Now to point a stern finger...

Am I getting warm?

  • Maybe, maybe not.

    Votes: 43 37.1%

  • Newb.

    Votes: 15 12.9%

  • *sizzle*

    Votes: 58 50.0%
  • Total voters
    116
Status
Not open for further replies.
slingblade, why do you avoid the rules for using the fair use law?

You throw it around left and right, yet you have not stated one rule. why don't you post the rules to the law you are so eloquently throwing around. There is one reason why, because for each subset of each clause all require you to obtain permission. Why do you avoid this. There is not ONE SINGLE clause, that disregards the fact that you MUST obtain permission in order to use source IP, read source IP, learn from source IP, post source IP, make a friggen song out of source IP. In all cases you HAVE to obtain permission.

Read the friggen law, man you are annoyingly arogant.

Dude please do not make me post each clause for fair use. Each of them require obtaining permission.
 
RULES OF THUMB FOR COURSEPACKS
The Classroom Guidelines that were negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.

1. Limit coursepack materials to
single chapters
single articles from a journal issue
several charts, graphs or illustrations
other similarly small parts of a work.
2. Include
any copyright notice on the original
appropriate citations and attributions to the source.
3. Obtain permission for materials that will be used repeatedly by the same instructor for the same class.


RULES OF THUMB FOR DISPLAYING AND PERFORMING OTHERS' WORKS IN DISTANCE LEARNING
These Rules of Thumb are different from the others. For the most part, Rules of Thumb address making and distributing copies. Distance Learning raises these concerns too, but "public performance" is the focus of these Rules of Thumb. Section 110 of the copyright law authorizes educational performances and displays of entire works (like poems, plays, musical works and movies), but it significantly distinguishes between what can be performed in the classroom and what can be transmitted. This results in a "gap" in legal authority to perform certain works for distance learners. The CONFU Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Distance Learning apply fair use to fill this gap.

But the Distance Learning Guidelines only tackle fair use to perform and display others' works in two contexts:

Live interactive distance learning classes
Delayed transmission of faculty instruction.
They do not cover fair use of (performance of) others' works in online course materials. CONFU participants felt that these uses were so new that it was hard to even describe them, let alone describe fair use in this context. Nevertheless, the Guidelines can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.

Check Sections 110(1) and (2) before proceeding since they authorize considerable performance activity without any need to refer to these Rules of Thumb or the Guidelines. Also check any licenses acquired with materials purchased specifically for distance learning; they should include all the rights you will need to utilize them for that purpose, with no need to refer to these Rules of Thumb or the Guidelines. If they don't, and you need to rely on these Rules of Thumb in any distance learning context, remember: small parts, limited times and limited access are the keys to fair use.

1. Incorporate performances of others' works
sparingly
only if a faculty member or the institution possesses a legal copy of the work (i.e., by purchase, license, fair use, interlibrary loan, etc.).
2. Include
any copyright notice on the original
appropriate citations and attributions to the source
a Section 108(f)(1) notice.
3. Limit access to students enrolled in the class and administrative staff as needed. Terminate access at the end of the class term.
4. Obtain permission for materials that will be used repeatedly by the same instructor for the same class.


RULES OF THUMB FOR DIGITIZING AND USING IMAGES FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
The CONFU Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Digital Images suggest that fair use requires our libraries to request permission to use images at the same time they are digitized. Our Rules of Thumb take a different approach, but in other respects, the Guidelines can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them. For more information about digitizing images and other non-text media, see Advanced Topics in Copyright Law. The third section addresses issues that typically arise in the College of Fine Arts.

