Rise and Fall of TSR (Remind you of anything?)

[daboarder]

Horrible lawsuits against people who blabbed or leaked stuff to the press?

Google it dude. Plenty out there.

And with that youve destryed your credibility.

I could google horribly reported upon legal cases that ha e a vague bearing o the import of free use.....or you could go directly to the posted legislation. But that would be hard right?

[Mr Mystery]

Some guy leaks Battlefield 3 photos. Gets sued.

Some guy leaks a Beyonce album. Get sued.

Tell you what chum, why not pass over a few examples of copyrighted, time barred stuff being linked where it was ruled fair usage by an actual Judge, and not the court of wild opinion? What's sauce for the Goose and that......

[daboarder]

Some guy leaks Battlefield 3 photos. Gets sued.

Some guy leaks a Beyonce album. Get sued.

Tell you what chum, why not pass over a few examples of copyrighted, time barred stuff being linked where it was ruled fair usage by an actual Judge, and not the court of wild opinion? What's sauce for the Goose and that......

Some guy leaks apple iphone 5 doesnt get sued.

Some guy leams fords new car doesnt get sued.

Tell ya what chum. If you want to have an actual discussion why dont we go to the legislation like I proposed. If you want to have an internet **** waving contest....well just go away.

[Defenestratus]

Got a refernce or quote for that claim?

can't because the DMCA specifically allows for the fair use if copy written works as long as they aren't reproduced in whole.

Furthermore the DMCA isn't even applicable to printed works, just movies and music.

[Mr Mystery]

You first Mr Cholmendly Warner.

Please, link us to a case where someone leaked stuff they knew they weren't, and that stuff was owned by another company, and subsequently won the case, setting sufficient legal precedence that meant it was all ok, and nobody can ever sue on such grounds ever again.

And just to make sure.... You are aware of the difference of choosing not to sue/take action, and not having grounds to sue due to the law or existing legal precedent yes? Because if you're not, you may as well give up now...

[daboarder]

You first Mr Cholmendly Warner.

Please, link us to a case where someone leaked stuff they knew they weren't, and that stuff was owned by another company, and subsequently won the case, setting sufficient legal precedence that meant it was all ok, and nobody can ever sue on such grounds ever again.

And just to make sure.... You are aware of the difference of choosing not to sue/take action, and not having grounds to sue due to the law or existing legal precedent yes? Because if you're not, you may as well give up now...

And......**** waving it is. Alright mate have your fun but I for one wont be wasting my time having a conversation with someone unwilling to make an effort.

Hmm so the filter doesn't pick that up?

[Mr Mystery]

Translation?

Bum cakes! He seems to actually have a point, time to turn to childish insults rather than serve some shut-up sauce....

[daboarder]

For those of you who might not know and are actually interestex. Google search your countries legislation. For example in australia the copyrightegislation is available to access for free and outlines how free use is relevant to the reporting of news, product reviews and satire. I will post a link whe I arrive at work.

[GrauGeist]

You missed the ludicrous bit in which TSR claimed copyright over the word "Dragons".

I mean, nobody would overreach that far, would they? It would be like trying to copyright the word "Warhammer".

[Power Klawz]

For those of you who might not know and are actually interested.

Copyright law is a byzantine and wholly inhuman realm of pain and misery and should never be discussed by anyone, ever. Especially by people on the internet.