Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS?

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Noob91

Statutes are virtually useless without case law to interpret them or analysis if it hasn't been tested though. Those things aren't available for free.

Yes they are.

[photodude]

Originally Posted by shawty

Would you like someone copying your software and uploading to verious download sites for other people to download for free?

Why ask me that question? I've not broken any laws by doing what I did with MS, neither did they have a civil case against me.
But as you have asked me: I've had my stuff stolen and put on sites for free downloads, and guess what, 9 times out of 10 I get them to take it down. The others I just can't be bothered following up, as it's not worth it.
Here is one from the other week:

Hello XXXXXXX,

I am sorry to hear that a image you own was on our website. We are a user generated content website and we can't know for sure if the user that uploaded it is not the copyright owner. The photo was already removed.

Thank you,
Adrian Danila
www.ewallpapers.eu

The laws are there to protect all, and if a large company is abusing/bending the laws to obtain money, why shouldn't jo public fight their corner?

[shawty]

Originally Posted by photodude

Why ask me that question? I've not broken any laws by doing what I did with MS, neither did they have a civil case against me.
But as you have asked me: I've had my stuff stolen and put on sites for free downloads, and guess what, 9 times out of 10 I get them to take it down. The others I just can't be bothered following up, as it's not worth it.
Here is one from the other week:

The laws are there to protect all, and if a large company is abusing/bending the laws to obtain money, why shouldn't jo public fight their corner?

So let me get this straight. When you dont want people using stuff that is yours, you get them to stop it. When someone asks you to stop using theirs, you wont.

[piggy]

Originally Posted by shawty

So let me get this straight. When you dont want people using stuff that is yours, you get them to stop it. When someone asks you to stop using theirs, you wont.

he was reselling the genuine article where is the infringement?
read post 140

[photodude]

Originally Posted by shawty

So let me get this straight. When you dont want people using stuff that is yours, you get them to stop it. When someone asks you to stop using theirs, you wont.

NO.
When someone breaches my copyrights, I ask them to stop (as I am entitled to do so).
When a company makes false claims of copyrights law breach against me, I don't sit back and take it. It's that simple, and not too hard to understand really.
My case with MS is documented and proven, and I was in the right. They admitted they were in the wrong, and apologised (as seen in the email I quoted from Microsoft).
You may not like the fact that I took them on, and they backed down, but it is a fact that it happened.
In this case, there are many issues with the company's claims of distribution against individuals. And a lack of physical proof as to what parts of the game were downloaded from each person. In reality, the only person/persons who could be shown as distributing the whole game, are those who first offered it as a torrent/download. They were the only ones to distribute the whole game to a single person. From that point on, people only distributed a "part" of the game. Can this company prove what part, or how much they distributed?
With my dealings with www.ewallpapers.eu , I went for the site owner, and the original up-loader. I guess I could have tried it on with all the 4560 people who downloaded my image illegally, but that would have made me like Davenport Lyons.
Anyway don't try and make out I have double standards. I didn't breach Microsoft's copyrights, so I was in the right. And I was also in the right when I acted against someone breaching my copyrights.

[shawty]

Originally Posted by piggy

he was reselling the genuine article where is the infringement?
read post 140

Never said there was an infringement, I just think its double standards regardless of wether there is a copyright on it or not. He wouldnt like people making money of software he has made be it copyrighted or not and neither do Microsoft. But its what Ive come to expect of people living on this planet, as everyday goes by, its more about me, me, me and dont give a stuff about anyone else.

Let us calm down everyone...and stick to the topic which is have you had one of these letters and what you are doing about it..

Originally Posted by shawty

Never said there was an infringement, I just think its double standards regardless of wether there is a copyright on it or not. He wouldnt like people making money of software he has made be it copyrighted or not and neither do Microsoft. But its what Ive come to expect of people living on this planet, as everyday goes by, its more about me, me, me and dont give a stuff about anyone else.

It's not double standards, one is breaking copyright the other is re-selling products legally.