1. Is the image you wish to digitize readily available online or for sale or license at a fair price?
If YES: Point to, purchase or license the image. Do not digitize it unless you are in the process of negotiating a license. If you have a "contract pending," digitize and use the image in accordance with these Rules of Thumb until the license is finalized and you have received the licensed digital image.
If NO: Digitize and use the image in accordance with the following limitations:
Limit access to all images except small, low resolution "thumbnails" to students enrolled in the class and administrative staff as needed. Terminate access at the end of the class term.
Faculty members also may use images at peer conferences.
Students may download, transmit and print out images for personal study and for use in the preparation of academic course assignments and other requirements for degrees, may publicly display images in works prepared for course assignments etc., and may keep works containing images in their portfolios.
2. Periodically review digital availability. If a previously unavailable image becomes available online or for sale or license at a fair price, point to or acquire it.


RULES OF THUMB FOR DIGITIZING AND USING OTHERS' WORKS IN MULTIMEDIA MATERIALS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
The CONFU Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia suggest that fair use requires adherence to specific numerical portion limits, that copies of the multimedia work that includes the works of others should be strictly controlled, and that fair use "expires" after 2 years. Our Rules of Thumb acknowledge that these are important considerations, but the Guidelines numbers do not describe the outer limits of fair use. Despite their tightly controlled approach, the Guidelines can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.

Please keep in mind that the rights described here are rights to create unique works, but not to make multiple copies and give them out (distribute them).

1. Students, faculty and staff may
incorporate others' works into a multimedia work
display and perform a multimedia work
in connection with or creation of
class assignments
curriculum materials
remote instruction
examinations
student portfolios
professional symposia.
2. Be conservative. Use only small amounts of other's works.
3. Don't make any unnecessary copies of the multimedia work.

RULES OF THUMB FOR MUSIC
The Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music negotiated in 1976 can provide helpful guidance and we recommend that you read them.

1. Limit copying as follows:
sheet music, entire works: only for performances and only in emergencies
sheet music, performable units (movements, sections, arias, etc.): only if out of print
student performances: record only for teacher or institutional evaluation or student's portfolio
sound recordings: one copy for classroom or reserve room use
2. Include
any copyright notice on the original
appropriate citations and attributions to the source.
3. Replace emergency copies with purchased originals if available.


RULES OF THUMB FOR RESEARCH COPIES
Limit research copies to
single chapters
single articles from a journal issue
several charts, graphs, illustrations
other similarly small parts of a work.


RULES OF THUMB FOR DIGITIZING AND USING OTHERS' WORKS IN ELECTRONIC RESERVES
The Fair Use Guidelines for Electronic Reserve Systems describe general limitations on the scope of materials that should be included, citation and notice requirements and access, use, storage and reuse of reserve materials. These Rules of Thumb are an abbreviated summary of the Guidelines terms which provide helpful guidance that we recommend you review.

1. Limit reserve materials to
single articles or chapters; several charts, graphs or illustrations; or other small parts of a work
a small part of the materials required for the course
copies of materials that a faculty member or the library already possesses legally (i.e., by purchase, license, fair use, interlibrary loan, etc.).
2. Include
any copyright notice on the original
appropriate citations and attributions to the source
a Section 108(f)(1) notice.
3. Limit access to students enrolled in the class and administrative staff as needed. Terminate access at the end of the class term.
4. Obtain permission for materials that will be used repeatedly by the same instructor for the same class.
 
and this is how u determine fair use if it is NOT applicable to the above terms. As in YOU DONT GET PERMISSION
Please pay attention to #2 and #4, and i am done here because this is not law class, and it is just turning into a spam session.

Interpet the law as you choose, but trust me #2 and #4 weigh heavily against you in the department of VIDEO GAME SOURCE CODE IP. Otherwise, there would be no use for making it IP in the first place., and there would be no such thign as open source in the video game industry because everythign would be open source.


The four fair use factors:
What is the character of the use?
What is the nature of the work to be used?
How much of the work will you use?
What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?


FACTOR 1: What is the character of the use?
Nonprofit
Educational
Personal
Criticism
Commentary
Newsreporting
Parody
Otherwise "transformative" use
Commercial


Uses on the left tend to tip the balance in favor of fair use. The use on the right tends to tip the balance in favor of the copyright owner - in favor of seeking permission. The uses in the middle, if they apply, are very beneficial: they add weight to the tipping force of uses on the left; they subtract weight from the tipping force of a use on the right.

