2019-06-08 18:19:27

Hello,

As a lawyer I can say that you are at very little risk of having your site taken down, to the point that I would be willing to host it for you if that's something you worry about. If you make this decision I will lose absolutely all respect for the moderation team, bowing to the copyright trolls is the worst possible thing you could do, especially when doing so punishes people with no regular legal access to certain material. This decision stinks of cowardice. Shame on you.

Thumbs up +3

2019-06-08 18:32:04 (edited by Ethin 2019-06-08 18:36:13)

@76, So your "legal" opinion (I don't know you so have no way of actually verifying whether your a lawyer, and considering what you posted it makes me seriously doubt that your not a corrupt lawyer) is that we should flout all the copyright rules and break as many laws as possible? You should be ashamed of yourself man. Whether you like it or not, the "copyright trolls" are usually very large companies, with very large bank vaults, and with billions and billions of dollars to spend on copyright cases alone. We're a small site, with site maintainers that hardly ever show up and who I don't trust to do their jobs. Did I add that we're a site that has no income whatsoever, and therefore would automatically lose in a copyright case of any kind? Many people are right that the site itself wouldn't be fined or taken down, but the maintainers of the sites we link to would be. This is our way of preventing that.
So: if your a lawyer, show me your creds, buddy, because I find it doubtful that an incorruptible lawyer (or even a lawyer in general) would make such statements -- "Break all the copyright laws you possibly can!" Sorry, man, I thought you were a lawyer and then you immediately lost your credibility in that post. You know, I have a father who's a lawyer in criminal law. Not in copyright, but criminal. That's perfectly fine though; I'll get his opinion -- an opinion that I consider reliable because he shows none of the signs I would associate with being corrupt, whereas post 76 shows all of those signs -- pretty much negating your own credibility is not a good impression.
So show me your creds, man. Perhaps your license too (because if your a lawyer than you've got one)? Because anyone can make a claim that their a lawyer; it doesn't mean they are.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2019-06-08 19:12:02

Ethin wrote:

"Break all the copyright laws you possibly can!"

Ethin, who are you quoting?  You used quotes but I didn't see that sentence used by anyone (unless it was deleted).

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up

2019-06-08 19:51:33 (edited by jack 2019-06-08 19:58:33)

Ethin wrote:

"Break all the copyright laws you possibly can!"

He didn't quote anyone there, he just inflated and overly exaggerated G97's statement. I do believe he's right in one regard that there is actually close to no actual risk of repercussions. Usually the first time they let you off with a warning as long as you take stuff down, so I say wait till that happens. It's not like Youtube is busy taking down any legitimately hateful/damaging videos or anything...
Besides, @g97: If you are indeed a lawyer. Tell me this. Am I correct in that a copyright troll would first approach the cdn about copyright violation, and then they would approach the host requesting the offending content be taken down? It is my firm belief that the reason they go after Youtube straightaway is, one they're pretty much their own hosting provider, and two they are a direct source of content. Usually most sites that link to third party content have a statement in their terms saying that the site itself cannot guarantee/be accountable for the reliability/availability of these third party sources, as a cta statement as it were.
Again folks, remember that most of us here aren't at all wishing for an all-out removal of all copyright rules on this site, but some definite exceptions such as Mess Apple, Pokemon Crystal Access or maybe even described content for people who cannot obtain it any other way, are quite important. Mess Apple and PCA are important landmarks in audio gaming history, and sometimes, when a company is expected to never listen, you kind of have to do a little indirect backstab for the good. Even if there were a fullproof way to legally obtain PCA, this opens up another can of worms as to whether or not stripping the game via a debugger to get the ingame text is legal or not, so this whole thing is a hot mess with no harm actually being done.
Mess Apple has been covered by mainstream blindness media such as a review of it being allowed on ACB Radio's Main Menu, so if someone were to come after us I'm quite sure there would be a massive, tremendous backlash on the socials.

I'm the only adventure at c: master hahahaha I have unlocked just about everything!

Thumbs up

2019-06-08 20:31:09

I am a little confused. I just saw a rule in the rules section stating that the sharing of copyrighted material  isn't allowed. So, why are we even discussing this? If the rule is written, all the moderators have to do is enforce it. If they are not going to enforce that rule, then the rule should be removed. If the moderators don't follow the rules, how can they expect the rest of us to do so.

Thumbs up

2019-06-08 20:52:56 (edited by Ethin 2019-06-08 20:54:16)

@79, it may be an over-inflated summary of post 76, but it is nevertheless true -- that was pretty much what the post was saying. Don't care about copyright trolls with tons of mnoey to throw at copyright-based agendas. And the way post 76 was phrased, as I wrote in 77, makes me seriously doubt he actually is a lawyer, which is why I requested his license to be publicly available. If he actually is a lawyer, he'll have no reason not to post it here, since, to my knowledge, it contains nothing that wouldn't be publicly available already. If he has a problem posting it, then the possibility of him not being a lawyer is more and more clear.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2019-06-08 21:14:57

The link that proves big companies would come after the audio vault seems unrelated to me. That was an example of someone downloading music from a file-sharing site: an issue that arguably costs music publishers billions a year. You're trying to make the point they do go after the little guy, but in that case, the activity the little guy was indulging in potentially could be costing them billions. The audio vault on the other hand is  costing them next to nothing. So it's not a similar situation at all. I think you're equating the idea that people will have thought one old lady downloading some music wasn't going to attract any attention, but it did, and so our feeling that the audio vault is no big deal is just the same. But hundreds of millions of people worldwide were doing what the old lady was doing, that's why she wasn't as insignificant as it might seem. The two cases aren't the same at all. The points about double-standards and a need to appear squeaky clean have validity, but I personally don't agree with your rigid hard-line stance with regard to the vault, and certainly don't think blind people are behaving in an entitled way by wanting a single depository for audio described content. Hardliners like you would take it away and have us pay for a netflix subscription when we're not enjoying anything like the same level of service the sighted get for the same price. ?The fact that this kind of ruthlessness about blind people exists within our own community baffles me. Mods/Admins like Jade and Aaron are trying to ensure the site is lawful, and maybe trying to clarify some areas as to make their admin lives easier. I can appreciate that even if I do think there's room for flexibility in some areas, but you give the impression if you had your way the vault would be shut down tomorrow because blind people are such freeloading slimes. I find that attitude really hard to process.

Thumbs up +1

2019-06-09 00:16:40

"Hardliners like you would take it away and have us pay for a netflix subscription when we're not enjoying anything like the same level of service the sighted get for the same price."
Could you be so kind and point out where I indicated I wish to take the audio vault away from everyone, please? Thank you.
My link does indeed prove that  these companies do not care one bit who they go after, I was originally attempting to track down the article about the lady who was sued for singing a copyrighted song while working in a shop but I couldn't remember her name. They were attempting to say that her singing of said sing constituted an unlicensed public performance and were looking for damages. If I am able to find it, I'll put it up here for sure.
Now, The filthy downloaders  of files that cost rights holders billions a year? We, the users of the audio vault are part of this too. Just because we're blind it does not mean we exist in a vacume. If the audio vault did end up on the radar, every file on their would be counted as a lost sail, every single download of a file would also be counted as yet another lost sail.
We may be a smaller group of people, but I'm willing to bet we're a bunch of prolific downloaders too. By the time these guys were done combing through download logs, I'd be willing to bet that that tiny amount of cash we apparently cost them would be not so tiny at all.
We all know that a download does not equal a lost sail, however.  But I'll play along.

All the seats are taken in the house that makes the rules.
All the seats are taken in the parliament of fools.

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 00:39:22

You don't even need to have any legal experience, unlike me, to know that any claim against us for the 'preserving the bmmvtv shows' would be thrown out by any judge who isn't corrupt. The reason being simple: not only does the thread not host any copyrighted material, with the exception of a few links that we can easily remove it doesn't even link to it. It links to a site from which copyrighted material is available, an exception covered by the DMCA (if you're hosting is in the US.) The thread is a discussion topic, nothing more nothing less, and as it simply states that certain things are 'on the vault,' it gets away with sharing access to the stuff without actually breaking the law. The audiovault itself absolutely does break the law though, but that's not what's being discussed here.

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 03:54:37

@84 your point(s) are highly debatable, as that widely depeneds on the judge, er, judging the case. I haven't read the DMCA, and I don't know where the audiovault is hosted, so the DMCA's exceptions may not apply. And you haven't provided the information I requested either.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 06:04:15

hi,
there are alot of questions that need answering. for example what would happen to this topic?
this is technicaly violating article 17.

if you found my posts informative, helpful or funny which i find unlikely please hit that thumbs up button.
want to get in touch? you can contact me via the email link at the bottom of this post.

2019-06-09 10:55:24

I am not going to be sending you my certification which contains my rl name, image, date of birth and other personally identifying information. If you were paying me a fee for legal advice, I'd be more than happy to share it before anything is agreed, but posting that sort of information on a public forum is not adviseable.

I'm talking about where the audiogames.net website is hosted, not the audiovault. Where the audiovault is hosted isn't relevant.

Thumbs up +2

2019-06-09 14:10:32

Ah. It's so nice being on the outside looking in again.

