.
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 121

Thread: Contents illegally uploaded to the DLS - N3V Please take action!

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Somerset, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Hi everybody.
    Sailordan, in regards to your above posting at #103 of this thread, I will not copy paste that post as I do not wish this contribution to turn into a blog. However, in paragraph two of that posting you quote United States legislation which you attempt to give credence to by way of content from an attorney’s advertising journal which specifically relates to United States legislation in regards to copyright infringement.

    In the above, let us take a possible case in regard to someone in the US wishing to take legal action against another person for copyright infringement of content lodged on the download station. The first consideration in that would have to be that N3V is an Australian registered company engaged in international trading and therefore the claim may well have to encompass Australian legislation which may entail those courts being involved in the action.

    Further to the above, the person the aggrieved US party wishes to claim against may reside almost anywhere in the world where that countries patent and copyright legislation may be not be in any way similar to the United States. In the foregoing the legal representatives of defendant in the case may well argue that the case should be heard in the defendants own country of residence or in the Australian courts. Undoubtedly the US plaintive would wish to have the case heard in the American courts and much very expensive legal argument could well follow before the case even gets of the ground.

    Legal courts around the world have different operating structures and procedures. By example, here in the UK there are three differing courts in operation with the first being the criminal courts followed by the civil court structure which are then augmented by the industrial courts. In the foregoing obviously the criminal courts give outright judgement on each count of either guilty or not guilty, where as the civil and industrial courts give verdict and awards by percentage of cause or liability of all parties involved in any action.

    The above is standard law court operation in almost all countries within the European Union, but emerging nations such as India or Pakistan have vastly different systems and anyone can guess at the problems a plaintive may encounter in countries were the law courts operate under strong political influence such as China or Russia.

    Sailordan, there is much more that could be stated in regards to your posting at #103 of this thread in regard the actual process making claim in the worldwide law courts but i do not wish this post to turn into a blog. However, is it realistic to believe that any person would wish to go through even the prelimery stages of cross border litigation in protection of content placed free of cost to an open universal user base.

    In the foregoing the plaintive in such a case could not even be assured of recovery of his/her costs when initiating such action especially in a civil court that may make award on a percentage of liability which is often placed on both parties when making judgment.

    Time to get real in this thread

    Bill
    Last edited by wholbr; January 22nd, 2018 at 10:40 AM.

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United States of America, New Jersey, Old Bridge
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wholbr View Post
    Hi everybody.
    Sailordan, in regards to your above posting at #103 of this thread, I will not copy paste that post as I do not wish this contribution to turn into a blog. However, in paragraph two of that posting you quote United States legislation which you attempt to give credence to by way of content from an attorney’s advertising journal which specifically relates to United States legislation in regards to copyright infringement.

    In the above, let us take a possible case in regard to someone in the US wishing to take legal action against another person for copyright infringement of content lodged on the download station. The first consideration in that would have to be that N3V is an Australian registered company engaged in international trading and therefore the claim may well have to encompass Australian legislation which may entail those courts being involved in the action.

    Further to the above, the person the aggrieved US party wishes to claim against may reside almost anywhere in the world where that countries patent and copyright legislation may be not be in any way similar to the United States. In the foregoing the legal representatives of defendant in the case may well argue that the case should be heard in the defendants own country of residence or in the Australian courts. Undoubtedly the US plaintive would wish to have the case heard in the American courts and much very expensive legal argument could well follow before the case even gets of the ground.

    Legal courts around the world have different operating structures and procedures. By example, here in the UK there are three differing courts in operation with the first being the criminal courts followed by the civil court structure which are then augmented by the industrial courts. In the foregoing obviously the criminal courts give outright judgement on each count of either guilty or not guilty, where as the civil and industrial courts give verdict and awards by percentage of cause or liability of all parties involved in any action.

    The above is standard law court operation in almost all countries within the European Union, but emerging nations such as India or Pakistan have vastly different systems and anyone can guess at the problems a plaintive may encounter in countries were the law courts operate under strong political influence such as China or Russia.

    Sailordan, there is much more that could be stated in regards to your posting at #103 of this thread in regard the actual process making claim in the worldwide law courts but i do not wish this post to turn into a blog. However, is it realistic to believe that any person would wish to go through even the prelimery stages of cross border litigation in protection of content placed free of cost to an open universal user base.

    In the foregoing the plaintive in such a case could not even be assured of recovery of his/her costs when initiating such action especially in a civil court that may make award on a percentage of liability which is often placed on both parties when making judgment.

    Time to get real in this thread

    Bill

    AMEN Bill!

  3. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wholbr View Post
    Time to get real in this thread
    So according to you it is OK to ignore someone else's copyright rights, provided that it is so difficult for them to enforce those rights that there is little risk of a penalty.

    I don't believe that is an attiude that most Trainz users would support.

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United States of America, New Jersey, Old Bridge
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SailorDan View Post
    So according to you it is OK to ignore someone else's copyright rights, provided that it is so difficult for them to enforce those rights that there is little risk of a penalty.

    I don't believe that is an attiude that most Trainz users would support.
    I do not see where Bill here made that statement or any even close to it. He is simply illustrating the simple REALITY of the whole situation from a logical and legal standpoint. Where exactly did he claim that it is "OK" to ignore others' rights? Just because you may not like that he stated the bottom-line reality of the whole situation, making an accusation based on a huge assumption of yours is baseless and uncalled for. Don't shoot the messenger just because you may not like the message.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Somerset, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Many thanks Thomascbc for your above posting, as you stated exactly what I would have posted myself had I had seen Sailordans contribution to this thread prior to yourself. Shooting the messenger seems to be very common practice in many areas of discussion of recent times.

