Regarding scans - READ!

[Pi Mu Rho]

Further to Icarus' very comprehensive comments, we contacted PC Gamer to ask for permission to republish the pictures and were asked not to. So whether it's a point of law or not is irrelevant - it's a matter of professional courtesy.

 

[dogboy73]

We cannot permit the posting of, or linking to, any copyrighted material from the magazine reviews. This includes scans or photos of the actual pages, and anything from the media included with it (i.e. pictures from the DVD)

Any threads containing such material will be deleted.

That's fair enough & I don't blame you for covering your asses but I'll be buggered if I'm paying £5.99 for any magazine! How do these mags get away with charging so much? I've worked in the print industry for 8 years & I know for a fact that printing prices have dropped through the floor over the years! Is it for the CD/DVD? Why not do a version without them? They are often full of s**t anyway! No, No. I decided a llllooonngg time ago to boycott such mags that see fit to put there prices over a fiver. They're all at it now! bloody piss take! £5.99 for a magazine??? Stroll on! You could buy a book for that!

Right, Rant over. Sorry about that. And if anyone has a link to the scanned review from PC Gamer then can they please PM me with it? When the magazine's are worth the money they charge I'll buy the the bloody things! In the mean time I've got no qualms about ripping them off now & again. In fact this would be only the second time I've ever done it (The first was for the Doom3 review that appeared in the US version) so I won't loose any sleep over it!.

 

[Impulse147]

Actually aslong as u don't work for or run the site ur posting it on its perfecting legal, but we must do what the master says.

 

[mrchimp]

Further to Icarus' very comprehensive comments, we contacted PC Gamer to ask for permission to republish the pictures and were asked not to. So whether it's a point of law or not is irrelevant - it's a matter of professional courtesy.

Can't.... leave it.... alone....

*MrChimp* rips hand away from keyboard.

 

[7hoR]

Well, I haven't seen a moderator say this is against the rules, so for those that do have scans, if you could plz PM them to me so I can crave my hunger for it, I would appreciate it sooo much. Thank you.

-7hoR

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

roger that pi mu rho...btw what does your name mean?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

It's my brother's initials in Greek letters.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

o i get it now

 

[Subz]

ive seen all 4 of them all amazing. warning, the german one that gave hl2 a 90% has big spoiler on last page.

 

[Mr Bond]

Further to Icarus' very comprehensive comments, we contacted PC Gamer to ask for permission to republish the pictures and were asked not to. So whether it's a point of law or not is irrelevant - it's a matter of professional courtesy.

Yeah, definitely. My post had nothing to do with what to do in practice on HL2.net (or Fallout, or anywhere). If you want to read the review, buy the magazine! But my argument concerns the point of law. The law is an interest for me (as it is for Icarus) -- hence the debate.

1. The clarity issues were solved earlier this year.

2. Knowingly deep linking directly to offending material is very much illegal.

3. I think you misunderstand the pages you linked to, they concern things different then what we were dealing with before, matter of fact it concerns what we are dealing with now. Let me explain. The ditto.com case concerned linking to images that were owned by the individual being linked to, and if someone could link to those. Case in point; if we linked to an image at MSN.com we in all probability wouldn't have legislation levied against us (which is what we are now faced with linking to the Future Network (who owns the copyright) site that has the images). But what we were dealing with before, and will no doubt have to deal with in the future, is illegal in no uncertain terms, linking to material that otherwise individuals would have to pay for, and the person linked to having the images up illegally (Which is very distinctly illegal).

1. In which case? Which jurisdiction?

2. It's not that simple.

As stated, it depends on jurisdiction and legislation. For example, if the server/ISP is located in Norway (Phonefile v. Startsiden) or Sweden (IFPI Schweden v. Tommy Olssen), there's absolutely no liability for external linking of any kind to illegal material. In England, the situation is unclear (Shetland Times v. Shetland News was settled before any appeal to the House of Lords and in Nottinghamshire County Council v. John Gwatkin, Nick Anning, David Herbditch, Margaret Jervis, the case against the alleged infringer was dropped).

Then again, in jurisdictions like the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden, webmasters are clearly liable for deep linking to illegally posted material.

In the US, the situation is far from definitive. The case law is thin, and lacks conclusive authority. In cases like Universal v. Reimerdes and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry the Courts did find infringement on the basis that the linking was for the "purpose of disseminating that illegal material". Then again, Intellectual Reserve might possibly be distinguished on the facts. The infringing webmaster had originally hosted the illegal content themselves (and had simply replaced it with equivalent external links). Cases like Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, while not concerning the specific linking-to-illegal-content scenario, nonetheless argue that there is no liability in copyright for linking. "...hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is involved" (US District Court, 2000). The weight of authorities might arguably support a finding of infringement in these cases. Then again, they arguably might not. How the US Courts would rule on forum postings (made by non-staff members) linking to off-site illegal material isn't certain.

My point is blanket statements of the "law" like 1. and 2. are misleading at best, and at worst, complete legal misstatements.

3. Those pages I linked contained discussions of both situations -- linking to illegal content and deep linking to legally publish copyrighted material. Of course, only the former was relevant. You're right, the ditto.com case (Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp) has no relevance to linking to illegal material. But, uh, I never said it did.

I would recommend checking out Links and Law and Chilling Effects for an in-depth discussion.

 

[patto]

As has been said the legality of linking copyrighted material is very grey. The internet works in the same way as the six degrees of sepparation. (Maybe not six, but pretty much everything would be linked together by a small number of links)

There would be plenty of illegal material linked from this website by a chain of three or four links. Give it 15 or so links and Im sure you could find all sorts of dodgy shit.

In short if you link another forum which in turn links to the pictures then it would be hardly illegal.


Though i not a lawyer. These days the big copyright holders can bully whoever they please. Just look at what happened to the guy who cracked DVDs!!

 

[sHm0zY]

scans - bad

 

[mashed]

gayness

utter gayness

 

[GunPlay]

I'm sorry, I posted a small quote from the Rolling Stone article regarding ComradeBadger.

 

[DashRendar]

Yeah, the UK PCGamer mag spoiled some of it for me, now I can make an educated guess at the storyline and why everyones worked up about Alyxs 'Dog'.

 

[evil^milk]

πmuρ pimurho!

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

www.pimurho.co.uk

 

[CountShockula]

I'm rebel Dotty, an outcast...