This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Runic is one of the best FF commands!

#91TriforceSDPosted 6/24/2012 7:00:32 AM
Yup, that was the guy...
His obsession for stopping and modding talk about hacks and such was through the roof.
---
The charred Gameboy that survived through it all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBeTXPaewMo
#92zz1000zzPosted 6/24/2012 11:57:32 AM
Lvthn posted...
All irrelevant unless GameFAQs is actually hosting infringing material. Discussing emulation doesn't even come close to counting, which is probably why application of any rule about not mentioning it is extremely loose, and only linking seems to really get shut down.


Actually, subsection (d) covers the referring or linking to infringing material, and it has the exact same qualifications. That would cover discussions of/links to specific ROMs or hacks.

One can discuss emulation freely since it doesn't inherently involve copyright infringement, but once you start talking about specific material, which does infringe, GameFAQs has to start worrying about liability.
#93LvthnPosted 6/24/2012 3:05:07 PM
zz1000zz posted...

Actually, subsection (d) covers the referring or linking to infringing material, and it has the exact same qualifications. That would cover discussions of/links to specific ROMs or hacks.

One can discuss emulation freely since it doesn't inherently involve copyright infringement, but once you start talking about specific material, which does infringe, GameFAQs has to start worrying about liability.


No. "Referring or linking" covers the act of providing direct access to even if not hosted on your own servers. As in, referring the user to another host. It does not mean "speaking in reference to."
#94MeepleLardiclePosted 7/1/2012 7:01:43 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#95zz1000zzPosted 7/1/2012 1:28:31 PM
Sorry for the delayed response Lvthn. I missed the fact someone had made a new post in this thread. I only noticed because MeepleLardicle made a new post (I wish I had seen it before it got deleted), bumping the thread. Anyway, better late than never.

Lvthn posted...
zz1000zz posted...

Actually, subsection (d) covers the referring or linking to infringing material, and it has the exact same qualifications. That would cover discussions of/links to specific ROMs or hacks.

One can discuss emulation freely since it doesn't inherently involve copyright infringement, but once you start talking about specific material, which does infringe, GameFAQs has to start worrying about liability.


No. "Referring or linking" covers the act of providing direct access to even if not hosted on your own servers. As in, referring the user to another host. It does not mean "speaking in reference to."


I think you need to rethink this. Do you really believe a site can avoid liability by saying, "We directed people to infringing material, but we did so indirectly, so we aren't liable"? If so, how direct of access do you think they need to provide to be liable?

I assume you agree a link to an infringing file is enough, but what about a link to a page the file is provided through? How about a link to the main page of a site which is known to host such material? How about the same as the last two, but rather thank links, simple instructions on how to reach/find the pages? From what you said, it sounds like you think none of those are infringing. Is that true?

If I talk about a specific hacked version of a game,* by name, I give people enough information to easily go to Google, find it and download it. Because the information I gave was enough to give near immediate access to the material, it can be considered a reference.

It's like in school papers. When you used a reference in an essay, you didn't provide hyperlinks to the actual material. You provided information to direct people to the material. This doesn't mean one is guilty of copyright infringement simply for hosting a discussion of a ROM/hack, but it does open up the possibility of being held liable. The fact a court may rule in your favor doesn't change the fact you're running the risk of being held liable.

*I'm not certain whether discussions of hacks would be considered non-infringing as long as those hacks are separate patches, and thus don't provide the game itself. Since the patch serves no purpose without the infringing material, it's not clear if mere separation is enough. Like many legal issues, there is a lot of gray area, and most people/companies will prefer to rule on the side of caution.
#96LvthnPosted 7/1/2012 2:10:03 PM
zz, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Linking to a general site won't get you in hot water. Doesn't matter if it's the well known Swedish site that need not be named, the site itself isn't illegal and there's nothing that can be done about naming it or even linking straight to it.

"Refer" in this context implies a website that generates a list of links to pirated material hosted on another server. The meaning is pretty obvious: to prevent sites circumventing copyright law by having the material hosted elsewhere. Not a particularly uncommon practice either, quite a few sites have disclaimers that the material is hosted on servers in another country in an attempt to circumvent such laws.

If you seriously think there's liability for speaking in reference to copyright piracy, you've apparently been violating drug laws. Just to be clear, US freedom of speech protects your right to own a manual on constructing illegal explosives, automatic weapons, and incendiary devices, a handbook on assassination, and a recipe list of poisons lethal to humans. You can buy all of the above on amazon.com, right now. You can subscribe to High Times and get monthly tips on growing and selling pot. Are you under the impression that the recording industry managed to get an exception to the first amendment that applies only to them? Not only is it legal to own such material, the publisher is not liable if you actually act upon it - this fact has been established repeatedly in court.

