AmigaOS 3.9 Boing Bag #3

[LoadWB]

We are not trying to sent people from this site, but protect it. If there are original copyrighted (even patched version of the originals) in the file linked and the owner finds out, then they can have this site shut down. It's happened before. We were down for three or four days a few years ago over someone posting another person's (owner of Amiga Web Directory) event pictures.
If the Boing Bag just has the patch files and installs by patching the original files, then that would be fine.
Sucks, but this is what keeps us running. One DCMA violations letter to our ISP and we go offline.

You need a better ISP, then.  Frankly, ISPs who respond immediately and with prejudice to any supposed DMCA notice are pansies.

There are strict requirements to DMCA notices, and 90% of a random sampling from last year (no cite because I am hazy today) were incomplete or otherwise invalid.  In addition, all it takes is a response to the DMCA notice from the supposed offender to get the content back on-line.  At that point, the ISP has fulfilled the safe-harbor provision and all interaction is from then on between the alleged offender and the complainant.

None the less, many ISPs just piss themselves when they get a DMCA and take down the site, anyway.  As a hosting provider myself, I put the onus on the complainant to prove the validity of the notice, not one of which has been proper, and give the alleged offender and opportunity to respond before acting.  Never has one been followed up on.

Of course, I have only dealt with the carpet-bombed MPAA and RIAA types, and even a law firm which took it upon itself to enforce copyrights which it didn't even represent.  So I cannot account for the individual copyright owner who retains legal representation for such a matter.

I have my own reservations on the whole copyright issue, but I stay within the law.  Unfortunately, it is becoming common for operators of sites which just link to offending material to be held accountable (and I mean just a link to a page, not even directly to the material.)  This means that I could potentially bomb a site by putting a link to my own, and then within my site have all sorts of copyright violations.

PCI (Payment Card Industry) regulations are just about the same, but that is a discussion for another topic and time

[LoadWB]

@Gulliver

I really appreciate your efforts with this project.. Cheers

I have to second and third this, as well.  And the comments by Piru.

Full steam ahead, fellas.  Your efforts are certainly appreciated.

[LoadWB]

The onus is not upon the copyright holder to monitor every project out there, but on the project producers to ensure they are not violating copyright.

None the less, I would suggest keeping a running score board of products for which you have received the okay to proceed with BB3, along with the official notice from the original author.  Then only include those in the archive as testing progresses.

If no one has objected so far when contacted, then kudos to you and keep moving forward with attempts at contact, but certainly do not assume cooperation.  Bear in mind that some people may be a little miffed or offended by inclusion of their work in a project, even if not-for-profit, without having been contacted first; they might not even make first contact with you.

I think the BB3 project is a great idea and would be a benefit to us all, but only if done correctly.

[LoadWB]

This is exactly why on should avoid closed source proprietary systems at all, amigaos (and morphos for that matter) is a relic of the past in this regard.

This cannot be a serious interpretation.  Open source non-proprietary systems have licensing problems as well.  In short, this is absolutely NOT a closed-source issue.

[LoadWB]

Copyright is there also without a license, it is not the same.
Opensource licenses ensures that you as a user is free to fiddle with the sources and compile as much as you like. The license might prohibit you from distributing binaries, but that is not much of an issue when there are sources that can be distributed.

But is that not ultimately the problem here?  The distribution of someone else's work without permission, whether modified or not?  Technically, the inclusion in a package modifies the program, its distribution package, and/or its intended method of installation.

Irrespective of the nit-picking, I still stand on my previous statements.  I am all for the BB3 project, provided everyone who has "contributed" gets their proper due.

[LoadWB]

Seems only pedants stuck with an Amiga whilst everyone else got a PC !

Wat?