1  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  31  |   Order by default

Mar 12, 2001, 11:16pm

[View Quote] I really think you can.


> That would be like me making an ad for a major company putting it on my hard drive then whether I sell it to them or give
> it to them, if I allow them to use that ad and it gets from my hard drive to their hard drive with my permission. I relinquish all rights to that picture
> and then they have the rights to use it as they see fit. If I did not get
> paid for it and there was no contract as such that is my fault not the fault
> of company I made the picture for.

If you make a picture "for" the company, it is essentially a work for hire and the company owns all rights to it.


> It's no different than when you upload anything to Geocities, same thing applies, any and all things uploaded to
> their server becomes property of Geocities and you relinquish all rights to
> them once you do that. Uploading anything to a website on any server means
> you have given them the right to do what they see fit with them. Especially
> the ones that are free. So it is stated as such, this is an example of the
> TOS given by Geocities when you sign up for a free website they offer, 7.
> CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO GEOCITIES
> Yahoo does not claim ownership of the Content you place on your Yahoo
> GeoCities Site. By submitting Content to Yahoo for inclusion on your Yahoo
> GeoCities Site, you grant Yahoo the world-wide, royalty-free, and
> non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content
> solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your Yahoo
> GeoCities Site on Yahoo's Internet properties. This license exists only for
> as long as you continue to be a Yahoo GeoCities homesteader and shall be
> terminated at the time your Yahoo GeoCities Site is terminated. This means
> that you own the copyright but you will not charge them a license fee to
> reproduce anything you put on their server. They have the right to do with
> the files on their server as they see fit.

Ahh, but you must AGREE to these terms. They are not part of any law. If I was to create files and send them to a hosting company, they do NOT own them simply because the files are on their servers. I would have to sign (or agree to...) a contract that has a clause such as the one above.

>By Justin allowing FriendPA to
> upload those objects to her OP he in essence has given her all rights to use
> those objects as she sees fit.

Nope.


> If you copyright something you must make it clear to the person you are giving those rights to use the material or in
> this case the objects on NYW. There were no limitations to their use and no
> contract between them stating otherwise. He gave her full use of those
> objects by allowing her to use them and upload them to a server with his
> permission. It's no different than if you make an object and I buy it from
> you, you can't come back a year later or even a month later and say well now
> I want you to stop using those objects. Nope doesn't work that way, if you
> gave it to me and whether I purchased it or not, you can't come back and
> say, Hey Chuck stop using that object I gave/sold to you. If you were not
> payed or compensated for it in a way that you deemed necessary before you
> gave it to me, that's not my fault and you can't come back and tell me how
> to use it once you have given it to me, those terms of use must be laid out
> in writing before you give the object to me and state exactly the way it is
> to be used otherwise it can be used in any manner I see fit and for as long
> as I want to use them.

Under American law (the Berne Convention, actually if I recall correctly), EVERYTHING created by someone is already under copyright anyway. There is no need to file a notice to copyright it. I am assuming that FriendPA didn't pay a cent for the use of the objects, so what does s/he lose by not being able to use them? If it is such a problem, why not make your own set of objects?


> Copyrightable works may also enter the public domain if the copyright owner grants the work to the public domain. That right was
> granted when Justin allowed FriendPA to upload them for public use in NYW.

No, it was not. FriendPA was allowed to use the objects. There is no "public domain" about it.


> If you know of an item that you would like to use that was created by
> someone else and whose copyright has not expired, then the most prudent
> course of action is to license the right to use that item from the copyright
> owner.

Then why doesn't FriendPA do so?

> For example, if I wanted to insert a graphic of Mickey Mouse on this page, I
> would have to contact Walt Disney Productions and obtain a license to use
> the Mickey Mouse image. The license would spell out how I could use the
> image, how much I would have to pay to use the image, and any other
> conditions and restrictions deemed relevant. That did not happen in this
> case, Justin gave the objects to FriendPA to use on NYW with no strings
> attached, FriendPA has also never profited from the use of those objects in
> any way. This could also be a good case for fair use.

Just because someone never profits from something it isn't fair use.


> So as you can see the law states exactly what is or is not copyrighted and what the owner is
> obligated to do to protect his or her works from being infringed. It is not
> the responsibilty of the person that is being given the right to use them to
> come up with the way the items are to be used it is up to the owner.

If the owner wishes to revoke a right given to someone, they have every option to do so.


> Henceforth those objects since there were no limitations put on them before
> their transaction means FriendPA has not broken any copyright laws as far as
> the law is concerned. Respectfully thinking and obtaining information on the
> subject, Chucks Party

Read my above comments...


-Agent1


>
>
[View Quote]

Mar 13, 2001, 9:20pm

I'll just reply to Lanezeri from your reply, Joeman :)


[View Quote]

[View Quote] LOL :)


> Windows
> don't

As Joeman said, it's a Sun server. Anyway, I doubt AWCI would leave a server so wide open that knocking on a door (bad metaphor ;)) would unlock the entire house (there's the rest of that metaphor). BTW - There isn't a thing you could do to prevent them from regaining control of their server.
0. Email ISP of script kiddie and have his internet connection threatened
1. Disconnect from Internet
2. Copy files that are remaining and unaffected
3. Wipe hard drive
4. Re-install OS and make sure it is secure this time
5. Copy over whbs/ger data files you saved
6. Re-connect server

-Agent1

Mar 13, 2001, 9:22pm

In OE you can right-click on a message in the list window and click properties in the context menu. Then click the Details button and "Message Source...".


-Agent1



[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 12:05pm

"You say I can't post after I'm gone? See, your wrong! I have my ways.. having a cit don't mean anything when it comes to an open port on a Windows
2000 Server (guessing) especially when you can take control of the damn thing to where no one can get it back"

That sounds like you're threatening to "hack" their servers to me.


-Agent1



[View Quote]

Mar 14, 2001, 10:20pm

Pretty much, actually. By the way, it runs on port 119.

-Agent1



[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 12:27pm

LOL :)


[View Quote]

Mar 13, 2001, 8:11pm

Object refresh rate simply dictates when the browser check the OP for new versions of the objects it has already downloaded. It has nothing to do with this problem.


-Agent1



[View Quote]

Mar 15, 2001, 8:49pm

[View Quote]
Not really :) Of course, that all depends on what sort of window you want to display. I can grab some of my "base" code and have a GUI that compiles (might not do anything, though) in 5-10 minutes. Then I go back and add code to do the actual work of the app... Not a "difficult undertaking" if you know what you are doing and/or have some basic code that works.


-Agent1

Mar 15, 2001, 10:48pm

[View Quote]
They had no right to complain as they weren't on the beta program. The light command and MP3 support were significant, as well in 3.1.


-Agent1

Mar 19, 2001, 12:04pm

[View Quote] Renderware Script, I believe.

-Agent1

Mar 21, 2001, 9:41pm

The only thing I could find in their TOS that MIGHT have had anything remotely to do with what was going on is as follows:
III. Content Restrictions: Content that is not
allowed on your board.

1. Offensive Material
a. Racism
b. Hatred
c. Harassment

Maybe this whole CitBingo thing... anyway, don't know. Hope you can get a new forum set up soon!

-Agent1




[View Quote]

Mar 25, 2001, 10:59pm

Careful! He might have "hacked" the server ;)


-Agent1


[View Quote]

Mar 25, 2001, 3:59pm

I seriously doubt Eep lives under a rock.

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Mar 30, 2001, 8:05pm

Not if you put it in a file other than default.awm.

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 2, 2001, 11:08pm

[View Quote] I take offence than you feel you cannot call someone by their (assumed) name. Shall I call you Snoria because I disagree with your post(s)?


> If you really don't want any form of censorship (including that by
> intimidation and threat), then spend your efforts adjusting the incompetant
> kids that make it necessary, not the rest of the world who can play by the
> rules and use rational arguments without degenerating into abuse and
> mindless spouting of four letter words to try and intimidate.

