scene.org acting like a criminal, refusing to remove my files

category: residue [glöplog]
i'm waiting for "pouet.net acting like a criminal, refusing to remove my thread" part
added on the 2008-06-30 19:02:13 by rmeht rmeht
I did Gargaj mate, his behaviour apparently is quite disgusting, but still whatever his reasons and his behaviour. He does -i assume- hold the rights to his own works. If he had written an exclusive distribution contract with someone, thats another thing. But atm. he has all the cards should he want to take it further, and the question is if its worth to get into some legal struggle with him over what essentially wont be missed in scene history. whatever his reasons for the demand. i mean do I really care about those reasons? no!
So it should be obvious whom i think is more childish in this, and for those unsharpened, it is not the asshole.
added on the 2008-06-30 19:05:33 by NoahR NoahR
He does -i assume- hold the rights to his own works.

Yes. That doesn't mean he can revoke a licence that he's previously granted.

the question is if its worth to get into some legal struggle with him over what essentially wont be missed in scene history.

Probably not. I'll bet that the moment this turns into an actual legal struggle rather than the rantings of a fuckwit, scene.org will back down. But for that to happen, this guy would have to explain to a lawyer what scene.org are supposed to have done wrong, which he seems profoundly unable to do.
added on the 2008-06-30 19:44:05 by gasman gasman
well thats excactly what it means Gasman unless the .org has a legally binding document with his signature signed (in some countries it must be in the presence of atleast 1 person who have nothing to gain from either party by witnessing). It doenst mean what he does is cool, or even "ok" mind you. but all the crap aside, it is his right without having to explain anything other than the fact that he wants his original works removed from the scene.org as is.

Its very anti demoscene though. Imagine if Ra suddenly concluded he didnt want his former works out on public, or if Chaos or Pet did. But thats the scene isnt it? its the voluntary spirit that keeps it afloat, always was, and i suspect no change on its way, and i altso suspect that most sceners would never make such a demand nomatter how their mood might be. I know i wouldnt, and i have some sorely embarrasing stuff on AMP!!!

added on the 2008-06-30 20:03:26 by NoahR NoahR
eebliss, you talk like you would know something about these international copyright laws. maybe you should become a lawyer since the pros tend to usually disagree.

oh and for stuff released on demoparties you can usually look up what rules there are for entering the compos.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:19:44 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
just to take an example.

if eebliss was right and some random open source coder would go nutty and yell about his code shouldn't be used in random project anymore this basically crush the open source community. since that hasn't happen even tho so many of us genuinely feel disgust toward the gnu commys i assume eebliss is totally wrong.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:24:14 by Hatikvah Hatikvah
ASS U ME ...stefan i bet you do that and little else, and the example is in no way directly comparable. Not all scene related material are released as open source. Sure, some is. This means that anyone and everyone can make changes to it and rerelease it. However, as seen in scene music quagmires as of late, you cant just take someones release add a few bells and whistels and then release it without people getting sour about it.

Is Dubmoods music opensource? i thought so, so keep your ill informed, ignorant mouth shut and contionue assuming things, it makes you look so smart. No really it does!
added on the 2008-06-30 20:28:05 by NoahR NoahR
"Intellectual property (IP) is a legal field that refers to creations of the mind such as musical, literary, and artistic works; inventions; and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, and related rights. Under intellectual property law, the holder of one of these abstract "properties" has certain exclusive rights to the creative work, commercial symbol, or invention by which it is covered."

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. Copyright is secured automatically when a work is created. A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. For example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”), phonograph disks (“phonorecords”) or both. No publication, registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. There are, however, definite advantages to registration."

has these rights of his, been handed over to Scene.org, and if so, can it be proven with the legal documents required as evidence of any transaction if it is to be binding in the real world.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:36:17 by NoahR NoahR
For someone pirating games, you sure seem to make a big deal about intellectual property.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:39:56 by Preacher Preacher
ahahaha :D
added on the 2008-06-30 20:40:35 by keops keops
I really dont get it, why not just remove the mans files if thats what he wants. All he is up to is burning bridges, why resist that?.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:41:33 by NoahR NoahR
elsewhere...doesnt matter, you are assholes so its ok im told.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:42:09 by NoahR NoahR
eeblis, I think stefan's main point is that your story about signed documents is not really complete. And his example is that opensource software don't come with a paper, signed by all parties, that make it so.

added on the 2008-06-30 20:44:31 by _-_-__ _-_-__
thats true entirely. and oral contracts are valid IF they are documented afterwards in some way, and with witnesses who are neutral to the contract. In the case of opnesource software there is often a disclaimer making it obvious for all involved that this particular software of code is free for all with no or with little restrictions, but the fact that noone has ever tried to go back on such a release, does not mean it couldnt happen or wouldnt hold in court. Arent the Opensource community much like the demoscene in spirit?, meaning that I have never heard of anything like this before on the scene. But perhaps you have?

