Disclaimers and liability

[kendrick]

Hey Lawrence, is there any verbiage on your page for the purpose of covering our asses? That last flare-up on the RGB board made me wonder if it wouldn't be meaningful (or even necessary) for a little paragraph on the main page letting people know that we're not responsible for damage or injury if they follow our bad advice. I mean, the experienced among us all know that there's a real chance for injury or damage without the minimum level of precaution. But any yahoo off the street could go and kill himself discharging a CRT and all of a sudden me and Phreak are looking at subpeona paperwork.

Just wanted to float the idea while it was fresh in my head.

-KKC

[phreak97]

that is an extremely good point:s
have we got anything to protect us?

[viletim]

great. more legal disclamers and microsoft style licence agreements...just what everyone needs.

I wouldn't let it worry you though... If occurrences like you describe were commonplace then usenet/message boards would ceace to fuction. Besides, if you give obviously bad advice in a public forum then you usualy hear about it pretty quickly.

if you're paranoid you could always put a disclamer in your .sig

[NFG]

If you want to protect yourselfs work a disclaimer into your sig.  I'm of the impresion that anyone who thinks a bunch of amateurs are any kind of authoritive source deserves to fry.  

All the gamesx.com pages have a disclaimer on the bottom, but more so people don't assume that everything they read is accurate than to protect my ass. We operate across the universe now, the internet makes legalistic disclaimers worthless.  

[Endymion]

We operate across the universe now, the internet makes legalistic disclaimers worthless.

Mork calling Orson. Come in, Orson. Mork calling Orson . . .

[Vertigo]

"flare-up"?

What did I miss?  :huh:  

[kendrick]

Nothing major. Minor war of words on the RGB board after a semantic disagreement. I think it's a little saddening how a friendly safety tip got misinterpreted as a personal slight, but that's just my point of view on it.

-KKC

[atom]

Yeah, seeing as how Lawrence is in Japan. It doesnt matter that I electocute my testicles off when trying to mod my TV for RGB. Overseas lawsuits exist, but are powerless.

[phreak97]

lawrence is in queensland, australia.

[NFG]

It's true!  I moved!  I'm in Brisbane now.

[atom]

Oh yeah, top of the morning to ya! Put another shrimp on the barbie, mate!
If anyone cares, I have moved too. I now live on Queen St instead of Henley St. What a coincidence that is. What a small world...

Now a little more on topic, for my A+ class in college I had to do a paper on ethics and the internet. When doing so I came across this rather hilarious webpage that has to do with overseas lawsuits. http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/

[Adeptus]

Very amusing site

However, I would say that while their actions are not illegal (in Sweden), they are unethical... did you make this distinction in your paper?

[NFG]

I'd argue that they're only unethical from a business point of view.  From a "let's be nice" POV they're doing a great service.  For years I relied on bittorrent and sites like thepiratebay.  There's a big problem in the old notion of copyrights and artificial scarcities in the face of unlimited free bits.  thepiratebay may not be the answer to the entertainment dinosaur, but IMO they're doing more good than the MPAA with their ceaseless lawsuits, price-fixing and lobbying.

[phreak97]

/me backs lawrence

[kendrick]

I'll try to keep it under 10,000 words here... It'd be nice if we could apply the shareware or freeware model of licensing to all media, now that we're on the cusp of being able to download damned near anything. Under this model, you can have any media you want, completely free. If you like what you get, you make a donation (based largely on your income) to the people who made the media. Popular stuff gets genuine support, unpopular stuff gets no support.

Two problems with this; under this model, you need a huge capital investment to get any media made, which means only people with deep pockets can ever make a game or a movie. Also, since stuff is funded based on generosity and popularity alone, stuff with artistic or historical merit gets left behind, and all of a sudden the only media left is porn.

Of course, this applies to the discussion of lawsuits based on intellectual theft, as opposed to those based on negligence and loss of actual property. That latter type of lawsuit will probably never change.

-KKC

[atom]

Actually I decided to leave anything about morality out of my paper. Kind of wierd for a paper with "ethics" in the title. I simply came up with all sorts of controversial issues that have to with computers and the actions that the (U.S.) government has taken against them. I then gave criticism on the actions. My professor did tell me he wished I touched on what I thought about it with my conclusion, but oh well i still got an A.