Imagine that you could assign a numerical weight to each use. A nonprofit educational use other than the middle uses, for example, making a copy of a journal article for a university class, might weigh 5 in favor of fair use. But a nonprofit educational use that is also criticism, for example, the inclusion by a faculty member of a quote from another's work in a scholarly critique, would weigh even more in favor of fair use: about 6 or 7. That's because the uses in the middle are "core" fair uses; the ones most dearly protected.

Even if they are for-profit, the core fair uses weigh in favor of fair use: that's why they subtract from the weight against fair use of a commercial use. A commercial duplication of an article from a journal might weigh 5 against fair use. But a commercial commentary or quotation would barely tip the scale, if at all.

This is not to suggest that fair use can be precisely quantitatively analyzed. Numbers are just a tool to illustrate how the facts interact and affect each other. Actually, numbers wouldn't make the analysis any easier: copyright owners and users would have just as much trouble agreeing on weights as we have agreeing on any other judgment about fair use.



FACTOR 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?
Fact
Published
A mixture of fact and imaginative
Imaginative
Unpublished


Again, uses on the left tip the balance in favor of fair use. Uses on the right tip the balance in favor of seeking permission. But here, uses in the middle tend to have little effect on the balance.

Which way is your balance tipping after assessing the first two factors?



FACTOR 3: How much of the work will you use?
Small amount
More than a small amount


This factor has its own peculiarities. The general rule holds true (uses on the left tip the balance in favor of fair use; uses on the right tip the balance in favor of asking for permission), but if the first factor weighed in favor of fair use, you can use more of a work than if it weighed in favor of seeking permission. A nonprofit use of a whole work will weigh somewhat against fair use. A commercial use of a whole work would weigh significantly against fair use.

For example, a nonprofit educational institution may copy an entire article from a journal for students in a class as a fair use; but a commercial copyshop would need permission for the same copying. Similarly, commercial publishers have stringent limitations on the length of quotations, while a student writing a paper for a class assignment could reasonably expect to include lengthier quotes.

Which way does your balance tip after assessing the first three factors? The answer to this question will be important in the analysis of the fourth factor!



FACTOR 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?
After evaluation of the first three factors, the proposed use is tipping towards fair use
Original is out of print or otherwise unavailable
No ready market for permission
Copyright owner is unidentifiable
Competes with (takes away sales from) the original
Avoids payment for permission (royalties) in an established permissions market



This factor is a chameleon. Under some circumstances, it weighs more than all the others put together. Under other circumstances, it weighs nothing! It depends on what happened with the first three factors.

Here's why:

This factor asks, "If the use were widespread, would the copyright owner be losing money?" Well, actually, it asks, "If the use were widespread, and the use were not fair, would the copyright owner be losing money?" After all, if the use were fair, the copyright owner would not be entitled to any money at all, so he couldn't "lose" what he never would have had to begin with.

When you include in your assumptions the very conclusion that you are trying to reach (you assume a use is not fair in the process of trying to figure out whether it is fair), you violate a principle of logic - you engage in "circular reasoning."

Courts deal with this propensity of the fourth factor to encourage circular reasoning by looking at the first three factors before evaluating the fourth. If the first three factors indicate that the use is likely fair, courts will not permit the fourth factor to convert an otherwise fair use to an infringing one. On the other hand, if the first three factors indicate that the use is likely not fair, courts are willing to consider lost revenues under the fourth factor. In this case they do not have to assume the conclusion in order to reach it. They reach the conclusion based on good evidence that the use is not fair. This means that if a use is tipping the balance in favor of fair use after the first three factors, the fourth factor should not affect the results, even if there is a market for permissions, even if the owner would lose money because of the use.

