Newzbin has arguably been the "Best" source and index listing of what is posted to BBS Newsgroups around the world. BBS stands for Bulletin Board System and almost every Internet Provider in the entire world provides access to them as part of your Internet package. Whether you're old enough to remember or not, BBS's are the Foundation of the Internet. These are the Original Internet. In many ways this is what the Internet was built on. If you had to compare it to something physical, use this example. You buy some land and build a house. That land is the Earth, your foundation. That land, that Earth, is the BBS system of Newsgroups. It's what the Internet was built on. Think of every website in existence as a "House", sitting on the land. Without getting extremely technical that's the best analogy I can give. It is a flawed analogy, it's not exactly accurate, but it's close enough.
I've been a free member and user of Newzbin for well over the last ten years (No, it's not just for pirates and hackers). in a way you could also compare BBS Newsgroups to MIRC back in the day before ICQ and Yahoo Instant Messenger and Skype. Think of Newzbin as a site that would tell you what everyone was talking about in various channels on MIRC. That's what Newzbin was. You had to either be a paid member of the site or you had to be INVITED by a paid member and were given a basic free membership. It wasn't always "Invite Only", but when they switched to that system everyone had to make new accounts and if you weren't already paid or re-invited you were locked out, sorry about your bad luck. Luckily, as I was a free member, a friend (who was just a random Internet stranger at the time) re-invited me and I was allowed back in.
Some people, namely those who used Newzbin's service, are going to greatly suffer because of this. It was an invaluable tool to help people find needed information quickly and easily. Any information at all from examples such as "Legal Statutes from cases dating back to the Early 19th Century" to "Online Legal Copies of Every Book in the Library of Congress" to "Discussions being held by College Physics Professors" and also "Doctors Sharing Research Up-To-The-Minute". It was as much a listing of communications as these very same forums are. BBS Newsgroups are nothing more then that. People talking back and forth in topics just like this. The exception is back then our ability to post and reply wasn't set up like this, so every post made, whether it be a new topic or a reply to that topic where it's own "Thread". Newzbin helped organize those threads and posts and show you where things were so you could quickly find them.
Sadly how-ever, as with many technological innovations in our day, some people chose to use these for evil purposes. Even though these "Newsgroups" are intended for communication, and to provide a backbone for the rest of the Internet, they are also used to host and share files with limited "retention". Every ISP on the GLOBE must have space on the BBS Newsgroups for their systems to work. I don't know why or how it's set up exactly, I don't work for the cable company so I can't tell you why they even have to be there at all, but they do. More and more ISP's these days Are Limiting or Flat Out DENYING their customers access to these Newsgroups. If your ISP isn't giving you access to them, you're not getting everything you're paying for and you should call them and DEMAND Access as a Paying Customer. Far be it from me to tell you what to do, it's no skin off my shoulder if you enjoy wasting your money, but I know I don't like wasting mine.
When I say some people use Newsgroups and by default the listings on Newzbin for "Evil" I mean piracy of course. Newsgroups go by the more common term Usenet. Still, Newzbin as a website did NOT HOST OR SHARE ANY FILES. All it did was tell people where files were at, in what groups they were listed, and what the file names were. It did this because technically these posts on various Newsgroups were the same as the other topics or "threads" or "conversations", it just so happens some of them are pieces, usually .rar's, of games or movies. The same kinds of things that can be found on any Torrent site.
Newzbin did nothing wrong. People did have LEGITIMATE USES for it, just like they do Fogbugs, or Photobucket, or many other sites. Newzbin was closed because they owe money to people I believe. I didn't know anything about any of this or it's legal trouble before finding THIS ARTICLE when I tried to log-on to Newzbin today.
If you know or heard anything about this or find a site that talks a little more in depth, please let me know as I'd like to find out all I can about it being shut down.
Hopefully some of you out there see this for what it is regardless of what the causes are. Another place being closed because someone thinks they're losing money over piracy and pressured some Government to take action. Newzbin wasn't just a site for pirates or other thieves. It had real value. Eventually, slowing, this is going to turn into a legal and virtual "Witch-hunt" by Governments to shut down more and more sites limiting knowledge and people's freedoms Online.
5 edits and the final rendition makes precious little sense...
I haven't even gotten into my 'feelings' about actual piracy. I'm talking about the way people like to dance around what their interpretation of it is and defend or excuse what they think is their right to steal and how the expression is so true...'There is no honor among thieves'.
