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

category: residue [glöplog]
added on the 2008-06-30 21:25:00 by _-_-__ _-_-__
thats altso very true, however, i found that the guy is Danish apparently which means that should there be a case, it would be started in our jurisdiction. Altso most European low are modelled after the English common law, so there are a lot of common denominators.

in your example, if the baker doesnt give you the bread you can go to the police and claim fraud, but without any evidence of the transaction they have a "no U" case, and will drop it like a bad habbit. (well they will do that on the amount of money involved actually, but the principle applies widely)

In this case i suspect that he can actually document either a first copy, or the material used to create the files in question, where i guess that you have nothing to show for the agreement that holds any validity in court.

Even if you have witnesses, it would be argued that they were not impartial to the contract.

Im not trying to tell you what to do, im asking you why you are willing to take the risk for no gain or actual loss to the scene or its history. All i get from this is a childish insisting because he is being an asshole, and i agree, he IS being one, and a fraud merchant, and that is the part of it that would have me on my marks. But its your server, and it will be your problem or not...lets wait and see.

But i belive the easyer solution is to delete it and forget about him. He properbly wont find free hosting in relation to the scene ever again.

added on the 2008-06-30 21:33:16 by NoahR NoahR
gasman. oh im sorry i didnt realise that he is releasing his tracks as open source. So anyone is according to his release entitled to change his files, rearrange them, rerelease them? I obviously stand corrected, i thought it were music.

_-_-__ ..im not sure i get the point of the example?!
added on the 2008-06-30 21:37:35 by NoahR NoahR
iblis, you're usually pretty good at reading patterns. The opensource discussion was about examples of contracts that are not done on signed documents.

The nabokov example is about artworks and artists who desire to destroy them.
added on the 2008-06-30 21:41:24 by _-_-__ _-_-__
a fair example, and a very interresting one, i never heard of that before. So at the core youre arguing that it is in "public interrest" (historical documentation) to keep his files online?

the thing with contracts is that an oral one is said to be accepted by court, but i have never seen a court accept such a case, except in the case of witnesses, but that is in relation to other harder evidence, always. As gasman has demonstrated, it doesnt mean it hasnt happened. I read up on law merely to know my rights and to be able to protect myself against the state. (dont ever play a game about money, with rules you dont have some understanding of :)
added on the 2008-06-30 21:55:49 by NoahR NoahR
IANAL but we offered him an easy solution to resolve this. He ignored that offer. As far as I'm aware of most judges don't like it when they hear that a case could have been resolved before going to court but wasn't because the other side was unwilling. Seriously, I think he doesn't have a case.

Also it's totally unnecessary to go to court. The guy should just use his common sense and answer knos' question. It would be nice if he would come back to this thread and reply here because I'm actually wondering what he has to say on the matter now.
added on the 2008-06-30 22:17:25 by sparcus sparcus
I'm just saying that at some point an author may harbor feelings about his artworks that are contrary to what the public good (which copyrights intend to protect as well, by protecting authors) demands.

There are clauses that protect artworks from being bought by people in order to be destroyed. To protect them from vandalism. It's a lot more ambiguous when the author himself want to perform those acts. My personal view (not scene.org's view) is that the author does not have life and death, god-like power on its creation once it has been disseminated and has infected other people.

That's merely an extension of my view of artworks as "message bottles in the sea."

Creation, distribution of an artwork in some cases have a quantifiable cost for the community.

The author is not the only one bearing the efforts.. and you might even argue that an author who seek to see his work widely disseminated using the resources of others shall reimburse these resources if he wants to see the wheel of time turned in the reverse direction.

added on the 2008-06-30 22:23:08 by _-_-__ _-_-__
And as Sparcus said, indeed, all we needed was a reason, a discussion rather than insults and accusations of illegal activities.
added on the 2008-06-30 22:24:42 by _-_-__ _-_-__
Sparcus I actually agree with you, sans the namecalling. But nobody have answered why they are willing to even risk it, perhaps at the expense of scene.org. Atm internet jura is still very murky, and local laws apply, but if you follow the copyright and distribution cases it is obvious that the court more or less by default rules in favour of the copyright holder.

can you document that he himself voluntarily uploaded those files, with the intend of making them publicly avaible through scene.org? you and i both know that it is the case, but if it somehow leaves the realm of the demoscene, i would insist that odds are against scene.org without such evidence. What keeps him from claiming you "stole" it if you have no evidence to the contrary?

So call it Anal all you want to, but i still cannot fathom why anyone would take such a risk with a potentially unstable and evidently dishonest internet troll. I can underrstand the "public interrest" arguement, but i doubt it will hold up for some anonymous internet nobody.

added on the 2008-06-30 22:32:36 by NoahR NoahR
can you document that he himself voluntarily uploaded those files, with the intend of making them publicly avaible through scene.org?

As far as I know, he read and accepted the submission-agreement before uploading, so yes. The exact wording of that agreement I cannot recall though, but I'm guessing either Knos or Sparcus can dig that up.
added on the 2008-06-30 22:38:47 by gloom gloom
But is that legally binding Gloom? Can an IP be used for anything other than identifying the person paying for the connection?

I think IRAA has burned their hands several times on that approach. So my reasoning is, if IRAA cannot clearly prove that the IP owner is altso the IP user, -and several cases has been dismissed on this-, will an IP adress from which a click on "yes i read and understand yadayada..."
prove that he did infact upload those tracks himself?

Havoc..i subsribe to the same ideal. If you put it out there, its out there, live with it.. But jura and life, or even fairness is only superficially connected.

Law and fairness are seperate entities entirely, a lesson i learned the hard way. im simply trying to prevent potential grief because thats the kind of asshole that i am, but ill just shut up, rejoice
added on the 2008-06-30 23:09:54 by NoahR NoahR
Gloom: Sure, here are the interesting parts from the form he signed:


[X] Scene.org staff are hereby allowed to use my/our productions on future publications such as archive collection CDs without further written agreement so long as they are not for profit.


[X] I agree to follow the rules of scene.org and uphold the quality from which scene.org is known of. The rules can be found at http://www.scene.org/ftp/.
added on the 2008-06-30 23:10:11 by sparcus sparcus
So my reasoning is, if IRAA cannot clearly prove that the IP owner is altso the IP user, -and several cases has been dismissed on this-, will an IP adress from which a click on "yes i read and understand yadayada..." prove that he did infact upload those tracks himself?

So, you think that because "Someone else must have used my wifi connection to download music" has worked as a defence, then "Someone else must have used my wifi connection to sign up to an online service in my name to distribute my music" is also going to fly? I'd love to be on that jury.

Anyhow... for all this talk of "is it worth the risk?", you're missing the point that there IS no risk yet. There's no legal dispute yet. At this stage, this is *a guy shouting on the internet*. If it ever does turn into a legal dispute, I'm sure scene.org will evaluate the risks then.
added on the 2008-07-01 01:14:04 by gasman gasman
He's not danish, he's norwegian :)
added on the 2008-07-01 06:23:47 by leijaa leijaa
In fact, *all* guys shouting on the internet are Norwegians!
added on the 2008-07-01 08:09:03 by gloom gloom
You never said anything more true :)
added on the 2008-07-01 08:42:45 by leijaa leijaa
added on the 2008-07-02 00:11:12 by tmplog tmplog
BB Image

welcome back anonymous coward
now do you dare to reveal your identity and explain us what's exactly going on ?
BB Image
BB Image
BB Image
added on the 2008-07-02 00:36:51 by Preacher Preacher
Off topic: I've had an encounter with one archive when I asked for some shit made by me (which I came across when googling) to be removed. It wasn't a big deal that they didn't do it, but that they didn't ever response to my original e-mail pissed and still pisses me off. Instead of they changed my nationality from unknown (better than fine to me) to Swedish and I have no clue where they got that idea, as I am not Swedish - not that I have anything against the beloved Swedes. Being a "Swede" is still ok, but being totally ignored is not.
added on the 2008-07-02 02:13:56 by zefyros zefyros
Just destroy the fucking book! Not caring about dead people made the world the shit that it is today.
added on the 2008-07-02 06:06:27 by xernobyl xernobyl
This thread is now about being a "Swede"
added on the 2008-07-02 06:38:06 by hollowman hollowman
rules you out then..
added on the 2008-07-02 09:43:07 by leijaa leijaa
someone should make sweded versions of demos.
added on the 2008-07-02 09:55:27 by nosfe nosfe