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my space bar. Prepare to die!

http://l-works.net

2019-06-09 14:49:23

@87:

Your RL name, certification and details are on public records if you are a lawyer however. I find it extremely suspicious and convenient you jump into this top and just 'happen' to be a lawyer, then refuse to give out your name and certification then claim oh if we were paying you for legal advice you'd give it. That's a red flag to me.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 16:52:45

*Fist bumps Liam and hands him a drink, while we watch from lawn chairs off to the side.*

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 17:00:43

Jace is right. Your data is public. My date of birth is Public. So is my name. So is my image. As Jace said: its quite convenient for you that you jump in, claim your a lawyer and refuse to back your claim up with actual evidence. Come on, man, show us your license... unless you don't have one...

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2019-06-09 22:23:00

grryfindore wrote:

Hi,
I would really like to understand this here, this gets brought up by the same few people over and over again on the forums and we have had discussions regarding this exact thing in topics like this and too many others.
  Simply put, No website has gone down not a nitch small website similar to audiogames.net/ anyway due to copywrite issues, and something however unlikely it maybe even if does happen, its the users that post the links which can then be removed anyway. Bmmv has been doing the same thing, hell sero has been doing and is a payed service and they haven't had any meep from any agencies.
One thing that I would disagree with though is you say that you shouldn't let personal feelings get in the way of things, I say this being brought up and the rules being rewritten is out of nothing but personal feelings of a few staff members as regards copywrite and to which extent they'd have that shuvved down our throat.
Don't fix what ain't broke, as I have previously said, don't let it get turned into a pirates den where anything and everything related to piracy goes, but on the same hand, don't let it be a place where copywrite trolls and fearmongers rule, full of burocracy without consideration of humanity
The audiovault was started by me when the bmmv went down, without any intention of earning/ making any profit/ money out of it, but the general feeling that audiodescribed entertainment be it movies tv shows etc is something that many people out there don't have access to, and as much as you'd like to think so, the entire world isn't the USA, and it is something that everyone has a right to, a  chance to experience the same thing as their sighted peers do without missing out on things that go on in the shows, and to try and piece together things and carry on a conversations with their peers about the insert name of movie here or show just by hearing what's going on.
In summary, I am totally against this, but eh, how does that matter, I am no moderator or staff, but as a member I thought I'd voice my opinion for how much ever that counts for these days.
Grryf

I agree with everything here.

Thumbs up +1

2019-06-10 06:27:06

@89 you can't force someone to share there real name, date of birth and your image online. imagine if someone tells you to give me your drivers license and post it here. it's public record as far as i know and yes anyone can look it up but will you post it? no of course not.
same goes here.
@92 i agree with this.

if you found my posts informative, helpful or funny which i find unlikely please hit that thumbs up button.
want to get in touch? you can contact me via the email link at the bottom of this post.

2019-06-10 06:56:32 (edited by grryfindore 2019-06-10 07:00:29)

Hi,
edit:
+ 1 flackers for 82, well said.

I won't say much because clearly there isn't much left to say, but like I said, besides a few people who spout off the same bloody stuff whenever the topic of copywrite pops up (must be some satisfaction in holding up laws just for the sake of them, when doing so would deprive others of something people like these can easyly get access to), when there isn't any danger to the site as such, Why stur this all up. You are here to discuss and play games, do that and leave things well alone. If and when there's trouble deal with it then.
Because doing that would be far easier again, then all this stuff anyway.
Yes we shouldn't always go for the easy path, but when there's a moral gray area, and nobody is harmed in the doing, then I say why the hell not.
if you carry on as you are and have been, the users would unnecessarily end up losing access to many games and not just stuff like ADV I.E PCA, braillemon,nanamon, crazy party the apple MSE (which I ought to try out one of these days) and god knows what else, and as it is we have very few games to begin with. good ones, anyway.
@g97, well said. Any reasonable person would suppose the same, but if only... and agreed there 100%

and there we go, Ethin starts up with the usual Ethinish behavior, what show me proof, your birth certificate maybe? oh you don't want to show it, you must probably be a lyer then... bah!
  Just because someone says something on the forums I.E location USA doesn't mean you have the right to demand their papers showing that they are indeed from the USA etc.
The important part in g97's post wasn't even that, although he did put in being a lawyer to back up what he was saying, but it was that this site wouldn't be at any risk just because of a few links on the forums posted by other users and not the admins. and to be perfectly honest with you? you don't need to be a lawyer to know that, all you need to be is not a copywrite troll. not that I am calling you that wink

At everyone,
I don't think I have caused any offence as such, but just in case I have offended you, apologies.
Done and done.
Grryf

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.
Follow me on twitter

Thumbs up

2019-06-10 07:54:47

So I leave and I kinda think there will be something done, and it's just the same pointless arguing?

oookay Well I'm going to throw my thoughts in.

first off. if one claims a profession wuch as a lawyer or Doctor, they had to be certified by some authority. Now that doesn't mean that they have to provide their credentials on demand, but what it does mean is that their supposed career doesn't mean squat in this context.
So Je97, I'm not going to say you are a lawyer or you aren't. if you are then fantastic. Insert something about justice being blind here. However, I am going to point out that just because you are or may be doesn't mean you are the foremost authority on the topic. Also without being willing to show any bar credentials you can't use the fact you are a lawyer as an arguing point. This is the internet. I could say I'm a  brain surgeon, but if I cant prove it then no one cares.

