, too, rather than to raid about every single written word.
The rules are not meant as a form of patronizing. They have a purpose, after all.
And by using common sense, most problems can be avoided in advance.

And last, but not least, there's something I would like mentioned.
I'm not sure if I go to far, hopefully not, but I think it shouldn't be forgotten.
I'm generally speaking, it's not related to this forum.: OK. Let's take abandonware sites as an example for a moment. Just a moment. Linking to a file section might be wrong, but to the same site's forum section might be okay.
If the thread/topic does not contain links to warez, at least.
That brings back memories to places like Aba*donia, by the way. Which was highly controversial ~15 years ago. Not just here, but universally. That site,-which now is a piece of internet history too, had hosted games,
yes, but also a wonderful gallery with reviews and lots of valuable background information.
That being said, this is just an example. It's not about that site. It's about exceptions.
There are situations in life that seem so clear at first, but are not. They rather are very complex.

Ok, another example. In my country (or planet with a pink sky, my galaxy etc), the law makes/made legal exceptions to using "piracy" :

Like for example, in the 90s, you could make personal copies of VHS cassettes that you got from video rental.
From what I remember, you could even break that old Macrovision protection.
Magazines sold in public places published tutorials for that.
Because you paid for a possible copy by buying a blank VHS (taxes) or because you paid once at the video rental.
Moreover, you could make even more legal copies for your family members or close friends.
Of course, officially, the makers of commercial cassettes didn't recognize your right. They still added fearsome intros about piracy to the tapes.
That's what I mean to express. There are two sides of the coin.

Or another example. For example, you run a business and need to use a software you paid for, you legally can take advantage of anything that helps you. Including "patches", keygens or serials from the net.
Why? Because you honestly paid for a software, but the manufacturer wasn't reachable for whatever reason. So you had to help out yourself, it was an emergency.
Anyway, that doesn't automatically means that an internet forum needs to agree to that behavior or must help.
It's all relative. Things can't always be lumped together easily.

Also, regional laws among the countries greatly differ, which confuses people if they come together from all over the world.
(Which makes it difficult for international platforms, IMHO. So sometimes, the lowest common denominator is used.)
But that doesn't mean that one law is right per se and other one is totally wrong.
Both may have a good explanation for their decisions.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:31:

Users regularly refer to those sites, because it's understood that 35yo software long obsolete is not "pirating warez."

Oracle would like to have a word with you.

It may be common sense for us but if that software is under copyright and some company still currently holds the rights to it, they CAN sue vogons for distributing it.
It's capitalism, man. If there's money to be made somewhere, the vultures will come and get it.

I think the handling of these links as it's done here is alright. No one will sue for a driver disc and as such these links probably won't get removed. But if you post some commercial operating system or games, they probably will.
For me, this is common sense. It doesn't need any explicitely written rule. And in my experience, forums with such explicitely written rules are no fun at all and they don't last long. Nobody likes to be in a pedantic environment.

Hmm freeware

Beyond gainful recovery is the single most important aspect of software which has extraordinarily short useful lifespans.

rmay635703 wrote on 2022-07-15, 05:03:

Hmm freeware

9AEF898A-F756-46EE-BF63-E1C1EABCD80D.jpeg

Beyond gainful recovery is the single most important aspect of software which has extraordinarily short useful lifespans.

An unreferenced affirmation on Wikipedia is not really an authoritative source of truth, IMHO .

EDIT : Apparently version 5 of the compiler was (is?) free https://web.archive.org/web/20010410203448/ht … r/freecompiler/
That does not necessarily extend to previous versions, however .

rmay635703 wrote on 2022-07-15, 05:03:

Hmm freeware

9AEF898A-F756-46EE-BF63-E1C1EABCD80D.jpeg

Beyond gainful recovery is the single most important aspect of software which has extraordinarily short useful lifespans.

Yes, according to this press release version 5.5 of the command line compiler specifically (not the whole Borland C++ package and not any other version of the command line compiler) was freeware. The version originally being asked about (Borland C++ 3.0 IIRC) which spawned this thread is not freeware.

Borland did also eventually release Turbo C++ 1.01 and Turbo C 2.01 as freeware but no other versions.

Given that Embarcadero no longer sells any products based on the old Borland C/C++ compilers (their current offering is based on clang) it would be nice if they could just make all of them freeware - its not like a 20-25+ year old compiler is going to compete with their current product at all. Its happened before so perhaps it could someday happen again if the right person was asked.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-07-14, 19:24:

I agree the OP is overreacting. The moderation here seems generally fair, and I'd say its above average with respect to the many other forums I've dealt with. However I think there is a legitimate point behind this that's worth discussion.

If the concern is truly to protect the site from legal action, banning direct links to warez is justified, but not simply telling some one, "hey that have that on winworld, go look it up"

Jokes, YTP, reactions and being slightly off topic, along with responding to same (historically at least) would get moderated.

The benevolent gift of a free to use forum comes with “ruthless dictators” 😀 here that have their house rules and you need to play by them as the house always wins. :0

And yes I agree they are fair about it,

they put up with me afterall

As a private forum they can apply any rules they wish to maintain their property