Are we allowed to acknowledge their existence or not? Since my last post was censored for just mentioning the site. I would have asked in the actual thread, but it was so kindly locked.
It seems the "rules" are not uniformly applied. Just like linking ebay auctions. Maybe it's allowed, maybe it isn't, who knows...
Um, in my country, it's usually okay to call all kinds of sources by their name without getting into trouble.
But providing URLs is another matter, legally.
If users use a search engine and find the sites themselves, it's their business.
Not sure how it's handled here, though. Maybe it's okay giving hints in some situations, without actively promoting abandonware etc.
Like, telling people that as a last resort they can try their luck here and there, but if the do, they're on their own.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//
My opinion on the matter, FWIW :
DISCLAIMER : I am not a citizen or resident of the United States of America and I am not a lawyer . I won't attempt to interpret what is legal/appropriate/safe or not in any jurisdiction . I am just pointing out that the Internet Archive appears to be, AFAICT, a "special case" to some extent compared to other entities operating under the jurisdiction of the United States of America . What exactly that implies is something best discussed with competent legal counsel familiar with the jurisdiction . Of course, the mods on vogons.org have final say on what goes and what does not on the forum .
Also, one must take into account that the Internet Archive is, AFAIK, based in the USA and bound by its laws, among which the DMCA. Additionally, the Internet Archive appears to benefit from some DMCA exemptions, which also AFAIK, have been renewed multiple times and allow it some latitude in terms of what it is allowed to do .
See https://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/a … e-preservation/
Source : https://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/a … e-preservation/
And also the below link which seems to indicate the aforementioned exemptions that expired on October 28th 2021 were extended
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/202 … -access-control
Additionally some other exemptions seem to be in place provisionally unless revoked .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millenn … tion_exemptions
EDIT : Corrected typos
I understand and sympathise with your frustration around this sort of decision making. Believe me when I say that it is as disappointing to me as it is to anyone else that legislators are unwilling to pass badly needed orphan works legislation that would allow moderators to quit being the annoying hall monitors of long dead copyrights. Unfortunately, the world is what it is, not what we want it to be. Moderators are operating in good faith to avoid VOGONS or others becoming the target of a copyright lawsuit and are not singling out individual posters for punishment. They are also humans rather than machines, so you can expect imperfect human-level consistency in perpetuity.
To answer your question directly: Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright (by posting links to copyrighted content, or by responding to a solicitation by telling someone where they can go to violate copyright) is. In this case, there is an important distinction between Internet Archive and sites like WinWorldPC: Internet Archive is a registered library which grants it special rights, whereas WinWorldPC and other similar places are just plain old warez sites. Since there is an open question regarding whether IA is operating fully inside the law in the way they acquire and lend copies of software, direct links to software hosted there are still typically removed, simply for avoidance of doubt.
Hope this helps!
Yes, it’s my fault.
So I can post a direct link on archive.org to a certain commercial compiler that rhymes with Morland? Is there any case where archive.org links are not allowed?
If Vogons is concerned about copyright lawsuits, why are there over 100 references to WinWorldPC "inducing copyright violation"? You could easily find and remove them. But they stay up because apparently the mods farts were blowing in the other direction that day? I don't see the reasoning.
I would also like clarification on whether linking to ebay items is allowed. I don't sell anything on ebay. People have asked "Where can I get X?" I post an ebay link. Gets deleted for "promotion" even though it's obviously not mine. But I regularly see other people posting ebay links.
Asking for more consistent enforcement seems dumb. There are good reasons to disallow links to copyrighted materials and links to marketplaces. More consistent enforcement would probably just lead to less mods willing to look the other way when the usefulness of the post content outweighs the small risk.
In other words: no one likes a snitch.
ZellSF wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:38:Asking for more consistent enforcement seems dumb. There are good reasons to disallow links to copyrighted materials and links to marketplaces. More consistent enforcement would probably just lead to less mods willing to look the other way when the usefulness of the post content outweighs the small risk.
In other words: no one likes a snitch.
Yes, how stupid of me to want to know what the actual forum rules are. I should just continue to post whatever I want and make more work for the mods.
I always felt the rules were here to protect both the users and the forum from trouble.
In some situations, however, exceptions can be made.