On the other hand, if a use is tipping the balance in favor of asking for permission one need not "assume" it's not fair, the first 3 factors show that it's not. Add to that an active permissions market and the fourth factor will decisively tip the balance. Forget fair use. Get permission.

The facts in the middle illustrate circumstances that also supports fair use, as they indicate a lack of harm to the owner's economic incentive.

Does the balance for your use tip in favor of fair use or in favor of getting permission after consideration of all four factors?



* A Note About Time Limits - Although the statutory fair use analysis does not address time limits, many of our Rules of Thumb and all the Guidelines contain time limits on fair use. Many people do not understand this and wonder why a use that is fair today would cease to be fair at the end of a semester. This is hard to explain because it does not seem to have a basis in statutory requirements or case law. But there the limits are: in the Classroom Guidelines (1976); the CONFU Proposed Distance Learning Guidelines, Multimedia Guidelines and Image Guidelines (all 1996); and even in the Electronic Reserve Guidelines (1996, non-CONFU). I have discussed this with other attorneys within the university community and have not heard a satisfactory legal explanation. Nevertheless, I have concluded that there may be two reasons we seem to agree to time limits anyway:

1) publishers clearly believe fair use has time limits;

2) courts seem increasingly willing to let the fourth factor of the fair use analysis trump all the other factors so that where there is a market for permissions, "fair use is negated." This was the position articulated by the majority in the recent MDS decision.

Under this strictly economic analysis, in those circumstances where a ready market for permissions exists, such as permission for coursepacks, fair use shrinks - perhaps in time as well as in other dimensions. But the opposite is true, too. Where the permissions market is dysfunctional, fair use expands, both in the amount one may use and in time. For more information about this, see Advanced Topics in Copyright Law, the third section addressing issues in a College of Fine Arts.
 
ok.. interesting. cant you two take this in PM? this is way over our heads anyways
 
Sigh. Man that isn't even copyright law. Read the fair use law I posted above. It says, "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A". 106 and 106A deal with the permission part of copyright law.

What you posted is guidlines given by some organization, that say to be super safe, you should always obtain permission.
 
I thought you didn't want to do that.


I know I sure as hell didn't want you to. I'll now have to scroll like a crazy man to get to the next post! >:E ;)
 
Yeh. please this is a lot of dull text to scroll thru - PM it to each other plz.
Also - OT - When are people going to learn that you shouldn't write 'Sigh.' i mean thats supposed to be the equivalent of saying it... i'll let you off with *sigh* or <sigh> tho :D
I've forgotten what this thread is about....
 
dude just read the law you posted. It's the same damn thing. What you pasted was the four factors to JUDGING fair use WITHOUT permissions. Yet, factor 2 and 4 fail in your debate. They fail horribly, I am surprised you don't see that. Yet, somehow i understand it, Since this is what lawyers do. The manipulate the law to fit accordingly to their side of the law.

What you are arguing is that there is no such thing as IP, not outright but that is the basis of your arguement. That valve has no rights to their own source engine against the common public freom reading and gaining knwoledge from. Even when the common public contains not only their counterparts, but also those whom would seek to do them and their customers harm. That is what the #4 (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. would do.

How can you simply overlook this?

"Hmmm looks like now you are saying you don't have to have permission for fair use to apply."

No sir, that is what the 4 factors are for, none of which apply here, which is WHY you MUST have permission!
 
I know WTF is up with that killahsin? Are you trying to copy/paste me into oblivion? You are who turned this into a spam session. I never posted 3 pages worth of crap. Try linking...

Hmmm looks like now you are saying you don't have to have permission for fair use to apply. HOW INTERESTING! Come on, tell me I was right :) Now you are saying that 2 and 4 of fair use are against fair use for this case. I agree with 2. However, in 4 you would be wrong. Yes the people who distribute and who originally took the material violate this part of fair use, but those who simply VIEW it cause no finincial harm to valve in any way. If they were to copy/paste it into their own programs, they would violate 1. If they were to create a competing product and copy code into it they would violate 4. If they were to create hacks that used the copyrighted code in the hack, they would be violating 4. But viewing it does none of this. Even if you take the ideas you find in the code and use them, you are not violating copyright law because copyright law deals with the expression of ideas and not the ideas themselves. Patents are what protect ideas, so unless valve has patents for the idea someone copies from the source, they are fine.
 
dude all i asked was whats the possible punishment for the people who did this. and you two are argueing like 2 little girls.
 
