The rules ...

[II2II]

I would like to voice two concerns about the rules:

First is the very top-down nature in which they were dished out, with the thread locked to artificially stifle discussion. I appreciate that certain people run these forums and I appreciate that certain rules must exist. But I do not think an authoritarian tone makes a community, and I believe that an authoritarian tone is what led to the demise of LEM Lists.

Second is the mention of abandonware in the rules. The trading of it happens here, and I'm fairly certain that we are all aware of it. But it is illegal in the eyes of the law, even though some publishers seem to condone it. As such, if the rule exists it should be as an unwritten rule -- as it always has been.

 

[MultiFinder]

I think that purposely mentioning Abandonware in the rules was a good idea. Putting it in there that there is no problem with the software producers contacting the admins about what they may feel is "piracy" of old software is not unreasonable. As much as it sucks, if MS were to contact the admins because somebody's dishing out copies of MS Works 2.0, their only choice would be to comply and stop discussions of it. That little clause about being open to contact from the producers could save them alot of headaches, and it doesn't prevent us from swapping floppies around, unless some company is offended by it.

Just remember kids, "Don't copy that floppy!"

 

[II2II]

As long as it ain't the rap version ...

I know perfectly well that the admins have to be cautious about these forums being used as a tool as piracy. But I have two concerns:

By having a written abandonware rule that pretty much says "it's okay, but we may take these actions if we're caught". The admins may make themselves more liable for the actions of members of these forums. After all, they are giving the go-ahead to break the law under certain conditions. I'm fairly certain that they don't have the authority to do this.

The second reason is that it may bring in a new group of users who think that pirating software is okay, and who would eagerly use these forums to facilitate it. This could bring more undesired attention to these forums. At the moment, most of the discussion about obtaining abandonware is veiled in a language of obscurity, so the only way that you will find out about it is if you hang around and socialize a bit.

I guess the reason why I'm concerned about the second point is because I view this as being a place for socializing, and would not want to see it being turned into a file swapping joint because of the legal implications.

 

[phreakout]

Personally, I would say bollocks to the rule regarding "abandonware", simply because a lot of the software isn't supported by the company or they are long gone. If Micro$oft discontinues and won't provide support for Works 2.0, then by all means, copy away.

I find a lot of sites that point to this link for a backup copy of this old useful app, and when I click on it, the link is dead. I go to, say here, the hotline servers, and that same app is safely stored and ready to pickup.

73s 8)

 

[Quadraman]

Just because a company is long gone, doesn't mean their products are no longer copyrighted. Aldus is long gone, but their copyrights were bought by Macromedia and then Adobe. You may think it's ok to pass around copies of Pagemaker 1.0 or early versions of Freehand, but it isn't. Adobe can sue the heck out of you if you're caught. I think the rule concerning abandonware should be removed as it is not needed and does look as if the mods here are saying "Go ahead and copy, we'll only stop you if it leads to problems for us." I think the abandonware issue should be a case of don't ask, don't tell. It should only be done in PM's and not in an open forum.

 

[~tl]

First is the very top-down nature in which they were dished out, with the thread locked to artificially stifle discussion. I appreciate that certain people run these forums and I appreciate that certain rules must exist. But I do not think an authoritarian tone makes a community, and I believe that an authoritarian tone is what led to the demise of LEM Lists.

I'm of the school of thought that an announcement on the forums should be just that, an announcement. Hence, I tend to lock announcement topics. Some forum software (in particular vBulletin) doesn't even let you have announcements that are open to replies... so I guess I'm not the only one that feels this way. I have no problem with open debate on the new rules, I just didn't want it to happen in that announcement topic.

Second is the mention of abandonware in the rules. The trading of it happens here, and I'm fairly certain that we are all aware of it. But it is illegal in the eyes of the law, even though some publishers seem to condone it. As such, if the rule exists it should be as an unwritten rule -- as it always has been.

We put this in place just to cement the position on the whole issue. It seemed to be a bit of a double standard to say in the rules that we didn't condone the discussion of how to obtain software illegally, and yet still let some discussions exist on the forums, as they're only pertaining to abandonware. We decided to make it clear in the rules what we do and do not accept. But I do agree that the whole subject is a bit of a grey area, and I'm certainly no lawyer. So any advice that anyone can give would be appreciated. We're certainly open to adding/removing that or any clause from the rules if need be.

 

[heebiejeebies]

You are too polite, Tom. It’s your forum! If it was mine I’d have told him to shove an apricot up his bum then locked the topic.

 

[II2II]

/me shoves an apricot up his bum for heebiejeebies.

TTFN

 

[equill]

/me shoves an apricot up his bum for heebiejeebies.
TTFN

As penances go, that was far too easy. Deep down, I'm sure that what Heebie rilly, rilly, rilly meant was not an apricot, but an Apricot.

de

 

[gobabushka]

I would like to voice two concerns about the rules:
First is the very top-down nature in which they were dished out, with the thread locked to artificially stifle discussion. I appreciate that certain people run these forums and I appreciate that certain rules must exist. But I do not think an authoritarian tone makes a community, and I believe that an authoritarian tone is what led to the demise of LEM Lists.

i would have to agree with II2II on the first one, mainly because that's the reason that I left AF, and I would hate to see that happen to the MLA

You are too polite, Tom. It’s your forum! If it was mine I’d have told him to shove an apricot up his bum then locked the topic.

It should have been a full sized apple!!!

 

[Dan 7.1]

i think tom is borg.