For example, linking to a harmless Shareware CD on a site that otherwise hosts commercial software, too.
While the CD itself might be considered ex-commercial, the rules of the old Shareware association said that the makers/sellers of compilations
are not allowed to charge more than the medium costs.
So for a floppy, that was $5 at maximum (I vaguely remember). Back then. So sellers of $30 Shareware CDs were breaking the rules themselves in some way already and have no right to complain.
If they would (they nolonger exist), they could be counter sued for their questionable business.
Edit: I'm no lawyer or economist, of course. Gratefully. Otherwise I'd be totally messed up, perhaps.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:48:Yes, how stupid of me to want to know what the actual forum rules are. I should just continue to post whatever I want and make more work for the mods.
just come down - its not worth in any form
I understand how comforting it can feel to see some bright line delineating exactly what is OK and what is not in every situation, and unfortunately I cannot offer that to you here. I know the vagueness of some of the rules and the perceived or actual inconsistencies in moderation can be frustrating at times, but the lack of prescriptiveness is deliberate: it allows community norms to evolve organically over time instead of ossifying around some bible-like rulebook; it offers community members more freedom to experiment, make mistakes, and learn by experience instead of by rote; and it frees moderators from dealing with the sort of rules lawyering that appears to be happening here.
The long and short of it is: if the lack of an exhaustive rulebook with explicit dos and don’ts is going to make you upset, this probably is not the right place for you.
To answer some of your follow-ups:
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:07:So I can post a direct link on archive.org to a certain commercial compiler that rhymes with Morland? Is there any case where archive.org links are not allowed?
I am sorry if my previous answer was unclear, here it is again: Since there is an open question regarding whether IA is operating fully inside the law in the way they acquire and lend copies of software, direct links to software hosted there are still typically removed, simply for avoidance of doubt.
In other words: you probably should not do that.
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:07:If Vogons is concerned about copyright lawsuits, why are there over 100 references to WinWorldPC "inducing copyright violation"? You could easily find and remove them. But they stay up because apparently the mods farts were blowing in the other direction that day? I don't see the reasoning.
The safe harbour provisions of US and EU law do not require proactive monitoring for infringing content, but they do require action once it is known. Not all instances of discussions here involving WinWorldPC are infringing, and it is not tractable for volunteer moderators to review every single post on VOGONS (which is why those safe harbour provisions exist). If you would like to understand more, I might suggest reading the relevant laws and/or speaking to an IP attorney. Again, to be clear: I am not interested in engaging in rules lawyering on this, so please don’t come back and say “well the law only requires exactly X” or whatever, it will not be a productive use of your time.
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:07:I would also like clarification on whether linking to ebay items is allowed. I don't sell anything on ebay. People have asked "Where can I get X?" I post an ebay link. Gets deleted for "promotion" even though it's obviously not mine. But I regularly see other people posting ebay links.
I don’t know for sure, but the implication in this message is that you feel you are somehow being targeted or persecuted. If so, I assure you that this is not the case. Moderators are extremely disinterested in dealing with any possible fallout from auction sales gone bad, nor does anyone want this place to be overrun by sellers trying to exploit it as a sales channel. Moderators have discretion to decide whether or not someone appears to be engaging in auction promotion.
Yes, it’s my fault.
My overall impression then is that the "rules" are not actually rules and just excuses for mods to edit posts. As such, I will continue to post links as I see fit. Delete them if you feel like it.
If Vogons decides to establish actual forum rules, let me know and I will follow them.
This thread is a bit confusing to me. The OP has clear and specific questions yet nobody wants to actually answer them. Many are posting all kinds of "political babble" of the world and how sky is maybe not blue on some other planets while completely ignoring the actual questions of the OP.
Let me make it more simple to those, who find OP's questions too "complicated".
Links to WinWorldPC? Yay or nay?
Links to archive.org? Yay or nay?
(And as it has been touched here during discussion) Links to ebay? Yay or nay?
I've tried to decipher the little information that has been provided here and has been also discussed over the years and would suggest such answers - clearly and with no ambiguity:
Links to WinWolrdPC? Nay
Links to archive.org? Nay
Links to ebay? Nay for ongoing auctions, Yay for ones that are inactive. (This has been discussed earlier and this is how i have understood it.)
