Krazy Letter Forums > Troubles with Matrix-Rayne

Full Version: Troubles with Matrix-Rayne

Krazy Letter Forums > News > Member Announcements

lappy512

Dec 3 2006, 12:57 PM

The owner of Matrix-Rayne, a site that hosts madness interactive mods, recently contacted me to say that I am screwed. I recently saw him online, and asked him why. Here's our conversation.

QUOTE

Lappy512: Hi
djperegrine: yo
L: You said something about me being screwed?
d: oh
d: you are the owner of krazyletter or wahtewver right
L: yes...
d: yea
L: So
d: wow
d: the ... is like animated
L: Yes, it is
d: anything that is posted on my site is under a creative commons license
L: Okay
d: that means you have to give credit to the author
d: and the majority are share alike
d: meaning when you share the work
L: I know about the creative commons
d: ok
d: you fail to do this on your site
L: Ah
L: But I haven't downloaded any mods from your site, because it was down when I acquired this set of mods
L: Or, the authors have emailed me the mod
L: where they have not specified any sort of Creative Commons
d: it doesn't matter
L: If you can get the authors of each mod that I have on my site to ask them to be put under the creative commons, I'd gladly oblige
d: I made sure the authors posted the mods
d: and they are the ones who diecied to apply a license to it
L: However, when the authors sent it to me, they did not specify the Creative Commons as their license
d: so
d: there was no license
d: now there is
L: However, that's on the version they gave you
d: its the same filfes
d: *files
d: hold on
d: I will look into this
L: Also, on your site, you don't ask the authors to specify a licens
L: It defaults to "This upload will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike."
L: I don't see any way for people to change it
d: you cn
L: Okay
L: At least it's not obvious
L: Anyways
d: you just can't NOT have a license
L: Here's another point:
d: but you can choose which kind
L: Madness Interactive (by Max) is licensed under your site as Creative Commons Atribution Share Alike
L: However, under his site, I don't see any sort of license for it
d: he uploaded to mine
L: I believe you should tell Max that he is in trouble for sharing his work without a license
d: and I talked to him
d: personally
d: I also talked to krinkels they both don't care
L: Okay
L: When you first told me what you did, I assumed you meant all works licensed under the CC under your site
L: but I guess that means you don't care about me putting Max's Madness Interactive under the Creative Commons?
d: it is now
L: However, he doesn't specify on his site, which is where I acquired it from
L: So I am complying with his original "no-license" or whatever thing
d: I am talking about themods
L: Well, how is that any different from Mas
L: Max's original madness?
L: You don't own the rights to the content, therefore you can't enforce the license
L: http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/madness_delta_force
Just like Atom Films DOES own the rights to AA: DF so they definitely can enforce whatever license they want for it
L: Which I do not see, anywhere on the page, the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike
L: So in fact, you could possibly be sued by AtomFilms for trying to enforce that license on me
d: that version of AA: DF
d: actually I think compass took down AA: DF
L: nope, I still see it under your site, under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike
d: whatever, thats not my problem its compass's
d: I don't know about what license they used
L: However, you are still trying to enforce YOUR license on ME, while you clearly do not own the rights to America's Army, Delta Forces
d: I don't own anything!
d: the artist's do!
L: So then, you aren't the one who can enforce the license on me
d: I need to resharch more about it
d: I already said that
L: Okay, so what's your point?
L: And also, I've been through your submission system
L: There is no option to change the license on the mods you submit
d: yes there is
d: you can't say no license
L: It just states as a fact: "This upload will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike."
d: but you can say non-commercial attribution etc
L: I don't see the option, please point it out to me
d: UNLESS you are sampling something that has a share-alike
d: then it has to be the same
L: Because otherwise, it seems that the authors permit it to be submitted under the Share-Alike
L: to be on your site
L: Okay, so then, sourcing Madness Interactive (by Max), which we have already established does not matter if it's on the share-alike or not, results in you having to submit under the Share-Alike
d: max choose the license
L: So if Madness Interactive by Max is not required to be Share-Alike, then wouldn't anything sourcing it (resulting in the share-alike) not have to be under the share-alike?
L: Because Max didn't mention anything about the Share-Alike on his site when he says you can modify the source code
L: I think he has permitted it to be submitted under the Share-Alike just for Matrix-Rayne
d: that doesn't make sense
d: look I still have to resharch it I already said that
L: Because you have forced him to chose a license
d: but no
d: I didn't force him to do anything
L: If he submits to your site, he must choose a license
L: You have forced him to chose a license
L: If you ask Max if all of his derivitave works have to be shared-alike, I would comply with your request
L: However, on Max's official site, I see no mention of the share-alike
d: He didn't have to do shit
d: even if it wasn't share-alike you still need to give attribution
L: Which, I must state, is given, since there is an option to see the Credits
d: the person that is distrubuting it has to give it
L: And I have
L: It's included with the swf file
L: If I removed that tab from the swf, then it would not be attribution
L: And anyways, nowhere does he say you have to attribute it
d: hold on