Hey, when everything I say is interpreted in the manner of 'you're a damned no good pirate' with no 'honor' (seriously, I grew out of thinking paladins were anything short of mindless zealots 20 years ago). I tend to dance a little.
"I'm talking about the way people like to dance around what their interpretation of it is and defend or excuse what they think is their right to steal and how the expression is so true...'There is no honor among thieves'."
Tell me what has been stolen then. Your right to a second sale when I spill coffee on my hard drive? Please. The law is not sacrosanct. Tell me you've never driven over 55.
Okay, seriously, the density here is like a black hole. Or maybe a black and white hole. Let me know when you return to the real world.
By the way Po, nice shiny copyrighted avatar - er - derivative work. You license that media from House(TM) and Paramount(R)?
I've driven over 55. I ADMIT it. And I have been pulled over. I took the ticket and didn't argue or make excuses. Then I paid it. I didn't blame the car or the fact that I was late or anything else. And I don't say that the speed limit should be 65 on this road for whatever reason legitimate or not, because I know what the law is. And that is what I am trying to say. You either disagree with the laws the way they were written and feel it's okay to pirate whether under special circumstances or what have you...or you don't. Once stance is in line with the law the other is not. But some people tend to hide behind interpretations and such instead of just saying 'I think the law sucks, it's broke, and I pirate or thinks it's okay, etc.'
And yeah, you would be stealing my right to a second sale. It's my product. I did all the work on it. I chose to package and sell it a certain way and I never told you it was coffee proof. If it was my intent to waste my funds and resources and not make a dime, I would have given it away and not applied for a copyright or any other protection from abuse of reproduction and/or piracy. In fact, I count on you liking it so freakin much that if something does happen to it that is not my fault you will want to replace it because it's that damn good of a product. Which is because I spent the money and time to make it such.
* the avatar falls under fair use if it were original work I altered. However, it is high resolution vector work that I did in photoshop in order to make it 'crisp' for the avatar and which I still have the original psd files for....but feel free to file a complaint with both. I will wait with baited breath along with other 20k users of the STO forums that have copies of just about every Star Trek image you could imagine for an avatar.
Actually, no, its not fair use, just like slash fiction you wrote yourself using their characters isn't fair use, but its nice of them to turn a blind eye. If you couldn't recognize their IP you might have a point, but hey, then it wouldn't be such a cool avatar.
As you said, no honor among thieves and everyone bends over backwards to say why their use is okay and everyone elses is wrong.
You sold me a license. I don't need another one.
Yes, it is [you can thank US Copyright Law for the opportunity to confuse people with fair-use and fan art dispensations].
No-one is accusing anyone of being a Pirate here....it's a debate/discussion/disagreement about what constitutes piracy.
However...
When Stardock's accepted and established interpretation of what constitutes Infringement of Stardock's copyright/s is found to occur there's a quite efficient, silent solution....
If Wincustomize says it has to come down, I would take the avatar down. I've researched Fair Use, argued it with Jafo to death (because I thought Fair Use was bullshit), and don't see a violation but am open to the possibility and willing to follow what is deemed appropriate. I never said I was 'squeaky clean'. Hell, I never said I was clean. You wanna come inside my closet and look around, I'll hold the door open.
Take your license argument to BestBuy or the creator of the software and tell them you will bring the disk right back after you have reinstalled the software because the first disk you bought got scratched.
When I buy a PC that has Windows installed I have to burn my own recovery discs. If I lose them, scratch them, damage them, I still have to pay a fee to get replacements from the PC manufacturer. Because I only get one copy. I have the license number. I paid for it. But I screwed up my disks. So I have to pay for new ones. That's the way it is. If I don't want to pay, then I go Open Source and put Ubuntu on my laptop. If I choose to steal or pirate a copy of Windows and apply my lic#, I would be breaking the law. Because that Lic# applied to THAT copy of Windows. It's that simple.
Are you accusing me of something? I thought we were having a nice friendly discussion of grey areas in the law. I bought my Stardock media legitimately through Impulse. Kind of hard to infringe when they just let you download it to your account again.
But seeing as how you are experts in fair use, I guess that media is for educational purposes or for parody and not a dilution of trademarks. Good to know. Kind of like the Strawberry Shortcake Drawing on Penny Arcade. Nobody had a problem with that line drawing of someone else's characters. There is no 'fan art' exemption in USC 17 buy you can thank non-uniform enforcement for confusing everyone of what does and does not constitute an infringing derivative work.
Ah....good old English comprehension....out the window as always....