The problem is that Eep actually makes rational arguments (usually). There are a few cases (maybe even a lot) where I've seen him overreact quite a bit, but that is no reason to ban him from posting to these newsgroups. If you were debating something with a person in real life and they started to yell at you and hurl profanity, would you have their mouth sealed shut by the government?

> Anti censorship is a tool used by those too weak to address the real
> problem, and by allowing the problem to continue make it more needed than it
> should ever be and is often only used in cases of banning or moderation
> (which is obvious), rather than across the board on all forms (which are
> much less obvious).

Anti-censorship is a wonderful policy and I fail to see how it is only used by the weak. By allowing a topic to be discussed, how are you failing to address a real problem? I do recall several people posting things with far less content than Eep, yet no one has tried so hard to get those people banned... Why?


> I agree that in a perfect world, censorship is not needed and should be
> fought against, however while there are intimidating idiots around who
> prefer to hide behind anonymity and use threatening and insulting behavior
> of the type we see here on a regular basis to provide their own form of
> censorship, then it becomes a requirement.

Though I don't agree with filtering everyone who annoys me, if you dislike Eep so much, then use the filter feature on your newsreader. Don't take away our ability to converse with a knowledgable citizen just because you dislike the way he behaves sometimes.


To put a new spin on this... Since I don't like what you're saying, and think you are acting in a stupid way, I should get AWCI to ban you from posting... Then I won't have to deal with your opinions.

I agree Eep could change some things about his "technique" when it comes to posting, but other than that, I will fight for him and any other intelligent citizen who wishes to post here.


-Agent1

Apr 3, 2001, 10:50am

[View Quote]
The public building worlds have a rating, I believe, but these newsgroups only have a charter. Maybe we should all go back and read it over...


-Agent1

Apr 3, 2001, 3:24pm

It's one of the first few posts, I think.

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 5, 2001, 7:18pm

But they are incorporated under Delaware law.

-Agent1



[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2001, 11:39am

I've heard of many companies (ESPECIALLY "dot-coms") that don't make a profit for a year or two... This really doesn't mean they don't care about their customers.


-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2001, 1:33pm

But you're not a corporation in any sense -- You're an individual and don't count. When I said "dot-coms", I meant companies specializing in something over the internet (Activeworlds.com, Inc., for example).

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Apr 19, 2001, 10:52am

Very intelligent suggestion... "Yeah, why don't you move then?"

I wouldn't use anything associated with Time Warner for Internet connectivity as they now effectively ARE AOL...

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 24, 2001, 11:05am

[View Quote] But if he (or the person who the account is billed to) agreed not to do it via contract, then running a server is a breach of that contract... Stupid at Home :/


-Agent1

Apr 18, 2001, 10:19pm

[View Quote] That's 1 GHz; I'm assuming you meant 20 gigabytes of hard disk space and not RAM (I would hope not :O )


-Agent1

Apr 21, 2001, 12:56pm

He's a webhost, I believe :)

-Agent1

[View Quote]

Apr 20, 2001, 11:07am

If that doesn't work, look around at http://www.activeworlds.com/help/aw31/beta.html :)

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 21, 2001, 8:11pm

ROT13

"Hello, I need some help please. I was in AWTeen GZ and we were having a
small laugh and I changed my name to Dr Evil Leaf. But some sad person
decided to grasp this moment and stole my name. I was very annyoed but I
know if you change your name and they change theirs then it can be done.
What really annoyed me was that this sad immature boy was pretending to be
me. As far as I know he could be receiving my telegrams if people who have
just put my name in their contact list. Can anyone help me?

Regards
Real Leaf"

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 25, 2001, 8:55pm

Uhh... your useless subject takes up more space than your useless reply...

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Apr 28, 2001, 9:35pm

Maybe he took the hint and started posting a lot less often. People should make up their minds...

-Agent1


[View Quote]

May 1, 2001, 9:50pm

[View Quote] Usually "web apps" don't require an OS :)


-Agent1

May 1, 2001, 10:54pm

But you said it was a web app :O

-Agent1


[View Quote]

1  ...  20  21  22  23  24  25  ...  31  |   Order by default