    Again many thanks
    Bill
    Last edited by wholbr; February 9th, 2018 at 10:53 AM.

  6. #111

    Default

    The last (unpublicised) route I uploaded to the DLS I basically said do what you want with it - if you decide to share would be nice to drop me a line but if not hey-ho.

    I think that will be going on any subsequent routes I release, the point being if it is a particularly interesting project (mine usually aren't) most users know who the real author is anyway.

    So if anyone wants to do a SG Shinkansen conversion on Naissaar Island - be my guest!
    TANE...Resistance Is Futile

  7. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomascbc View Post
    I do not see where Bill here made that statement or any even close to it. He is simply illustrating the simple REALITY of the whole situation from a logical and legal standpoint. Where exactly did he claim that it is "OK" to ignore others' rights? Just because you may not like that he stated the bottom-line reality of the whole situation, making an accusation based on a huge assumption of yours is baseless and uncalled for. Don't shoot the messenger just because you may not like the message.
    That is exactly what is being said. The difficulty or otherwise of enforcing the owner's rights would only be introduced into the conversation as justification for ignoring them. There is no other reason for bringing that point up. There is no interest in the reality of the situation unless there is an intention of taking advantage of that reality, and that is not something that would be supported by the Trainz community. The legality is the standard that Trainzers should subscribe to, not the reality.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Somerset, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SailorDan View Post
    That is exactly what is being said. The difficulty or otherwise of enforcing the owner's rights would only be introduced into the conversation as justification for ignoring them. There is no other reason for bringing that point up. There is no interest in the reality of the situation unless there is an intention of taking advantage of that reality, and that is not something that would be supported by the Trainz community. The legality is the standard that Trainzers should subscribe to, not the reality.
    SailorDan, with every respect to your above posting, but I find the basis of your argument inconceivable. You state that if any person introduces the difficulty of enforcing any legislation into a conversation, then it would be that persons intention to ignore that legislation, or to encourage others to ignore (thereby infringe) that legislation.

    In the above, a person making reference to any legislation may well be just outlining the problems and difficulty of it's enforcement, as was the case in my posting at #106 of this thread. In that, such an act cannot be witnessed as encouragement to infringement by any "reasonable" person.

    Indeed, in outlining the problems of the enforcement of any legal position a person may be seen as making the case for the strengthening of the legislation that surrounds it. In the foregoing, it can be argued, how else is any situation changed if not through discussion.

    Bill
    Last edited by wholbr; February 15th, 2018 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Text error

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States of America, California
    Posts
    67

    Default

    SailorDan, I have every sympathy for your situation and your feelings on this matter. I would not be happy either.

    However, I'm certain that if you hire a solicitor or lawyer to advise on this situation, they will repeat the issues that have already been mentioned in this thread. Go ahead and try it if you find that point unbelievable.

    I understand that you don't welcome unfavorable news, but there isn't any favorable news to offer. Sorry.
    -Dave
    ASUS laptop i7-4500U CPU, GeForce GT745M. Currently running TANE SP1 HF4 build 84204.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    58

    Default

    The player gramma should be banned immediately.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Hauts-de-Seine 92, Île-de-France
    Posts
    1,198

    Default

    Isn't he uploadeing reskin from other users under his ID because he has more that 300 assets and we never hear him here or he has a topic about his "content". The weirdest part is that all his "unknow location" assets from a long time are back... And it's not the first time he's been warned/banned


    2018 - Début de fin des Z2N

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States of America, Georgia, Rocky Face
    Posts
    3,617
    Blog Entries
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MF01 View Post
    Isn't he uploadeing reskin from other users under his ID because he has more that 300 assets and we never hear him here or he has a topic about his "content". The weirdest part is that all his "unknow location" assets from a long time are back... And it's not the first time he's been warned/banned
    Then I guess I should delete "his" F40PH's I downloaded and then modified to my liking. The toughest ones were converting the 'Amtrak F40PH 398 Phase IV' and 'Amtrak F40PH/NPCU Phase III #406' into NPCU's (Non Powered Control Units). It took some work to figure out how to replace the enginesound with one that is 'silent', (The NPCU's are old F40PH's who have had their engines removed and had been turned into the equivalent of a cab-coach commuter car), but keeping the enginespec and hornsound.
    Duct tape fixes all problems in Trainz

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    13,299

    Default

    Most of those assets were from the first time he was uploading dodgy stuff, thought he had already been read the riot act and agreed to play nicely, perhaps hold on before assuming more of the same and see if he has actually got any permission, or probably unlikely, has actually learned to make his own stuff.
    Malc


  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Hauts-de-Seine 92, Île-de-France
    Posts
    1,198

    Default

    Jordon412: All "his" "reskin" aren't worth to download, the one from Josefpav is perfect but you can get the F40PH NPCU from JR if you want !

    clam1952: but why are they back ? they were removed due to asset violation


    2018 - Début de fin des Z2N

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    13,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MF01 View Post
    Jordon412: All "his" "reskin" aren't worth to download, the one from Josefpav is perfect but you can get the F40PH NPCU from JR if you want !

    clam1952: but why are they back ? they were removed due to asset violation
    They are not all back these are different ones, everything up to October 2016 was removed due to Terms of Service violation and are showing location unknown, He seems to have started again in 2017, Just had a look, no one seems to have complained until now though which seems a bit odd.
    Malc


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •