Fanfare Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 (edited) I was talking to the hepdesk at buzzen, because i was having a terrible time getting into their chat as anything other then a guest. My msn chat control was corrupt, and they told me to delet it and gave me a link to re download it. HOWEVER, they told me that they are writing their own chat controll, to be released as soon as possible. Lisa Yes, Buzzen V2, the next generation of chat, is pretty cute. You can look at the screenshot preview here at http://www.buzzen.com/preview_v2.doc Edited October 17, 2006 by Fanfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanne Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) I think I've read through all of the posts here, and am still left wondering.... Are buzzen, phreik and any other msn clone chat sites acting illegally by using the msn chat ocx to provide chat services? For example: Msn attempted to make money from their ocx by implementing subscription chat. But (to my understanding) Buzzen(and other sites) went and used the msn ocx to provide people with free chat at buzzen(and other sites). In essence, if msn took buzzen to court, msn could easily claim that buzzen stole alot of msn's potential paying customers by offering those people the use of msn chat ocx for free at buzzen. Buzzen boasts 50,000 users...that adds up to alot of $$ in damages if buzzen is using the msn ocx illegally, and if msn chooses to recover damages from buzzen. Second, now buzzen is making money from people who register rooms. Is it like $50 per room?? Is it legal that buzzen is making this money while providing people with chat based on msn's ocx file?? or is it theft to use, and make money with someone else's copyrighted chat ocx? I have recieved mixed information regarding this. When I talked with msn, they told me that buzzen is using the msn ocx without permission, and that msn is taking the necessary actions. I have also talked to people on buzzen who claim that buzzen owns the patent for the msn ocx file that they are using. These people claim that buzzen admin told them this. So these two mixed messages leave me with a sense of confusion, and I would like to know clearly from buzzen admin if you do own the patent on the msn ocx file that you are using to provide buzzen chat with, and if buzzen has explicit (in writing) permission from msn to use that ocx to provide chat at buzzen. Also for the record, was the buzzen advertisement posted on msn chat sent officially by msn, or was it sent wrongly(unoffically) by someone supporting buzzen. Msn states they did not send that advertisement, and only encourage people to use msn messenger live. Unfortunately alot of people saw that buzzen ad on msn, and now think msn supports buzzen because of that ad. So buzzen, was that ad an official msn ad, or was it not. For clarity sake it would be nice to recieve some clear, and exact answers from buzzen admin regarding this. Thanks. Edited October 17, 2006 by Deanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-Fusion Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) Copyright infringement: § 501. Infringement of copyright (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term "anyone" includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. ( The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright. © For any secondary transmission by a cable system that embodies a performance or a display of a work which is actionable as an act of infringement under subsection © of section 111, a television broadcast station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection ( of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local service area of that television station. (d) For any secondary transmission by a cable system that is actionable as an act of infringement pursuant to section 111©(3), the following shall also have standing to sue: (i) the primary transmitter whose transmission has been altered by the cable system; and (ii) any broadcast station within whose local service area the secondary transmission occurs. (e) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement under section 119(a)(5), a network station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection ( of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local service area of that station. (f)(1) With respect to any secondary transmission that is made by a satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission and is actionable as an act of infringement under section 122, a television broadcast station holding a copyright or other license to transmit or perform the same version of that work shall, for purposes of subsection ( of this section, be treated as a legal or beneficial owner if such secondary transmission occurs within the local market of that station. (2) A television broadcast station may file a civil action against any satellite carrier that has refused to carry television broadcast signals, as required under section 122(a)(2), to enforce that television broadcast station's rights under section 338(a) of the Communications Act of 1934. § 506. Criminal offenses5 (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either - (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. ( Forfeiture and Destruction. - When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords. © Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. (e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a). If you dont wanna read thru all this, click here Also, there are notes about online copyright infringement there to. It's to long to paste here however. Edited October 17, 2006 by X-Fusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanne Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) hi X-fusion, thanks for the copyright info. The trouble I am having with all of this is that some people at buzzen are claiming that buzzen owns the patent, copyright, for the msn chat ocx file that they are using to provide chat on at buzzen. These people have said that when they registered their room with buzzen, buzzen staff told them that buzzen owns the patent for the ocx. On the other hand, msn has told me that buzzen is using the ocx without permission, and that msn is taking action. So I would like to know from buzzen (remko is it?) if buzzen owns the patent, copyright, for the msn chat ocx that they are using to provide buzzen chat with, or if msn has given them explicit, in writing, permission to use that ocx to provide buzzen chat services. Also I wanted to know if the buzzen ad, which ran on msn, was it officially from msn, or was it from some dolt sending it unofficially in a silly attempt to support buzzen chat. Alot of people seem to think msn officially sent this ad for buzzen, and that msn supports buzzen chat. Edited October 17, 2006 by Deanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanfare Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The msn groups chat broadcast message, from what I learned, was real transmitted by a MSN Sysop. As for msn's ocx, Buzzen does not own its copyright and patent, and they are not going to use it for long. They will use its own for the upcoming future. I don't know why some of their staffers get the idea that Buzzen owns the rights and such. I'd think they have been misinformed. However, I hope any of their three Admins can clarify this matter for you further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanne Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The msn groups chat broadcast message, from what I learned, was real transmitted by a MSN Sysop. As for msn's ocx, Buzzen does not own its copyright and patent, and they are not going to use it for long. They will use its own for the upcoming future. I don't know why some of their staffers get the idea that Buzzen owns the rights and such. I'd think they have been misinformed. However, I hope any of their three Admins can clarify this matter for you further. fanfare I heard it was an msn sysop who sent the buzzen ad over msn chat, but I also heard that the msn sysop was NOT acting officially under msn guidance, but took it upon his or herself to post an ad for buzzen(illegally). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err0r Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 the sysop was not acting officially under msn's orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanfare Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) the sysop was not acting officially under msn's orders. I suspect that sysop has defected to Buzzen afterward, since it was clear that the groups chat was going to close. I'm not sure which sysop did it, but I know MSN UK and Germany chat had moved to groups chat after Microsoft decided to close its global chatrooms, except the US one, which was closed on Oct. 16th, 2006. Edited October 17, 2006 by Fanfare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err0r Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 i think all her questions have been answered before.. i know i'm not staff but i'm willing to rehash it lol No the ocx isn't theirs, they have no claim to it. I'm 99.9% sure MSN isn't going to do squat about sites using their ocx. Buzzen has a new ocx in the works which looks much better than msn's If someone from buzzen told you they owned the ocx they were most likely misinformed or just flat out lying to get you to stay. I doubt the main staff would tell you that. It's been stated in several places that they don't and they are working on their own as a replacement. The Sysop that put out the message did so on their own with no order or support from MSN. ( i've heard from several people the person is now part of buzzen staff ) I let you form your own opinions on that matter. As for charging for some room types.. That's their right I guess. If someone is willing to pay for that then by all means go for it. They aren't paying for the ocx anyways. They are paying for a room on the servers which buzzen has to pay for i'm sure. I think it's time everyone cut them some slack. They seem to be willing to do the right thing. They say they are working hard to put out their own ocx which was my only issue with them. Just wait and see. Even with the new ocx you can bet they are going to get a ton of ppl telling them they wished they kept the msn ocx. So either way ppl are going to fuss but i think they are doing the right thing by putting out their own ocx or flash or whatever gui they are planning.. The main goal in all of this is having good places to chat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanne Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 hey djv, suppose you were in the webpage making business, and you created several webpage templates. You were charging people $$ to use those webpage templates...but then some smart alec came along and decided to give your template to people for free... How would you feel about that? Msn was trying to charge for the use of their ocx, and buzzen went and let people enjoy its use for free on buzzen servers. Pathetic is the only word for buzzen. Frankly buzz buzz, buzzen is attracting alot of flies. Glad I'm not a fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts