EVE Search - BoB alliance & co vs ascn alliance & co

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

BoB alliance & co vs ascn alliance & co

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 17:19:00 - [91] Only 9 straight BoB replies in a row to my little 'spat'... you're slacking
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2006.10.13 17:26:00 - [92] well they got epeen and are not afraid to stroke it dude. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Mebrithiel Ju'wien Minmatar Blood Inquisition Sani Khal'Vecna	Posted - 2006.10.13 17:50:00 - [93] Originally by: Kryztal lol only reason why we arent clearing your POS's out in that system, like we did with your thirteen in tpar, is because we like how you always respawn close to home so we can keep chaining ASCN without having to actually travel to get kills :P Beautiful. You make my heart sing.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:07:00 - [94] Originally by: Butter Dog Its not funny, its just that most people havent got the time or energy to persue legal proceedings, and you know it. Its also not funny that you do such things in the first place. You are morally corrupt and have no respect for other people who play this game. Grow up. * cough * Originally by: UK Copyright Act Criticism, review and news reporting. 30.ù(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. (2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. (3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme. Under section 9 of the same act, unknown authors are those who can not be easily identified (in real life), and do not need to be credited (because you can't credit work if you don't know who made it). No matter how much you want this to be illegal, it isn't. Sorry. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Louisa Torres Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:18:00 - [95] Avon obviously thought the hole BD had dug for himself was big enough, I was gonna wait until he hit China
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:40:00 - [96] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Butter Dog Its not funny, its just that most people havent got the time or energy to persue legal proceedings, and you know it. Its also not funny that you do such things in the first place. You are morally corrupt and have no respect for other people who play this game. Grow up. * cough * Originally by: UK Copyright Act Criticism, review and news reporting. 30.ù(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. (2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. (3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme. Under section 9 of the same act, unknown authors are those who can not be easily identified (in real life), and do not need to be credited (because you can't credit work if you don't know who made it). No matter how much you want this to be illegal, it isn't. Sorry. Just...lol... you are quoting the UK Copyright Act. This has nothing to do with copyright. The Copyright Act you are referring to, and specifically the section you have quoted, deals with the review or criticism of copyrighted work, which is INTENTIONALLY in the public domain. What you have done, it accessed a private voice server, neither copyright protected NOR intended to be in the public domian, and recorded it without permission to do so. Not only this, but you then made it publically available by hosting it on your site. If you're going to try and quote the law, please... have the FIRST CLUE about what you are quoting, because frankly you have just embarassed yourself and your alliance.
Ellohem Syncore Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:44:00 - [97] Perhaps locking the thread might be in order... no real need for this to go on and on and on and on and on...ect Sometime i really do feel imbaressed to be part of the eve community, its a game, lets just get on with it.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:45:00 - [98] Sorry, but if you think TS is covered by the Telecommunications Act, you are sorely mistakened. Teamspeak is covered under legislation as a cable broadcast service, and thus covered only by copyright law. Only secure point to point VoIP communication is covered under the Telecommunications Act, and covered by the privacy provisions of that Act. Sorry if you find that inconvenient to your case. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:52:00 - [99] Secure voice servers are not classed as cable broadcast services. Sorry if that inconveniences your case. And none of this psuedo-legal talk hides the fact your out-of-game actions are morally reprehensible. Still, if you must sc*****the barrel, go right ahead... does wonders for your PR.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 18:58:00 - [100] Originally by: Butter Dog Secure voice servers are not classed as cable broadcast services. Sorry if that inconveniences your case. And none of this psuedo-legal talk hides the fact your out-of-game actions are morally reprehensible. Still, if you must sc*****the barrel, go right ahead... does wonders for your PR. Yawn. You are incorrect. Anyone has legitimate access to the TS server can consider it a public broadcast system, in fact, the law REQUIRES it is treated as such. Seriously BD, you are arguing with the wrong person over the legal aspects of this. As to the morality question, I disagree again. Let us look at the Human Rights which are recognised under UK law: 16 basic human rights have been incorporated into UK law. (Summary of The Human Rights Act 1998) right to life prohibition of torture prohibition of slavery and forced labour right to liberty and security right to a fair trial no punishment without law right to respect for private and family life freedom of thought, conscience and religion freedom of expression freedom of assembly and association right to marry prohibition of discrimination protection of property right to education right to free elections abolition of the death penalty Before you try to argue the "right to respect for private life" card, it doesn't apply to public broadcasts. Sorry. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:01:00 - [101] You talk about morality then quote a law? Laughable.
Altheon Caldari Constructive Influence	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:02:00 - [102] Edited by: Altheon on 13/10/2006 19:02:22
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:03:00 - [103] Originally by: Butter Dog You talk about morality then quote a law? Laughable. Really? What do you think the law is based on, imorality? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:04:00 - [104] I don't think I've ever seen anyone get owned so hard on the forums since that ER dude flamed us then posted with his main. Sheer poetry in work here chaps. dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:06:00 - [105] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Butter Dog You talk about morality then quote a law? Laughable. Really? What do you think the law is based on, imorality? Morality is driven by consience, not legal statutes. The fact you can get away with something because of a (highly debatable) legal loophole regarding secure voice servers, does not make your actions right or justifiable. Any grown adult can see this. So carry on, dredge the bottom of the barrel, make excuses... the rest of the EVE community look on, and thank our lucky stars we are not part of a group of people who blur the boundaries between gaming and reality to such an unhealthy degree.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:07:00 - [106] Originally by: DB Preacher I don't think I've ever seen anyone get owned so hard on the forums since that ER dude flamed us then posted with his main. Sheer poetry in work here chaps. dbp That post contributed presicely nothing to the debate. Do you actually have anything to add, or are low level flames the purpose of your contribution here?