No court i know of will touch a case of "no U" if there is no physical contract, despite oral contracts claimed validity, and then it comes back to who the original holder of said copyright. He is going to win such a case pretty much be default if he can prove the work to be his. So im wondering, why even go so far just to anoy a troll? what if he does go this far, thats all im saying. Is it worth it?
added on the 2008-06-30 20:53:48 by NoahR NoahR
point cut out. If he drags you (scene.org) to court, where he would likely win unless you have evidence for your right to publish his works on the net, such a loss would leave you (the scene.org) with the whole bill for the case.

I can only think of USA atm as a nation who doesnt have "looser pays" principle in court.
added on the 2008-06-30 20:59:27 by NoahR NoahR
Eebliss, you smell like anus and penis ~_^
added on the 2008-06-30 21:00:38 by Pegasus Pegasus
yea dont we all
added on the 2008-06-30 21:02:43 by NoahR NoahR
Iblis, if I read your point without the hyperbole, you are saying:

Because this guy is an asshole, he should be able to shit on whatever he wants.

I don't agree.
Dr Doom, I've got this huge difficulty here with your arguments that I don't see quite exactly to which case they apply to in particular.

I think it's always easier to reason with examples rather than abstractions.

In the old days, demos, modules and graphics circulated from one person to another. Starting with the author, either by mail or electronically, reaching BBS where they were in turn spread to a greater number of people.

Back then I know of the following rules:
- the works always come with proper attribution (don't rip and release them as your own)
- always ask permission before using them somewhere else
- spread, unless told otherwise

BBS got bigger. Spreading was actually rewarded there, and so does pouët.net.

Compilations were made. (Some by the BBS, some by private people, such as Gryzor's Mod's Anthology)

A lot of the old modules and graphics we have today come from ripping straight from the demos themselves. They were never originally spread in that form.

As far as I know this is very rarely done today, which is why I wonder when you say that the scene is somehow more "invasive" today than it was before.

Some of the stuff that is on archives would have been completely lost if this work had never been done. I'm not saying you should give a lot of credit or even respect the people who did it, but if they did it, it's because they felt they needed to do it. Maybe because they wanted a nice ratio on that BBS. Maybe they did it to earn respect from friends. Maybe even because it's part of being in this community. Maybe out of nostalgia, because it has been part of their lives. Maybe because they want it to last for the ages, or be able to share it with others.

I assume you want in the end to spread the demos you make or the tracks you enter in a competition.

Just you don't want it to be done before you say so. You also would like to create its page on pouet.net page yourself.

Would you be fine with us talking in public about your demos before you explicitly authorized us to do so?

added on the 2008-06-30 21:12:13 by _-_-__ _-_-__
that is not what i say, allthough it is the doom scenario that i present here. But in this particular case, i think its rather silly to run risks just to troll back at an asshole, for no other reason than he is being an asshole. And who made us the ethical internet judge dredd, handing out punishments where needed anyway?.

No amount of asshole on his part changes his rights to his own works unless he handed them over, and even then the intellectual right to the work is still his.

Example: Martin a danish painter sold a large framed picture to a gallery. The gallery owner looked at Martins abstract line and the large image and thought...hey...if i cut this in two, i can sell two martin images for twice the amount of money. Martin saw it and sued the gallery...and won even though Martin had handed over the ownership to the gallery.

These are really murky waters, and im still questioning the reason to enter, especially with an evidently money whoring troll on the other end of the stick.

added on the 2008-06-30 21:16:41 by NoahR NoahR
another day another lynching!
added on the 2008-06-30 21:19:15 by Zest Zest
Iblis. I think you should be weary of talking about law when not qualifying it in a particular country and setting.

However I have an example for you of a contract that exists between two parties yet is never documented afterwards.

When I'm entering a bakery, come forward to the cashier and ask for that baguette I see behind him/her, then I am entitled to get a baguette, in exchange for about 0.90€ of cash. Both parties have obligations to follow, and rights to uphold, yet there is no need for a written contract to be drafted, nor of witnesses.

added on the 2008-06-30 21:19:35 by _-_-__ _-_-__
In the case of opnesource software there is often a disclaimer making it obvious for all involved that this particular software of code is free for all with no or with little restrictions, but the fact that noone has ever tried to go back on such a release, does not mean it couldnt happen or wouldnt hold in court.

o rly?
added on the 2008-06-30 21:22:25 by gasman gasman
and what if she had lost her diamond ring in the dough and then in the baguette ?
added on the 2008-06-30 21:23:13 by Zest Zest