So was it so hard? I think not.
It can always be discussed to change the standing, but it should be clear at any moment, where the currently agreed line lies.
If some one (especially mods/admins) find me having a wrong understanding of this, please come and correct me. I'm not a mod or admin, just an average retro-computer-loving Joe.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - And i intend to get every last bit out of it even after loading every damn driver!
This is how I've been handling the situations:
Not every link to archive.org or winworldpc have been removed in the past. If I see a link to a driver disc or other obvious "safe" software, it will not be removed.
Snover wrote on 2022-07-14, 08:53:Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 06:07:I would also like clarification on whether linking to ebay items is allowed. I don't sell anything on ebay. People have asked "Where can I get X?" I post an ebay link. Gets deleted for "promotion" even though it's obviously not mine. But I regularly see other people posting ebay links.
I don’t know for sure, but the implication in this message is that you feel you are somehow being targeted or persecuted. If so, I assure you that this is not the case. Moderators are extremely disinterested in dealing with any possible fallout from auction sales gone bad, nor does anyone want this place to be overrun by sellers trying to exploit it as a sales channel. Moderators have discretion to decide whether or not someone appears to be engaging in auction promotion.
On Ebay auction links we've normally removed links to ongoing auctions from private sellers if they are posted in the context of promotion. That goes for any site, not just Ebay, even amibay and VCF. So what is the context of promotion? In my view it's someone making a post just to promote the items, or the links make little context in the thread, or that it is obvious that the poster have some self interest in posting the links.
Links to closed auctions are OK, and I would also say that in some contexts links to ongoing auctions are OK. For example, someone asks for help to find good soldering equipment/accessories, then links to Ebay/stores to acquire said item would be fine.
I don't know the context of your post trying to help out the individual asking "where can I get item X" (retro computer equipment), but generally since those type of requests are quite rare and appear random here on Vogons I tend to let any links pass as long as it's done in good faith to help the person asking and not blatant promotion. Ofc if there suddenly started to come alot of "where can I get X" threads, then it would be another matter that would require supervision.
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:16:My overall impression then is that the "rules" are not actually rules and just excuses for mods to edit posts. As such, I will continue to post links as I see fit. Delete them if you feel like it.
If Vogons decides to establish actual forum rules, let me know and I will follow them.
Surely its really not that hard is it?
Is Borland C++ open-source? no.
Is Borland C++ freeware? no.
Is Borland C++ shareware? no.
Is Borland C++ in the public domain? no - Borland never explicitly put it in the public domain.
Have the copyrights on Borland C++ expired? no - you and I will probably be long dead before those copyrights expire.
Therefore you need a license from the copyright holder (currently Embarcadero) to possess, copy, modify or run Borland C++. No license, no rights.
Does WinWorld PC have a license to make and distribute unlimited copies of Borland C++? Almost certainly not so anyone downloading from there is breaking the law. Does archive.org? no - as a library they're only allowed to lend as many copies as they physically have. Libraries aren't allowed to fire up a printing press and give away free copies of the latest best seller to people on the street without explicit permission (and probably the exchange of money) from the copyright holder any more than you or I. Anyone uploading copies to archive.org without permission from Embarcadero is breaking the law as is anyone who subsequently downloads what was uploaded without permission.
So unless Embarcadero, or some entity explicitly authorized by Embarcadero, uploaded a copy of Borland C++ to archive.org under a new license any copy on archive.org is a case of copyright infringement plain and simple.
If the rule is don't tell people how to break copyright law I'd think linking to unauthorised copies of copyrighted works would be quite obviously not allowed too. Doesn't matter what site its on - if that site is distributing copyrighted works without permission don't link to it and don't point people to it.
Easy.
davidrg wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:35:Surely its really not that hard is it? […]
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:16:My overall impression then is that the "rules" are not actually rules and just excuses for mods to edit posts. As such, I will continue to post links as I see fit. Delete them if you feel like it.
If Vogons decides to establish actual forum rules, let me know and I will follow them.
Surely its really not that hard is it?
Is Borland C++ open-source? no.
Is Borland C++ freeware? no.
Is Borland C++ shareware? no.
Is Borland C++ in the public domain? no - Borland never explicitly put it in the public domain.
Have the copyrights on Borland C++ expired? no - you and I will probably be long dead before those copyrights expire.Therefore you need a license from the copyright holder (currently Embarcadero) to possess, copy, modify or run Borland C++. No license, no rights.
Does WinWorld PC have a license to make and distribute unlimited copies of Borland C++? Almost certainly not so anyone downloading from there is breaking the law. Does archive.org? no - as a library they're only allowed to lend as many copies as they physically have. Libraries aren't allowed to fire up a printing press and give away free copies of the latest best seller to people on the street without explicit permission (and probably the exchange of money) from the copyright holder any more than you or I. Anyone uploading copies to archive.org without permission from Embarcadero is breaking the law as is anyone who subsequently downloads what was uploaded without permission.
So unless Embarcadero, or some entity explicitly authorized by Embarcadero, uploaded a copy of Borland C++ to archive.org under a new license any copy on archive.org is a case of copyright infringement plain and simple.
If the rule is don't tell people how to break copyright law I'd think linking to unauthorised copies of copyrighted works would be quite obviously not allowed too. Doesn't matter what site its on - if that site is distributing copyrighted works without permission don't link to it and don't point people to it.
Easy.
Has Embarcadero authorized archive.org to host Borland C++? No, but somehow archive.org has "safe harbor" and it's legal. Yet we are not "allowed" to link to it on Vogons. Yet there are many links to copyrighted software on archive.org on Vogons.
Not so easy, is it?
vetz wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:34:I don't know the context of your post trying to help out the individual asking "where can I get item X" (retro computer equipment), but generally since those type of requests are quite rare and appear random here on Vogons I tend to let any links pass as long as it's done in good faith to help the person asking and not blatant promotion. Ofc if there suddenly started to come alot of "where can I get X" threads, then it would be another matter that would require supervision.
The poster was saying ESS Solo1 cards were expensive and difficult to find. I replied with "here's one on ebay for $20" or whatever. Link gets removed for "promotion." But then it's perfectly fine for me to reply with an exact ebay search term to find the same item.
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:47:davidrg wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:35:Surely its really not that hard is it? […]
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:16:My overall impression then is that the "rules" are not actually rules and just excuses for mods to edit posts. As such, I will continue to post links as I see fit. Delete them if you feel like it.
If Vogons decides to establish actual forum rules, let me know and I will follow them.
Surely its really not that hard is it?
Is Borland C++ open-source? no.
Is Borland C++ freeware? no.
Is Borland C++ shareware? no.
Is Borland C++ in the public domain? no - Borland never explicitly put it in the public domain.
Have the copyrights on Borland C++ expired? no - you and I will probably be long dead before those copyrights expire.Therefore you need a license from the copyright holder (currently Embarcadero) to possess, copy, modify or run Borland C++. No license, no rights.
Does WinWorld PC have a license to make and distribute unlimited copies of Borland C++? Almost certainly not so anyone downloading from there is breaking the law. Does archive.org? no - as a library they're only allowed to lend as many copies as they physically have. Libraries aren't allowed to fire up a printing press and give away free copies of the latest best seller to people on the street without explicit permission (and probably the exchange of money) from the copyright holder any more than you or I. Anyone uploading copies to archive.org without permission from Embarcadero is breaking the law as is anyone who subsequently downloads what was uploaded without permission.
So unless Embarcadero, or some entity explicitly authorized by Embarcadero, uploaded a copy of Borland C++ to archive.org under a new license any copy on archive.org is a case of copyright infringement plain and simple.
If the rule is don't tell people how to break copyright law I'd think linking to unauthorised copies of copyrighted works would be quite obviously not allowed too. Doesn't matter what site its on - if that site is distributing copyrighted works without permission don't link to it and don't point people to it.
Easy.
Has Embarcadero authorized archive.org to host Borland C++? No, but somehow archive.org has "safe harbor" and it's legal. Yet we are not "allowed" to link to it on Vogons. Yet there are many links to copyrighted software on archive.org on Vogons.
Not so easy, is it?
Safe harbour just means archive.org can't be sued for things illegally uploaded by users without archives.orgs knowledge or permission as long as archive.org removes those things when they're notified. The upload form on archive.org specifically says only to upload things "you have the right to share" for this reason.
