pouët.net

No. Disputes would be settled in civil court meaning you're beyond all the difficult technicalities of criminal law, and the laws surrounding copyright aren't that fuzzy at all: if you made it, you own the intellectual property rights and have the final say in where and when it's used (except for "fair use" which covers freedom-of-speech type stuff only, not separating the video from the audio to provide backdrop visuals for a techno rave, for example).

If the material is used in a non-profit but controversial context you may be able to sue for damages, but you'll have a hard time demonstrating lost profit. Either way you'll still win the argument that the material is yours and was used without permission, and that any further use has to stop.

If the material is used in a commercial context you can sue for lost profit as well. This is more difficult because there's no sure way to determine what the infringer should/would have paid you to license the material, but since this is civil court, the ruling is ultimately made by a judge rather than incomprehensible legal technicalities, and you start off in the winning position, so as long as you don't come off greedy or vindictive, you're likely to win.

There are a couple of ways you can lose, like fair-use grounds, or if you make unreasonable demands, or you were completely uncooperative while the other party attempted a settlement, but the only way to fall flat on your face is if you fail to demonstrate that you are the creator of the material. Anyway, as Gasman points out, copyright cases are almost always settled before going to court (and that's because it's almost always very clear who would win).

No, no "may or may not". Unspecified licensing does not grant any rights to anyone, and is pretty much the opposite of public domain.

The timbaland case is nothing similar to what we are talking about here. Also, we don't know if tempest got any money or if they told him: "forget about it and we wont sue your for false accusations". I would actually believe the last one happent.

When it comes to licenses/public domain etc show me one (1) sentence where somebody has first freely put something out for download without a license. Please do.

Theoretically however, we could run (international) copyright/patent rules our entire lives but it still wont change anything.

so therefor we should probably close slengpung :D
99% of the pictures there features something the photographer did not request permission to replicate digitally. and undefinied/unspecified/unknown licensing does not grant you any rights, its pretty much the oposite of pd.

in fact, any and all webdev who ever copy pasted some piece of code from someone elses website is a terrorist.

the problem with this issue is that its a grey line to draw, and each person has their personal view according to their "culture".

curiously the demoscene used to be a place where one would just rip when it would be easier, and simply credit. a self-sustaining system where if you did that you would be labelled a non creative lamer and cast aside from "the real scene". system which now is completly empaired by politic and economic bs.

and no, im not saying stealing is cool, im saying due creditation would be nice (and also to avoid you being called a fucking ripper).

considering the nazi propaganda example given: i couldnt care less if someone used my work for their message, its not mine anymore, its derivative work, i simply made the original.

i do howhever understand that others could feel like that is a violation of their little precious. like i said, its a terribly complex issue. the current licensing system is far from perfect. but some more education on the matter would defnitly do everyone some good. be them capitalist pricks, liberetarian hypies, cryptonazis alike.

and decipher: i completly dislike the american view on the world, i resent your accusation.

ps: I'm not saying that we should be all anal about licenses, I'm just saying that unspecified does not mean public domain. In reality, "use common sense unless otherwise specified" should be the best way forward. If someone releases a demo, it's probably because that person wants the demo to be viewed by people. But it does not mean that anyone can start redistributing it for cash or blowjobs. Public domain allows this.

kusma: you need a funnier job

and stefan you need a little bit of clue what the heck you are talking about.

pretty much all of us who released anything within the boundaries of the scene released our prods without a license agreement attached to them. sure some groups even put "by-nc-sa" buttons in their stuff but most of us didn't, neither we even implied a license being involved in our productions.

get a fucking clue or rather please, at least once try not to be an arrogant troll.

oh no. decipher got me. he's to smart for me.

common sense, mankind severily lacks some ;)

Right, so when you said "There's no way in hell a demoscener could win a legal process", you actually meant "There's no way in hell a demoscener could win a legal process, except for the cases where they could, and they don't count because they're different"? Uh-huh.



It's true, we don't know anything about the conditions of the settlement. But bearing in mind that: a) Tempest was represented by an actual qualified lawyer (with letters after his name and everything), whose job it is to know the difference between empty legal threats and real ones; b) from the perspective of any outside observer (excepting fanboys on Youtube), Tempest had a watertight legal case; and c) when you're Warner Music Group it's a lot more expensive and risky to hire a team of hotshot lawyers to prove the impossible than it is to throw some money at some random Finnish guy to make a problem go away, I know what I believe.


I don't understand what you're asking here, unless you mean "sentence" as in prison sentence - in which case, copyright law is a civil matter, not criminal, so nobody will go to prison over it. If that's not what you meant, please rephrase.

diver-4d: im not sure if any of my demos qualify your visual-taste and also if they would fit the rest of your collected works.

jeenio, demoparties has the rules, try to read them. authors who submit entrie to the demoparty compo has agreed with the rules where usually written that the organiser have right to show and spread the entries.

diver, we never put that in our rules. if you enter and dont want us to show it, you have serious issues. i really don't see why you need a rule for that.

skrebbel: because people like stefan exist.

skrebbel, that was a joke about "right to show the entries" :) "but right to spread entries" is an usual part of the rules.

diver-4d: Some parties claim that right, true. But that right is in such cases only given to the organizers of the party, not to the general public.

youre seriously think you can claim bucks for demo?
oh iam the retard that hasnt read your non existing license file!

gasman: who are you?

hahaha, this is fucking priceless... gosh some people would seriously do with a brain and less grandeur of an ego.

Yeah, we all know who Gasman is, but who the f*ck are you, Hatikvah.

He's Stefan.