Timebandit

Dec 3 2006, 01:07 PM

well that was a stupid of him, really.

myncknm

Dec 3 2006, 04:18 PM

Yeah... he doesn't seem to understand what a license is. A license doesn't apply to the work in question. It represents an instance of granting permission to use that work. Permission doesn't always have to be granted on the same terms. Although it'd kind of be pointless to license the work to one person under a creative commons sharealike and then license it to another person under a creative commons without sharealike, I'm pretty sure it'd be perfectly legal to do so.

djperegrine

Dec 3 2006, 05:40 PM

Rest of the converstion where I clearly state I need to do more research .....

At this point I don't really feel like doing much more research, I would rather spend my time doing other things. I think there is something to what I am trying to say but right now my argument is pretty weak( although I don't think lappys is any better ) and I don't feel like continuing to pursue this until I have come up with a more concrete reason to continue. That being said my users can do whatever they want.

....Anyway
Its now 5:40 and I still am waiting for a answer.

(12:37:54 PM) L: And I have
(12:37:59 PM) L: It's included with the swf file
(12:38:20 PM) L: If I removed that tab from the swf, then it would not be attribution
(12:39:07 PM) L: And anyways, nowhere does he say you have to attribute it
(12:40:17 PM) djp hold on
(12:46:07 PM) djp: lol
(12:47:10 PM) L hm?
(1:43:23 PM) L: So, about the real reasons you're against this
(1:49:26 PM) L: You don't really care about the creative commons
(1:49:35 PM) L Your main concern is Lkegley's TAR mod, correct?
(2:09:44 PM) djp: ?
(2:10:09 PM) djp: Look I just need to do some more resharch and ask around before I say anything else
(2:10:35 PM) L: I'm asking you a question: is your main concern about Lkegley's mod?
(2:10:39 PM) djp: no?
(2:11:15 PM) L: Okay, so the topic "OKAY PLAN OF ATTACK FOR KRAZY LETTER..." does not have anything to do with it?
(2:25:05 PM) djp: ?
(2:25:32 PM) djp: with what
(2:29:04 PM) L: With you talking with me
(2:29:30 PM) djp: ?
(2:29:46 PM) djp: that doesn't make grammitical sense
(2:30:31 PM) L: Okay, so I'm asking lkegley "selling out" has anything to do with you complaining to me?
(2:31:26 PM) djp I wouldn't of noticed any of what I said if that didn't happen but that is the only connection
(2:32:07 PM) djp: I don't feel like there is alot to be discussed on that issue
(2:32:17 PM) L: I don't think so either
(2:32:22 PM) L: But obviously, your members do
(2:32:35 PM) L: as they have been spamming my boards for the past morning
(2:33:36 PM) djp: ok?
(2:33:46 PM) L: Could you please ask them to stop?
(2:33:59 PM) djp: no
(2:34:01 PM) djp: ?
(2:34:08 PM) L: Why not?
(2:34:08 PM) djp: they can do whatever they wnt
(2:34:21 PM) L: However, you do have influence on them
(2:34:29 PM) djp: so
(2:35:13 PM) L: So you should ask them to stop
(2:35:34 PM) djp: no I don't care
(2:36:27 PM) L: You should, as it could be classified as harrasment
(2:36:59 PM) djp: so
(2:37:20 PM) L: Which could send you to Jail
(2:37:28 PM) djp: no I am not going to be sent to jail
(2:37:31 PM) L: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,..._3-6022491.html
(2:38:09 PM) djp: OH NOES
(2:38:16 PM) djp: look I just don't care
(2:38:27 PM) L: Then please ask your members to stop
(2:38:55 PM) djp: no
(2:38:59 PM) L: Just say something like: "Stop it" and close the topic
(2:39:00 PM) djp: I already said I wouldn't
(2:39:54 PM) L: As I said, there's a law against things like that
(2:40:05 PM) L: Do I really need to ask one more time?
(2:42:10 PM) djp: its not my problem
(2:42:21 PM) L: It is, because it is on your website
(2:42:54 PM) djp: what is on my website?
(2:43:25 PM) L: http://rayne.hellawack.net/media/thread/251
(2:43:37 PM) djp: And?
(2:44:22 PM) L: Please ask the members to stop, close the topic or delete it
(2:44:33 PM) L: As it violates U.S. laws
(2:44:53 PM) djp: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,..._3-6022491.html <-- that one? the thread doesn't voliate any laws
(2:45:11 PM) L: Yes it does
(2:45:58 PM) djp: nope
(2:46:15 PM) djp: Q: Someone has been annoying me on the Internet, and it's getting serious. What can I do?
Keep in mind that the new law has only criminal sanctions, so you can'tsue someone directly (unless they're already violating other laws).Also remember that it only applies to a person who is intentionallyannoying "without disclosing his identity." You'd have to contact your local FBI office or U.S. Attorney. But don't be surprised if they place you way down on their priority lis
(2:46:35 PM) djp: it a applies TO A PERSON
(2:48:30 PM) L: Yes
(2:49:44 PM) L: It applies to a person, however turning down a request to delete/close/ask them to stop also is a breach of those rules
(2:54:41 PM) djp: where does it say that
(2:58:33 PM) L: Cease and Desist
(2:59:41 PM) djp: for doing what
(2:59:55 PM) L: With that topic
(3:00:15 PM) djp: but what law am I breaking

