I stand corrected: it is legal to use msn chat control

[Chuck]

Koach: Please everyone, let's not bash other networks. So far, the posts have been very informative and positive. Let's keep it that way.

http://groups.msn.com/KoachsWorkShop/gener...6089&CDir=1

Fair and sensible advice Koach made in his community. Won't hurt to follow it here or any other forum.

 

[dad4all]

Who cares? lol, Just see This Thread and build your own using your choice of compiler, Even use visual basic if you like, Its official, But its illegal for them to decompile your code, Which then means unless you use an image created by them etc, They couldnt know, Remember you can modify the modules using something as simple as reshacker, idk - what do you think?

[Guest X-Fusion]

If we followed everything Koach did, this site would be boring.

[Chuck]

But in this instance you are wrong in the matter of how long copyright lasts. They are still fighing over beatles songs to this day.

Off topic: I don't really know the details, but as far as I remember copyright expiration comes after 28 years (unless renewed) for intangible form of expression.

P.S. i stand corrected.. part of the article you posted.

That means that you would have to stop using the ocx and if three years went by after you used it they couldn't do anything.. everyday you use the ocx it's three years from that day. So if you stopped TODAY msn still has 3 years to sue you lol.. that sux.

I stand corrected. I agree with your interpretation for the rule of thumb. However, correct legal perspective is given in example in the article - courts normally differ. PS: That doesn't mean people should go on keep using the mp3's from file sharing programs like Morpheus or chat ocx from msn clones like Buzzen: In worst case scenario court can use last infringement date.

 

Coming back to the original topic a lawyer once said to me that a copyrighted can get into public domain if statute of limitation passes. I can't find any clear ref. for or against it... I found one but it is not clear cut:

There is a common belief that if someone infringes a copyright, and the

copyright owner does not sue or otherwise put a stop to the infringement,

the copyright is lost and the work goes into the public domain. There is

some pre-1988 law on this (e.g., Stuff v. E.C. Publications, 432 F.2d 143

(2d Cir., 1965) and Transgo v. Ajac Transmission Parts, 768 F.2d 1001

(9th Cir. 1985)), but it seems to derive mostly from the fact that the

copyright holder had acquiesced in the publication of the work without

notice back when notice was a requirement. It was the publication

without notice, and not the lack of enforcement, that actually worked to

put the work in the public domain. This is forfeiture of copyright, not

abandonment. Because the notice requirement is now gone from copyright

law, these cases don't have much weight today.

 

I can't find anything that supports the idea that failure to assert a

copyright against an infringer can alone lead to placing the work in the

public domain (if you have any authoritative information on this, please

drop me a note at one of the addresses listed in the introduction). Of

course, circumstances may be such that the ability to sue a particular

infringer might be waived (e.g., a statute of limitations may expire (see

section 3.4), or if the infringer has reasonably relied to his or her

detriment on the copyright holder's failure to sue, the doctrine of

laches may bar a suit), but that's only with respect to that particular

infringer, and does not affect the status of the copyright with respect

to others.

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/

If anyone has an online law article on this with clear details, then link it please.

 

One more thing, don't ruin a perfectly good discussion with personal attacks. Purpose if this thread is to gain more knowledge surrounding copyright issues, I used msn chat control to make it more interesting, but that doesn't ok personal attacks to anyone. So please refrain from using personal comments.

[Guest X-Fusion]

Personally attacks Chuck and smacks him with a large, wet trout

[Chuck]

If we followed everything Koach did, this site would be boring.

If it gets too interesting like usual with buzzen topics then I'm afraid it will get closed. This is not to bash or promote anyone, I've done things in my life without permission and most of the time I've refrained from doing things without permission... I never stole any tangible object, but I've downloaded mp3s from Morpheus... in the end, it differs from situation to situation and person to person. If anyone considers me a bad person for this, then so be it, but it is the truth.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Chuck

[Guest X-Fusion]

No, no .. its nothing like that. I agree, some people go to far with Buzzen, but, discussions like this are good. And remember, its a discussion unless someone takes a personal vendetta against it. It's not a majority thing either that put down Buzzen either, its a popcorn effect. So, hey, dont take it so personal Chuck. It wont get closed aslong as people dont take others comments so serious and reply in a negative or defective form.

[Chuck]

"dont take it so personal Chuck."

I'm not. Just don't want to get things out of proportion.

 

Regarding the copyright issue, I'll try to get an answer from someone who is studying law.

[Ozzy10]

am i rite inthinking you are a little bias towards buzzen chuck , because they host the project your working on?

[Chuck]

Who cares? lol, Just see This Thread and build your own using your choice of compiler, Even use visual basic if you like, Its official, But its illegal for them to decompile your code, Which then means unless you use an image created by them etc, They couldnt know, Remember you can modify the modules using something as simple as reshacker, idk - what do you think?

I hope you don't take my comment personally. But I think that would be worse and won't stand a chance in court. Court doesn't judge things as black and white, they'll look at the perspective of users, msn, or any other party involved. If it benefits public and doesn't harm original owner(s) than in cases like these courts may rule in the favor of the defendant if a case is filed. But riping due credits is ethically very wrong and won't stand a chance in courts at all.

 

Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Thomas played it down the middle. He explained that there is no basis for treating patent cases differently than other types of disputes in evaluating the appropriateness of equitable relief. “According to well-established principles of equity,” he wrote, “a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief.” Specifically, a plaintiff must show:

 

- that it has suffered an irreparable injury;

- that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;

- that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted;

- that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

 

http://www.nixonpeabody.com/copyright_arti...4&PubType=N

Above case not exactly the same, but it may give some idea. Second, if software is not hosted on the network then it make things more complicated since linking normally doesn't constitute of copyright violation. Court can rule differently based on the situation but normally linking is not an issue.