Killahsin it is a case by case basis. If they use the code in an infringing way, then YES the are infringing. If they just LOOK at it, they do no harm. How is that difficult to understand?

And I never argued there is no such thing as IP. You are digenerating into babble now. Valve has rights to their source engine. They have the right to prevent people from using their source. They do not have the right to prevent people from viewing it for educational purposes.
 
Originally posted by skaytorre
dude all i asked was whats the possible punishment for the people who did this. and you two are argueing like 2 little girls.
Click to expand...

around 10-30 years give or take dependant on their resources, and if they can hire lawyers like slingblade, that will manipulate the law, so that just reading IP does not mean you gain knowledge from it, heh. Sling to use the source for educational purposes they must get permission..........
 
Dude just because some guidlines you found on the web say teachers should get permission does not mean you have to get permission for "educational" use. It's just a term. God. Call it "personal" use if you want. It still doesn't violate copyright law. Read the law, it clearly states you don't need permission for fair use. One of the factors for fair use is the purpose of the copy, and the most in favor in fair use is educational/personal.

No one is saying you don't gain knowledge when using fair use. Copyright is not trying to prevent people from gaining knowledge from a work. It is trying to prevent the copying of a unique expression of ideas, and to allow the person who copyrighted it to profit from that unique expression. COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS. Do you hear? PATENTS protects ideas. In fact, if valve isn't filing patents, then you could go find a unique idea in their code, patent it before valve did, and then sue VALVE. Ok? That is how it works. If you don't like it I'm sorry, but that is how our Intellectual Property rights work. I agree they suck and they need work, but I'm not a politician.

EDIT: oh, and on a side note. Even if they do have the ideas patented, Patents don't prevent you from learning of the idea, just using the idea.
 
sling no its the guidlines you found on the web, in the link which u posted to defend fair use. That is why i used it against you.

I am done responding here and i apologise for using this forum for a debate on law.
 
Ok, this is a stretch, but... if the original code was all zipped in a .rar file... does anyone knows if rar files... perhaps... retain some info on the user's computer? I was thinking of e-mailing rarlabs and finding out if they had such a feature hidden in their software. Kinda like a traceable name or something of the original computer it was used to compress it on. Kind of like hash marks. Anyways... I doubt it exists, but hey, worth a shot, right?
 
Originally posted by madcow555
Ok, this is a stretch, but... if the original code was all zipped in a .rar file... does anyone knows if rar files... perhaps... retain some info on the user's computer? I was thinking of e-mailing rarlabs and finding out if they had such a feature hidden in their software. Kinda like a traceable name or something of the original computer it was used to compress it on. Kind of like hash marks. Anyways... I doubt it exists, but hey, worth a shot, right?
Click to expand...

A really good idea :cheers:
 
Originally posted by madcow555
Also, on the forum some myg0 t member was blamin someone named bellend... isn't that someome from these forums? sounds familiar. Of course they'd say anything to divert attention. Cowards.
Click to expand...

I don't know if yuu're aware of this but bellend is an insult for someone in various parts of the world, namely england. They're probably just insulting someone.
 