myncknm

Dec 3 2006, 10:57 PM

Mmhmm. So in short, you don't care and we don't care? So it's all good.

And it's fun to read up on intellectual property laws. Fun fun.

djbob

Dec 6 2006, 12:31 AM

This guy loses all credibility in the first portion of his argument:

QUOTE

d: anything that is posted on my site is under a creative commons license
L: Okay
d: that means you have to give credit to the author
d: and the majority are share alike
d: meaning when you share the work
L: I know about the creative commons
d: ok
d: you fail to do this on your site

Saying you "fail" to force uploaders to use a license that you think is superior to others just makes no sense. The uploader should be entitled to use whatever license they want to. The site that is hosting the thing being licensed has absolutely no authority over licenses, or anything like that. Furthermore, although the Creative Commons is a cool thing, you aren't anything special for using it. Just because you use (or should I say force?) the Creative Commons license does not mean you are superior in any way.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, so why are you arguing about it?

S.W.A.T

Dec 9 2006, 02:17 PM

That's very stupid of you djperegrine.

myncknm

Dec 9 2006, 05:52 PM

Let's not get too fascist now.

myusrnm

Dec 10 2006, 01:18 AM

QUOTE(myncknm @ Dec 3 2006, 10:57 PM)

And it's fun to read up on intellectual property laws. Fun fun.

Like the time I was convinced that if iPods are legal you could justify copying someone else's cd.

iPod's take music from a CD and make a copy, which is legal.
So, you should be able to make a copy of your own CD.
It doesn't get deleted when you lose the original.

So, somebody has a CD. They "lose" it.
--Finder's Keeper'ss--
You own the CD, you back it up. You "lose" it at the previous owners house.
--Finder's Keeper's--

Yeah, so, I haven't read up enough on them . I know it's perfectly legal to break into your cell phone and make it so you can get onto other networks and not pay for your calls.

S.W.A.T

Dec 10 2006, 05:35 AM

I still say D's wrong.

djbob

Dec 10 2006, 03:32 PM

http://discussion.krazyletter.com/index.php?showtopic=211
See point #3.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.