I think the Pirate Bay is great because they didnt cave in to all the intimidation they recieved. I admit, when I was younger I was into a lot of piracy. I used to have a HUGE warez site full of apps and games. This was when I was 13. If I had ever recieved a cease and desist letter I would have crapped my pants and took down the whole site immediately. What angers me is that last year  I saw Nintendo shut down a lot of Zelda fan games, of course for copyright infringement. I think thats pretty crappy as I don't see much harm in people making a tribute to their great series. But they chose to leave ZELDA CLASSIC standing. If you guys dont know what Zelda Classic is, it is a full clone of the first game. I would have shut that down and left the others.

In my paper, I showed another weakness of these anti-piracy groups like the ISDA. http://www.cherryroms.com This is a great site and at one point they pretty much had every snes dump on their site. The ISDA sent them a cease and desist, and cherry roms asked for a list of the companies they represent, and the games which belong to those companies. ISDA represents NOA and Nintendo. Super Metroid US & JP have been removed, but Secam Metroid remains. I find that funny! All of their games are like that. You can still find betas, wierd revisions, some hacks, and a bunch of other great games.

[Adeptus]

There's a big problem in the old notion of copyrights and artificial scarcities in the face of unlimited free bits.

I agree actually. On the one hand, the content creators (ie depending on the media - musicians, programmers, actors) should get something for their work. On the other hand, how much goes into the pockets of the company and their shareholders? And in the case of the internet, there is little cost for data transfer, and no packaging/physical media cost. Look at the mp3 pay sites. Usually around 99c a song (or more) - great compared to a single, but when you add up an album's worth, it starts looking not so great.



On a related topic... Someone in Australian government has finally decided that our copyright laws need looking at, as almost everyone is breaking the law as it stands.

Ever copied a music CD you legally own to your computer/MP3 player/backup CD for the car?
Ever videotaped a TV show to watch later?
You just broke the law.  :huh:
(I wonder where this leaves PVRs like Foxtel's iQ? It's offered by the broadcaster, but does it break the copyright of the programs being watched?)

Don't know when they'll actually decide anything, but they have announced their intentions to revise it. Buzzwords like 'fair use' are being thrown around, and the big entertainment companies are getting upset...  :rolleyes:

[phreak97]

personally i think the only kind of piracy that should be illegal is the kind that gives monitary profit to it's distributer.
piracy is inevitable, at the very least they should take an extremely good look at the current laws against piracy. i dont know a single person who hasnt broken piracy laws in some way as the laws stand now.

[atom]

Ever copied a music CD you legally own to your computer/MP3 player/backup CD for the car?
Ever videotaped a TV show to watch later?
You just broke the law.  :huh:
(I wonder where this leaves PVRs like Foxtel's iQ? It's offered by the broadcaster, but does it break the copyright of the programs being watched?)

Yeah, we have fair use here in the States. One legal backup of all your pwned media. Stuff like TiVO and other PVR's I believe however are now considered illegal, or at least thats what their pushing in legislation. But I actually agree with the companies there because newer PVR's rip out the advertisements, and the only way television makes money is through advertisement.

[Adeptus]

In our case over here, one of the major pay TV companies, Foxtel, is offering a PVR for use with their digital service.
My question is, do they have the 'power' to authorize home viewers to record the programs they are broadcasting? Or are they assisting people to break copyright?

[NFG]

You'll probably find the Fox PVR is locked up tight, with overly restrictive terms and operation.  There are going to be shows you simply cannot record, limitations to how long you can keep the show or limits to how long you can watch them.  I'd also watch for things missing that all other PVRs include, like the ability to skip commercials.

Note that I haven't actually checked into the Foxtel box, but typically this is how big companies think.

[Aidan]

Foxtel's part of News International, right? If that's the case, then look towards another of NI's systems, the Sky Plus box. That'll give you an idea of what's already been rolled out.

The Sky Plus system records the content with the encryption and access control still in place. If it's pay per view content, then it's automatically removed after so many days. This way they can remain inside their licensing conditions (for the content), and there's no issues with copyright, as you can't get the content off the box anyhow.