Patches and hacks don't even violate copyright law, nor do emulators. All of the above are completely outside that and are not pirated material. Neither GameFAQs nor myself would have committed even the most trivial of offenses by providing a full list of game hacks and emulators, so long as no ROMs are being provided.

The fact that you believe that speaking in vague reference to something constitutes providing access to it is hilarious. By your logic, if I say "I hear the east side of town has a lot of prostitution," I'm guilty of pimping if you go there and hire one. Happily, we don't quite live under Ingsoc and are free to discuss very nearly anything* we want.

*There are very few exceptions. One would be conspiracy to commit a felony. However, even in that case, it actually has to be surprisingly specific: you must express a precise intent to actually do it.
#97NovaLevossidaPosted 7/1/2012 2:17:45 PM
^ Are you talking about Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors?

Because I know of that one. >_>
---
Invading world of the guilty as spirit of vengeance
The guilty pay the price.
#98zz1000zzPosted 7/1/2012 3:10:48 PM
Lvthn posted...
zz, you have no idea what you're talking about.


A comment like this indicates there is no point in trying to continue this discussion. The fact you'd start off a response to me by insulting me tells me you're not interested in having a reasonable discussion. If you want to say things like:

"Refer" in this context implies a website that generates a list of links to pirated material hosted on another server. The meaning is pretty obvious:


You can, but unless you give an actual reason to believe what you say, I won't bother discussing them anymore. I will, however, point out you've made an incredibly stupid argument:

If you seriously think there's liability for speaking in reference to copyright piracy, you've apparently been violating drug laws... Just to be clear, US freedom of speech protects your right to own a manual on constructing illegal explosives, automatic weapons, and incendiary devices, a handbook on assassination, and a recipe list of poisons lethal to humans. You can buy all of the above on amazon.com, right now. You can subscribe to High Times and get monthly tips on growing and selling pot. Are you under the impression that the recording industry managed to get an exception to the first amendment that applies only to them? Not only is it legal to own such material, the publisher is not liable if you actually act upon it - this fact has been established repeatedly in court.


You're claiming the fact one can discuss illegal activities without having committed criminal acts has some bearing on copyright infringement. In reality, civil suits have numerous differences from criminal cases, and the two aren't remotely comparable. You follow up this ridiculous "legal argument" with an equally absurd comment:

The fact that you believe that speaking in vague reference to something constitutes providing access to it is hilarious.


I never claimed referring "constitutes providing access" to anything. You claimed that was necessary, and I disagreed. You've taken a point I disagreed on and mocked me for believing in it!

You can say I don't know what you're talking about as much as you want. You haven't shown any basis for such a claim, you've made nonsensical arguments, and you've flat-out misrepresented me, so I don't think many people will find you convincing. But you're still welcome to say it as much as you want.

However, I won't be responding to such useless drivel.
#99MeepleLardiclePosted 7/1/2012 3:58:58 PM
Patches and hacks don't even violate copyright law, nor do emulators. All of the above are completely outside that and are not pirated material. Neither GameFAQs nor myself would have committed even the most trivial of offenses by providing a full list of game hacks and emulators, so long as no ROMs are being provided.

Interesting you bring that up because I just got moderated for basically saying "hey, anyone interested?"

Reading GFAQs' Illegal Activities policy, they openly admit that "Illegal" is a misnomer in this case, and its a lot more broad a law. Basically, anything that involves talking about acquiring/providing a rom falls under the ToU.


So its not really an Illegal policy, more just a poorly worded ToU violation that seems like its there to cover their asses. Better to be safe than sorry, I guess, since if they get things that aren't technically illegal under a stricter ruling, they're more insured that illegal things won't get through on loopholes, etc.
---
www.rpgdl.com
The site Meeple argues at for too much of his life!
#100LvthnPosted 7/1/2012 4:41:24 PM
zz1000zz posted...
You haven't shown any basis for such a claim, you've made nonsensical arguments, and you've flat-out misrepresented me, so I don't think many people will find you convincing. But you're still welcome to say it as much as you want.

However, I won't be responding to such useless drivel.


Feel free to cite case law supporting your theory. But given that you interpreted "refer" wrong, I'm not holding my breath.

Hell, find any case, related to this or not, where merely "speaking in reference to" has ever resulted in a civil judgement in the US.

I really don't think you've thought through just how absurd that would be in practice.