It does not make it legal for users to upload those things and it does not make it legal for other users to download those things. Downloading copyrighted works from anywhere without an explicit license from the copyright holder to do so is copyright infringement.
If its under copyright then no license, no rights.
Edit: And something is either under copyright or not. If it is under copyright then you need a license and that license tells you what you can and can not do. There is no such thing as abandonware. Copyrights only ever disappear when either the copyright holder explicitly gives them up (putting the copyrighted work in the public domain), or the copyright expires after whatever absurd term they're good for is up. Doesn't matter if the copyright holder dies/goes out of business/forgets they hold the copyright, the copyright still exists and so you still need a license from the copyright holder.
davidrg wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:54:Safe harbour just means archive.org can't be sued for things illegally uploaded by users without archives.orgs knowledge or perm […]
Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:47:davidrg wrote on 2022-07-14, 09:35:Surely its really not that hard is it? […]
Surely its really not that hard is it?
Is Borland C++ open-source? no.
Is Borland C++ freeware? no.
Is Borland C++ shareware? no.
Is Borland C++ in the public domain? no - Borland never explicitly put it in the public domain.
Have the copyrights on Borland C++ expired? no - you and I will probably be long dead before those copyrights expire.Therefore you need a license from the copyright holder (currently Embarcadero) to possess, copy, modify or run Borland C++. No license, no rights.
Does WinWorld PC have a license to make and distribute unlimited copies of Borland C++? Almost certainly not so anyone downloading from there is breaking the law. Does archive.org? no - as a library they're only allowed to lend as many copies as they physically have. Libraries aren't allowed to fire up a printing press and give away free copies of the latest best seller to people on the street without explicit permission (and probably the exchange of money) from the copyright holder any more than you or I. Anyone uploading copies to archive.org without permission from Embarcadero is breaking the law as is anyone who subsequently downloads what was uploaded without permission.
So unless Embarcadero, or some entity explicitly authorized by Embarcadero, uploaded a copy of Borland C++ to archive.org under a new license any copy on archive.org is a case of copyright infringement plain and simple.
If the rule is don't tell people how to break copyright law I'd think linking to unauthorised copies of copyrighted works would be quite obviously not allowed too. Doesn't matter what site its on - if that site is distributing copyrighted works without permission don't link to it and don't point people to it.
Easy.
Has Embarcadero authorized archive.org to host Borland C++? No, but somehow archive.org has "safe harbor" and it's legal. Yet we are not "allowed" to link to it on Vogons. Yet there are many links to copyrighted software on archive.org on Vogons.
Not so easy, is it?
Safe harbour just means archive.org can't be sued for things illegally uploaded by users without archives.orgs knowledge or permission as long as archive.org removes those things when they're notified. The upload form on archive.org specifically says only to upload things "you have the right to share" for this reason.
It does not make it legal for users to upload those things and it does not make it legal for other users to download those things. Downloading copyrighted works from anywhere without an explicit license from the copyright holder to do so is copyright infringement.
If its under copyright then no license, no rights.
Edit: And something is either under copyright or not. If it is under copyright then you need a license and that license tells you what you can and can not do. There is no such thing as abandonware. Copyrights only ever disappear when either the copyright holder explicitly gives them up (putting the copyrighted work in the public domain), or the copyright expires after whatever absurd term they're good for is up. Doesn't matter if the copyright holder dies/goes out of business/forgets they hold the copyright, the copyright still exists and so you still need a license from the copyright holder.
Are libraries and archives infringing on copyright?
How I post content is if they are legally free/shareware/open source things, I will only and simply link a site which is not known for breaking commercial laws. For example, if I had to provide a patch or something from WinWorld which is both legal and free, I would just download it and link it here. Part of it is because the link was once removed for me because of the WinWorld site wording, and the patch was in no way a warez.
Also what I noticed is IA is semi-tolerable here, and I happily accept it. I don't post links to a "rarely available game" from IA but I link IA for things such as drivers or a shareware/free CD.
If I had to say if the Vogons laws are logical, I should say yes. They cannot inspect every link, so the user can take the responsibility to share things carefully
previously known as Discrete_BOB_058