Now here's the big problem that the forum faces, and that's. What do they do. I can't even say we at this point as it's really out of our hands. It's also out of my hands since I stepped down.

The whole issue of morality vs. law is a tough one, and it really depends on which side of the fence you come down on. I have my opinions onthis, but I am just one voice in a sea of many and I've stated my feeling repeatedly.

Regardless of that. there are two major things that have to happen.

1. The management team needs to get together and decide once and for all what is going to be allowed and what isn't. As I've stated previously I could see an allowance being made if the transmission of audio-only versiosn of TV shows and movies did not break any copyright laws. I've asked for someone to show me concrete proof it doesn't, but people like Grryf fall back on the morality argument.
Here's the problem though. a line has to be drawn somewhere, and this was the issue I faced when I was on the mod team. where is that line drawn. What do you and don't you allow? You obviously can't allow emulation as let's face it, that is a major copyright violation and there have been alot of legal goings on with that stuff. So then is it fair that mp3s of TV shows and movies get a free pass?
Now I want to point out something else to you guys that you don't think about, realize, or probably care about. This forum and website whether we like it or not are viewed through a microscope. It is where mainstream companies go for information and advice about accessibility for blind gamers. I will not name names, but I am going to tell you that already one some what important figure in the accessibility community has written off this forum as a waste of their time. I constantly seeing people lament about how they want access to mainstream games, well this forum is your best chance of making it happen, but when there are all these pointless topics and infighting, that drives people away.
Now. With all my points made, I hope the moderators make a decision, but here's the important thing. and that brings me to.

2. What ever decision is made by thea management, we as users need to accept it even if we don't like it. Decisions are going to be made, and us as a community need to follow those rules. Also. if you can't accept the rules, then there is the door.

I can only speak for myself, but I will say that when I as a moderator, I made suggestions and tried to do things that would insure the longevity of the audio games forum and website. So that 5, 10, 15 years from now there would still be a place where people could come and discuss gaming whether it be the latest audio game, or a cool new feature that made a console game all the more playable for visually impaired users. It really makes me sad that the forum that I spent so much of my time on is dying on the vine. I hope that people for once can work together to get something accomplished.

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my space bar. Prepare to die!

http://l-works.net

2019-06-10 08:29:01 (edited by Ethin 2019-06-10 08:30:59)

@93, when someone comes on a topic out of nowhere and claims they're a lawyer, I expect some kind of evidence to go with it, just as I would expect an electrician or network engineer to show me their certification or credentials and allow me to verify it before I allowed them to go to work on my house. If someone is unwilling to provide that information -- which really doesn't provide much information that isn't already known by the internet -- then how can I trust that they are who they say they are, that they are trustworthy, and that they will do their jobs properly?

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2019-06-10 09:26:10

Hi.
@95, and that's why we need a dedicated forum for video gaming and information on accessibility for mainstream company, this forum clearly can't handle that.

Greetings Moritz.

Hömma, willze watt von mir oder wie, weil wenn nich, dann lass dir mal sagen, laber mir kein Kottlett anne Wange und hömma, wo wir gerade dabei sind, dann iss hier hängen im Schacht, sonns klapp ich dir hier die Fingernägel auf links, datt kannze mir mal glaubn.

Thumbs up

2019-06-10 11:00:12

@95:

It's a good idea in theory (a dedicated forum), but....where do you source the information from, exactly?

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2019-06-11 05:41:09 (edited by blindaudiogamer 2019-06-11 05:45:19)

@96 OMG it's called private info and he has the right to privacy. he is not working for you. why does he need to share his license? going back to my argument in 93 would you share your drivers license in a public forum? of course not. would you share your birth certificate to prove your a human and not a bot? of course not. you have the right to privacy as he does. he is not using being a lawyer an argument. he is using it to back his argument up. anyone can make that argument. if he is a lawyer then great and if he is not then so what? anyone could make that argument. he is not siting any laws. you don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law. read 94. he said it the best.

if you found my posts informative, helpful or funny which i find unlikely please hit that thumbs up button.
want to get in touch? you can contact me via the email link at the bottom of this post.

2019-06-11 06:49:35 (edited by Ethin 2019-06-11 06:57:25)

@99, if someone says that they are a lawyer, especially out of nowhere, I would expect some form of evidence. Especially on the internet. His license contains nothing that he wouldn't be happy to share, either on a website or publicly on his state bars website. If someone is actually a lawyer I'd expect them to be quite happy to publicize their license, especially since its already public on state websites if people know your name.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up