American copyright law allows for the production, display and distribution of derivative works if they fall under a fair use exemption, 17 U.S.C. § 107
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
BTW...all you Mac fans.....Jobs screwed up right there with the name 'Apple'.
The height of his insult was he liked the Beatles so much he took their name.
Cute.
Note....{4} became a particular issue when Jobs ignored previous agreements and entered the realm of Music distribution.
By that same loose interpretation of the criteria, Penny Arcade's McFarlane's Strawberry Shortcake was protected fair use - they thought it was a parody (definitely more so than yours, too bad it was a parody of only ONE of the parties involved). It was a grey area. They still got a cease and desist for sullying the good name of Strawberry Shortcake and Hallmark.
You aren't an academic writing a research paper. You aren't making a striking commentary on pop culture. You aren't educating a class of students. It is recognizable as a trademarked character. Your point could have been made without using someone elses media as inspiration. What exactly are you parodying? Are you making some sort of insightful commentary on House that is best expressed by transposing him to a starship? Or are you parodying the Star Trek property by sticking House into it? I'm afraid I don't get it. But guess what, it would be up to the judge - in his discretion, who might take into account the fact that you aren't making any money on it - if you were worth suing.
Fan fiction, derivative works, have never been held to be automatically protected. They just generally aren't worth pursuing in court. Those protections are for people who want to discuss the work they are copying for educational purposes - so that copyright doesn't bump headfirst into the first amendment as a way of censoring people. Not to skin some forumites avatar. But you know what, its truly a gray area.
Just like not I'm not going to worry about paying some hypothetical company that might not even exist anymore for a copy of software I already licensed from them when they actually might have answered their phone and shipped out a replacement CD-ROM for the price of shipping. It's not worth worrying about THAT kind of infringement. But its just SO dishonorable.
Yes, the old I'm not threatening you but here's a nice threat. Whatever.
Or Iam commenting on how pop-culture regurgitate's it's icons (Sherlock Holmes =House Wagon Train=Star Trek) and have taken it one step further by combining the two into one massive icon and purposely used two such well known icons to show that there REALLY is a tremendous lack of originality in pop-culture....by copying them!
No. I had to use someone elses to drive my point home about the lack of originality in pop-culture.
And that is frequently the issue with parody...not every person 'gets it' and some are even offended. (eg. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - some see as an assault on great literature) The beauty is that not every person has to.
Oh give it a rest. Its not parody by any stretch. The judge wouldn't get it either. And even if its a parody of House, its not a parody of Star Trek and vice versa. The law isn't so cut and dried. The court would weigh your First Amendment rights and the social importance of your work against the predominant interest of the IP holder. You'd lose.
If you had drawn House in Sherlock Holme's garb and put it in a blog on the absence of new ideas in pop culture, you might have had a chance. Too bad you used it as a forum avatar and never mentioned it until pressed.
The copyright on Pride and Prejudice is expired. Public domain works are fair game. Who cares that some people don't like it. Jane Austin's Estate isn't going to sue.
Parody just the same, in the context I mentioned as it might be offensive.
Is this from a legal standpoint or are you now an art critic as well? How can YOU say it is or isn't a parody let alone what it is or isn't a parody of? And how can YOU dictate what others will get or see as parody?
You're the only person who has ever questioned it or 'pressed' it in all the time it has been up.
I have no issue with it.
BTW...no-one has mentioned the 'infringement of IP' with regards to the cup that 'House' is drinking out of....as that is a commercial design and thus IP rights apply to it as well.
Oh, wait....fair use again, my bad....
Your the only one who accused me of being dishonorable and biased for viewing a license as exactly what it is - a right to use a particular work that is independent of the media its shipped on. I am well aware that in practice (almost) nobody brings suit against fan art. Not that they can't and I have (I think) a pretty clear view of what is fair use and what isn't. Academic works. News stories. Encyclopedia articles. NOVEL and GROUNDBREAKING artwork whose protection outweighs the interest of the IP holder. I dare you to publish Mickey Mouse parodies on your own website.
If I should ever break a CD, and restore it from a friends original, you are free to attempt to prosecute that unlawful duplication as well. In practice, it will never happen - you have no way of knowing if it happens, you can demonstrate no losses, and an unenforceable statute is a useless statute. Publication? Unlicensed use? A completely different story.