Hi fellas,
Let me start by saying that [JAPS] in no way,shape or form has anything to do with this leak or theft of the hl2 source code. Some of you kids are really funny to me in jumping to conclusions the way you do. Rumors are great arent they. Yes we have the source! We downloaded it from http://***********/pgxf bittorrent there were other links posted all over the internet. Please dont include [JAPS] in your criticism about this unfortunate event. Alot of you are saying "[JAPS] either did it or have spread it. Either way they are guilty." We'll my response to that is "If you believe that then you are a blooming idiot!". [JAPS] Clan nor I personally have spred it, hosted it, nor taunted any of you about it. I have seen logs and msgs of alot of smack being spread about [JAPS] and me personally by another clan that I will not name. They are decietful accusations in an attept to relive the heat for their actions. I know who did this and its not my place to get in the middle of it. However I would appreciate it if the ghey little kids he hangs out with would'nt point fingers at me. Instead of bragging that "valve has insecure boxes." please don't be upset for me quoting you SX. :) Why not take credit for your work?
 
fu! Give me some proof that [JAPS] haven't spread it then I will believe you.. :p
 
Originally posted by Ruroni
K, I know how they got in. And how they did it. Everything basically. I will let some info go...soon. This guy is scared.

*shivers*
Click to expand...

if i were you i would tell valve... the worst the hackers could do is **** your computer and im sure if the evidence leads to the person/people who did this valve wont mind buying you a replacement pc...

after all you helped the kick peoples ass :)


Therook
 
Originally posted by ph34r t3h cute
Take the red pill and side with the hacker.. but you have 10,000 hl2 fans pointing guns at your head..

Take the blue pill and email Vavle, you could be a hero.. or at least a hero to a bunch of lil hl2 players anyhow Oo..
Click to expand...

I'm sure the blue pill will pay more $$$, if money is your thing.
 
hlx66, rule number 1 trust noone suspect everyone. M Y G O T has blamed japs and now japs are blaming them. Either way, it will get sorted but the damage is done. I wonder if the jailtime for whoever did the damage is worth it to them.
 
In which case he should email Valve with it and any logs/proof he has. IT IS his place to get in the middle, he needs to stand up for the actions that have taken place and if he wants to get his JAPS clan off the hook then that's the only good way of doing it.
 
Originally posted by Ares
There is nothing you can do to combat *****.. they are nearly invincible and that's what makes them strong.
Click to expand...

In a multi-million dollar theft like this, rest assure FBI will get involved and h4x0r tricks will not work with the Feds... this smells prison time like in all major virus outbreaks.
 
Originally posted by skaytorre
im not very up to date on law but i do have pretty good knowledge of computers and isnt it a federal crime to do what, according to valve, they did? Or is it too hard to charge them with something because it was partially valves fault ( for not having ran Windows Update which had a fix for the Outlook Express exploit ).
Click to expand...
That's like saying if you don't lock your door, you can't press charges on someone entering your home without permission. It's trespassing, whether the door was locked or not.

It is computer trespass, whether there is a security hole or not; firewall or not...
 
Originally posted by thop
The thing is they will probably never get the ***** people. They probably pulled the stunt from one of their comprimised machines. Unless somebody gets actualy real life names.
Click to expand...

Look, with an agency like FBI, you get full access to all company logs in case of a criminal investigation. With nicknames on IRC and especially if they are online, you can track down a physical address of a person in minutes and raid that house within 15 minutes or so. Confiscating HDs etc will reveal involvement surely. The presence of the HL2 source code alone is illegal ownership of copyrighted material alone, which is procecutable.
 
Hey investigate them both you will probably get one for HL2 and the other probably has something going on that will shake out. Isn't this what the Patriot Act is for, get their asses.
 
Originally posted by Pjotr
Look, with an agency like FBI, you get full access to all company logs in case of a criminal investigation. With nicknames on IRC and especially if they are online, you can track down a physical address of a person in minutes and raid that house within 15 minutes or so. Confiscating HDs etc will reveal involvement surely. The presence of the HL2 source code alone is illegal ownership of copyrighted material alone, which is procecutable.
Click to expand...


Yeah that might work OK on TV, but in the real world there are laws that require warrants. It's not like there's an FBI strike team waiting to raid your house at the drop of a hat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
16
Views
1K
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Solaris
What are you up to these days?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shem
Shem
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top