Home | Forums | What's new | Resources | |
WOO HOOO Got a letter |
stack99 - Oct 20, 2003 |
1 | 2 | Next> |
NR Pickle | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
Dizamn. I wonder what they do to enforce something like that, I've never even heard of something like that before aside from all the kazaa riaa madness. |
racketboy | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
what else did the letter say? |
IBarracudaI | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
I think recognizing the mistakes as soon as you are caught is better... at least shows that you regret it.. |
Gallstaff | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
he never said he regretted it |
racketboy | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
I'm curious as to what they are threatening him with |
Gallstaff | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
Probably money. |
racketboy | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
so worst case scenario, you lose access to DC? Big whoop |
antime | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
Sega, Konami, Capcom and Crave are all members of the Entertainment Software Association... (old IDSA). The organisation fights piracy on the behalf of its members, for instance IDSA was the organisation that closed down most of the "abandonware" sites a few years ago. In the worst case there is a lawsuit, but most people take the chance they're offered and stop with whatever they're doing. |
Gallstaff | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
Welcome to IRC |
ratfish | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
More random finger pointing by big government programs, nothing new here. |
ExCyber | Oct 20, 2003 | ||||
If this is a legitimate DMCA claim, the ISP is only relaying a complaint from the representative of one or more copyright holders. The ISP is not threatening you; AFAIK they are required by law to remove access to the files unless you send a counter-notice disputing the original claim (which is generally one of "The complaint doesn't follow the requirements set forth in the DMCA", "That file isn't what the complaint says it is", or "The complainant is not authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder". See Chilling Effects... for more info, but don't expect to fight this without a lawyer. edit: More specifically, you want the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions... information. edit again: come to think of it, I think they are not strictly required to remove it, but they can be held liable for the infringement if they don't. So it may as well be required as far as they're concerned. |
Nadius | Oct 20, 2003 | |||
I'm wondering who the 3rd party could be... |
Scared0o0Rabbit | Oct 21, 2003 | |||
perhaps next time you should consider actually buying games? |
mal | Oct 21, 2003 | |||
There is also that... |
1 | 2 | Next> |