So we should see some activity from the webmasters when the domaine expires in 3 weeks time at least.

@177
Whois is useless for finding actual info about domains.  That doesn't tell anyone anything anyone who wants to do something needs to know.  It's a long explanation but the short version is that you go through something like namecheap, which often resells a bigger offering, and then you also get whois guard, which hides all your real information.

@181, namecheap was just an example. Metaregistrar is probably similar.

Actually, that makes my point.  Whois likes to point at the thing being resold, not the thing that they're buying the domain through.  Click that link and the very first thing you see is them advertising to people who might want to become resellers.

We can't find out anything we want without outright hacking or getting cooperation from whoever has the keys to the kingdom.  End of story.

Unfortunately, applying the rule only to future titles kind of defeats the purpose. It means that past titles with copyright issues could still very well get us in trouble.

First of all, there will be no nasty surprises from the staff team. I trust most of you can agree that we've been pretty transparent about this whole thing. Yes, we mishandled the Vast Horizon thing, if only because it looked like we were playing favourites with something we really haven't enforced elsewhere yet. We acknowledged this and have since been quite clear both with regard to our plans and intentions, and with regard to our willingness to incorporate player feedback.
Concept clones - that is, a game or project that is similar in its execution to something else - get into trouble only if they're borrowing very directly from their source. Manamon has a lot in common with pokemon, but as I've pointed out before, if Temtem can get away with it and be mainstream, Manamon isn't going to have any problems. Crazy Party being a sort of Mario Party+Pokemon hybrid...again, concept clones, but that's not the end of the world, although the card-battle aspect really does have quite a lot of pokemon stuff, right down to types and dozens of move names. I'm not sure if that alone would cause legal trouble - I suspect not - but it's a little gray.
The issue we're discussing here is the unauthorized use of assets, sounds in particular.

So I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that a straight-up vote is a good idea, but I think that users being able to submit feedback about our proposed plan before that plan is enforced is a happy middle ground. This doesn't mean that if twelve of you get really loud and pushy, we'll just scrap it, but it does mean that if something is structurally wrong, or if there's a loophole we haven't found, we'll patch it. I think this is a compromise. Since responsibility rests with us, the actual ability to make that decision should probably rest with us as well. But since this ruling will impact some of you, you have a right to have a meaningful say in how it's set up.

On a side-note: Sarah is one of those games I've wanted to play for just about forever. I feel like I bought the game way way back in like 2012 or something, never got a key and then forgot to follow through on it. I'm not even sure if it works anymore. But that game, as an example, definitely falls into bad territory. It's using a lot of things that belong to JK Rowling and actually making money off them. And I mean, at this point I'm not JK Rowling's biggest fan - she's pretty much lost all of my respect - but that doesn't justify using the things she created to make yourself a profit. Unless, of course, this game actually got the go-ahead in an official capacity, the same way some of G. Norman Lippert's fanfiction has?

No. In the case of Sarah, it's the fact that you're straight-up using someone else's intellectual property (seriously, freaking Hogwarts Castle in detail) in order to help you turn a profit. I'm actually surprised this one has lasted as long as it has.

@Jeffb: And no, this is *not* a moderation post.
Again. Concept clone. Manamon did not lift any specific assets from Pokemon, including but not limited to: specific character/creature names, locations, sounds, etc. Assets, trade-names, and specific game elements are copyrightable. Concepts, however, are not. It's as simple as that.
Your efforts in bringing forth an example of a claim against a game with insufficient evidence, one which wouldn't be pursued further for that matter, are very much appreciated.
Crazy Party, the VH soundpack, you name it: those lifted specific assets, and in the case of VH, the Cosmic Rage developers came forth and confirmed that these assets were lifted without permission. Those are clear-cut cases. Manamon did not lift any assets from the Pokemon series.

This endless gray area discussion is once again why I suggested only allowing directly affected parties to make official complaints, as to massively reduce the amount of second guessing necessary and the subsequent backlash which always inevitably follows just behind the decision.
So I would strongly suggest that one of the proposals includes that as a component at least...

*sighs* agreeing with 194 here.

I know the mods want to be fair and deal with any games which are guilty, not just new ones, not just ones reported by devs. No, we have to treat all of them fairly. The trouble is this isn't really a fair situation. Too many people have too many different ideas, and the whole thing is surrounded by grey area.

I am confident I am not alone when I say "If you nuke one, what are you going to do with the 100 more brought to your attention?" some of those will be brought up in so-called bad faith, but many others will not. The potential is there to be overwhelmed by reports, and at the absolute worst, nuking links to half the games in the database or the database entries themselves. If the mods don't turn it into a witch hunt, the community will, and it'll steamroll, to the point of becoming a legitimate problem.

I am concerned about the VH soundpack situation. Sure, some people overdramatized it when the VH soundpack was cracked down on, but if that, a relatively clear-cut case, generated the reaction it did, and even an apology from the mods for the delivery! Then I have trouble trusting other games to be handled more gracefully. Look, I know we're all learning here, but we've been spending a lot of time hashing this out and I don't feel like it's actually doing us good. I really hope I am wrong though and that something good comes out of this.

I know some people won't like this, but I feel like the best way to proceed is to only do something if pressed to do so by a creator, or someone who represents a creator. I know we're trying to avoid legal hot water here, but has there been a case where one illegal group of stolen assets resulted in a complete takedown of a sight and an all-out law suit? We're not hosting roms, we're not hosting pirated content, we're not hosting shady torrents. To my knowledge, any of the big stuff we could get sued for is not here. We're not even hosting games or directly endorsing stolen assets. We're just promoting them as games and distributing links to said games, and we can't take responsibility for what devs do, as we're not in any way directing or biasing them to do one thing or another. If they choose to steal assets, we don't endorse that, but we can't fairly keep track of all assets in all games either, that's not our jobs. Even if we try, there's no nice Utopian rule we can enforce. I think we can all agree. We can certainly take games off the site if asked, but in my opinion at least, and it's probably a stupid and generally unfavored one, but a simple take-down is all we should have to do.

I know this is an old sticking point, but I legitimately need clarification for why this has to be the way the ball rolls, since right now I feel like we're coming off as a bit paranoid, avoiding threats which, if they even happen, may never be as bad as we think they are. Then again, I am also very uneducated when it comes to legal process, so maybe I'm thinking about this entirely wrong. Or maybe I am just an immoral idiot.

Going back to Sara. I thought Phil was on this forum, but I haven't seen him in a while. Would be interesting to hear his take on this. Same with Packman Talks, since that uses a lot of Packman sounds afaik. Not trying to condemn anything, although I acknowledge that it does look a bit shady from an outsider's perspective. But it's also an example of getting on a game's case which has existed for over a decade which previously had no trouble, and where the original devs are fairly distant now. So do we stick to their best interest and leave well enough alone, or do we take it down because it presses on our guilty conscience? What about Jim Kitchen, who no longer can make a case one way or another? Ugh... I have so many mixed feelings on this now... I just need to stop thinking for a bit.
Edit: clarified stuff, fixed typos

So, Jayde, my question is, will all PCS and GMA titles be nuked?