[photodude]

Originally Posted by shawty

Never said there was an infringement, I just think its double standards regardless of wether there is a copyright on it or not. He wouldnt like people making money of software he has made be it copyrighted or not and neither do Microsoft. But its what Ive come to expect of people living on this planet, as everyday goes by, its more about me, me, me and dont give a stuff about anyone else.

Are you for real?
Microsoft had already made their money on the item I was selling. I was making my little bit on top, in the same way any shop/retailer does. As I was (and still am) Microsoft registered (Microsoft Partner ID: 1556078), and doing it all legally, I've got every right to earn a living. And I was earning it by selling the items at a much lower price than any other seller. Other Ebay sellers complained, and Microsoft assumed I was selling fake goods. They then changed the claim to not selling within the EULA and System builders agreement (as I proved it was a genuine Microsoft product), but they were wrong on that point too. I proved them all wrong, and Microsoft are happy for me to sell the items on Ebay.

One thing worse than double standards, is people who think they know what they are talking about, and judge others on their preconceived ideas.
When you know what you are talking about, feel free to make a judgement. Until then, keep your argumentative, discriminative, and ill-informed comments to yourself.
Please think before you reply.

PS: Sorry for drifting off topic. That is the end of the matter.

[shawty]

Originally Posted by photodude

Are you for real?
Microsoft had already made their money on the item I was selling. I was making my little bit on top, in the same way any shop/retailer does. As I was (and still am) Microsoft registered (Microsoft Partner ID: 1556078), and doing it all legally, I've got every right to earn a living. And I was earning it by selling the items at a much lower price than any other seller. Other Ebay sellers complained, and Microsoft assumed I was selling fake goods. They then changed the claim to not selling within the EULA and System builders agreement (as I proved it was a genuine Microsoft product), but they were wrong on that point too. I proved them all wrong, and Microsoft are happy for me to sell the items on Ebay.

One thing worse than double standards, is people who think they know what they are talking about, and judge others on their preconceived ideas.
When you know what you are talking about, feel free to make a judgement. Until then, keep your argumentative, discriminative, and ill-informed comments to yourself.
Please think before you reply.

PS: Sorry for drifting off topic. That is the end of the matter.

So you would be happy for me to take a peice of software you had made and for me to gain financially out of it? I dont think you would, no matter what you say, as anyone doesnt like that.

Originally Posted by shawty

So you would be happy for me to take a peice of software you had made and for me to gain financially out of it? I dont think you would, no matter what you say, as anyone doesnt like that.

Thats what Amazon do, Game do, PC World do. They re-sell software

[photodude]

Originally Posted by shawty

So you would be happy for me to take a peice of software you had made and for me to gain financially out of it? I dont think you would, no matter what you say, as anyone doesnt like that.

People make money from my photographs now, and I'm happy for them to do so, as I've made my bit, and given them a licence to do it.

END OF CONVERSATION

[shawty]

Originally Posted by Damien

Thats what Amazon do, Game do, PC World do. They re-sell software

With a license most likely. Now we know he won the case, but before he knew that, he had no license to be selling stuff that belonged to microsoft.

[Kymmy]

GUYS!!!! You've already been asked nicely by Maggy to stick to the topic which is the letters and possible legal action taken by Davenport Lyons (and others) against people who used P2P software to download Pinball dreams, test drive and other copyrighted software...

Discussions about copyright in general really needs to be taken to a new thread

Anyone still discussing anything OFF TOPIC after this 2nd public warning will not be dealt with so politely

[photodude]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

GUYS!!!! You've already been asked nicely by Maggy to stick to the topic which is the letters and possible legal action taken by Davenport Lyons (and others) against people who used P2P software to download Pinball dreams, test drive and other copyrighted software...

Discussions about copyright in general really needs to be taken to a new thread

Anyone still discussing anything OFF TOPIC after this 2nd public warning will not be dealt with so politely

Thank you.