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:09:00 - [107] Edited by: DB Preacher on 13/10/2006 19:10:36 awwww, did poor avon own you and you are now turning on me with some lame attempt to derail your owning? Please by all means continue, it's hilarious. p.s. We don't need you to judge our morality nor care whether you do but it's still hilarious owning your poor legal arguments. dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:10:00 - [108] Originally by: DB Preacher awwww, did poor avon own you and you are now turning on me with some lame attempt to derail your owning? Please by all means continue, it's hilarious. dbp Actually, you are the one who waded into our perfectly reasoned debate with some low level flaming. Pot.. kettle..
Zagum Darkfin Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:12:00 - [109] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: DB Preacher awwww, did poor avon own you and you are now turning on me with some lame attempt to derail your owning? Please by all means continue, it's hilarious. dbp Actually, you are the one who waded into our perfectly reasoned debate with some low level flaming. Pot.. kettle.. YAp, Avon pwned him.
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:12:00 - [110] Edited by: DB Preacher on 13/10/2006 19:12:16 Reasonable? Nah, on one side you have made up stuff in a poor attempt to flame BoB against someone who knows what he is talking about legally and morally. Keep going though, please, it really has alot to do with the OP. oh no wait, it's just another BoB thread derailment from you. dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:13:00 - [111] Originally by: DB Preacher p.s. We don't need you to judge our morality nor care whether you do but it's still hilarious owning your poor legal arguments. dbp Actually you have not, in the slightest. Its pure debate, no facts have been established. Secure voice servers may or may not be classifed under various statutes... however as this is pretty much untested in court, its just my point of view against his. One could argue with equal force that secure voice servers are NOT covered by Copyright laws. Indeed from the legal perspective this would make more sense.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:13:00 - [112] Originally by: Butter Dog The fact you can get away with something because of a (highly debatable) legal loophole regarding secure voice servers, does not make your actions right or justifiable. It isn't a loophole, and it isn't "highly debatable". What you are asking for is censorship. You are saying it is unfair to show someone in a bad light by simply making their public broadcast more public. Censorship is lying by ommission, and lying is immoral, non? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:14:00 - [113] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Butter Dog The fact you can get away with something because of a (highly debatable) legal loophole regarding secure voice servers, does not make your actions right or justifiable. It isn't a loophole, and it isn't "highly debatable". What you are asking for is censorship. You are saying it is unfair to show someone in a bad light by simply making their public broadcast more public. Censorship is lying by ommission, and lying is immoral, non? Only you CANNOT class it as a public broadcast. Your interpretation of the law is pure comedy.
jellybird Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:17:00 - [114] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Avon Originally by: Butter Dog The fact you can get away with something because of a (highly debatable) legal loophole regarding secure voice servers, does not make your actions right or justifiable. It isn't a loophole, and it isn't "highly debatable". What you are asking for is censorship. You are saying it is unfair to show someone in a bad light by simply making their public broadcast more public. Censorship is lying by ommission, and lying is immoral, non? Only you CANNOT class it as a public broadcast. Your interpretation of the law is pure comedy. OMG Are u still talking, there is something called "Real Life" just a few steps away, get a grip pal.
Butter Dog The Dead Miners Society	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:18:00 - [115] Originally by: jellybird OMG Are u still talking, there is something called "Real Life" just a few steps away, get a grip pal. Thanks for this valuable contribution. PS - I play eve for less than a few hours a week atm... if anyone needs to get a life around here, its not me
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:19:00 - [116] Edited by: Avon on 13/10/2006 19:20:28 Originally by: Butter Dog One could argue with equal force that secure voice servers are NOT covered by Copyright laws. Indeed from the legal perspective this would make more sense. You could argue it, but you'd be wrong. Originally by: Copyright Act 6 (2) An encrypted transmission shall be regarded as capable of being lawfully received by members of the public only if decoding equipment has been made available to members of the public by or with the authority of the person making the transmission or the person providing the contents of the transmission. ie. give them the password and it is a public broadcast. I could do this all night, but I'd rather not as I have to do it all day. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:19:00 - [117] I believe the morality question was already handled adequately about three threads ago. Cba looking it up, but it's there. Old blog
jellybird Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:20:00 - [118] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: jellybird OMG Are u still talking, there is something called "Real Life" just a few steps away, get a grip pal. Thanks for this valuable contribution. PS - I play eve for less than a few hours a week atm... if anyone needs to get a life around here, its not me NP, only having time to play eve after school must suck
Audrea Momentum.	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:22:00 - [119] lol, is that the forum for role playing lawyers? ------------------ yay, the Deimos has been saved!
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.13 19:24:00 - [120] Originally by: Audrea lol, is that the forum for role playing lawyers? I wish I was a lawyer, I'd probably have to spend less time talking to them over compliance issues. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.