Funny Jafo, never had any company on another end of a server tell me I wasn't allowed to sell an lp, record, tape or cd. In fact, if i sold or gave my legit copy to someone else, they had no problems using it at all. Let's see do software companies "deal" with that, nope, they claim oh no, oh no, we don't get a dime from second party transactions so no support there. It's BS and you know it. These developers and publishers want to sell their cake and eat it too and then claim everyone who thinks that is somehow a a leech or a pirate. Get real. If it's a product, developers should have no say and make no hinderance of second party transcations. If it's a license, the the loss of the original media is irrelevant and you should be able to download it from whatever source is available.
More often than not it's one or the other...not both...so all is fine and dandy.
What typically happens in these 'debates' as one side will cite the 'product' argument then inadvertently transpose circumstance to the license argument.
You buy a music CD.
You typically can forward that to whom-ever you choose with no recourse.
With a License the same MAY apply...provided it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the IP-holder that said licence does NOT now reside on/with 2 people's computers.....at the same time.
If, however there is some archaic entity hell-bent on restricting LICENCE distribution/transferal then so be it....it's likely a condition of the original product/licence purchase and thus 'binding'.
It has an inherent 'license' for my use. That use is limited.If I chuck the thing out the window I cannot expect to go somewhere and get a replacement [free] just because I still have the box it came in.
I expect to be able to get a replacement [free] instead of having to purchase it because it is the reasonable thing to do. Having to manufacture another case and instructions book and having to transport it from factory to a nearby store is a waste of effort and resources. If a legal paid download was available there would be a case about paying for replacements. But companies offering their products in digital format already allow you to make several downloads without further expense. This is not a problem with reasonable well behaved distributors. It's only traditional distributors which cause these problems by resisting the use of modern technologies and greedily embracing programmed obsolescence.
I'll grant you that copying a CD to replace a broken one might be found guilty in trial. Stranger things have been seen in trials in the United States of America.
I'll grant Posmedley that I would not feel inclined to make such act public with details if I were living in that nation. Even if I think it is the right thing to do I see no reason to put myself in a potential trial which would dry my finances even if I were found innocent.
When the company no longer sells the product. When the DRM does not let you play in your iPod the music you paid for and the company does not offer iPod compatible versions. When you have a legal and working installation and don't really need the data in the lost CD but just someone/something telling the StarForce driver that you have a license to play the game. It may be illegal to copy the data or bypass the DRM, or it may not be. But in these cases doing so is the reasonable and morally correct thing to do.
If I lived in that nation and a political party promised changes in said direction that would influence my vote. I bet I am with the majority here when wishing for a copyright law more respectful with customers.
If you don't like the EULA or agree with it, you shouldn't check you 'Agree' to the terms. The IP's intent and purpose is clear. When you agree to it with the attitude of 'Yeah, unless I scratch it then I'm calling my bud and getting another copy' you're doing so under false pretenses and breaking the law. If your going THAT route, all I am saying is OWN it and don't make excuses. The work is not independent of the media or each one would not have it's own unique license as the case with Windows. I can't take my friends copy of Windows and install it using the license from my scratched disc.
That is there choice and their right to distribute their product under their terms. Some, like WOW even allow for you to make a back up copy in EULA, but only one. Again, if you don't agree with their EULA, don't click on it. Don't buy it. But people do buy and do agree and do break the law and act as if they have the right to because they have decided the EULA is wrong and use their interpretation as their excuse to act in such a manner.
It's not like people who do this are claiming 'ignorance'. To use the 'driving 55' analogy, their not saying they didn't see the speed limit sign or couldn't read it or their speedometer was broken. Their chosing to ignore it and break the law. My point in all of this is just admit you have a lead foot instead of saying the state needs to raise the speed limit on this road.
It's their choice. It should not be their choice. I can legally disagree with current laws.
I can morally break unfair laws. Ask your founding fathers.
I can, for practical purposes, ignore unenforceable laws.
DMCA and copyright laws I disagree with. They are inmoral in their current form and aplication. They are an obstacle for pogress. And they are unenforceable in many cases.
It's not just cheap people using excuses. Venture capitalists, CEOs and scholars are dissatisfied with the current situation in one or another way.
"Mailing out patent absurdity", by Brad Feld, a venture capitalist.
"How copy protection creates pirates" by Brad Wardell, chief executive officer of Stardock.
"Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, professors of economics at Washington University in St. Louis.
Never blindly follow the law. Never blindly follow anything.
Edit : Orthography, thanks Jafo.
I'm not American but I suspect your 'fOunding' fathers may have put it...."you have the right to QUESTION Laws".
Whatever the case, you can always choose to ignore and/or break them whether they are good, bad, draconian or absurd. You WILL, however, accept the community-enforced consequences for so-doing....
....unless you are 'Niko -above the law'....
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
