Main > Main Forum

How do you know your JAMMA PCB is legal?

Pages: << < (16/35) > >>

Haze:


--- Quote from: RayB on September 12, 2010, 07:02:00 pm ---Haze: Equating copyrighted materials to Porn or gambling laws is a bit of a stretch.

--- End quote ---

Well, my point was just because you thought you legally owned something, doesn't mean you actually do, and doesn't mean you can resell it, even if when you bought it you thought it was all above board (or in some cases, even WAS all above board at the time)

In other words, it just further shows that the argument of the OP here is nonsense.


Haze:


--- Quote from: RayB on September 12, 2010, 07:02:00 pm ---DriverMan presented an interesting paradigm here (if you can disregard the naive arguments he wrapped it in). I know the likely answer is to err on the side of caution; ie: they contain infringing content, but when you buy a board, you are not copying the IP. Someone else is guilty of that action. AFAIK there's no "possessing" laws regarding infringing IP, it's always in regards to the act of copying, downloading, etc. It is not the same as stolen goods. The more I think about it from this point of view, the greyer it seems, and I or anyone else here would be foolish to try and pick an answer with any certainty.

--- End quote ---

Sorry, I don't think there is any grey area as far as selling / operating these things is concerned.

If it were legal to sell them 'as long as you don't use them' then you'd see hundreds of websites selling pirated XBOX360, PS3 etc. games under the condition that you don't actually ever use them.  These things are illegal products, you can't sell them as products, nor as a service (ie, an arcade)

Again, see the Microsoft case.  If it were legal to possess and use the software which is infringing on their IP then they would have no right at all to disable it and force you to buy a legal version to continue using it.  People would be suing Microsoft and winning, and companies could get away with buying hundreds of dodgy copies, and never pay a thing to Microsoft because they weren't doing the copying merely possessing and using the software.  It doesn't make sense, and there are heavy fines in place for this kind of behavior.

It's easier to target corporations than individuals, but if you're caught selling this stuff, or operating it on location then don't expect Namco etc. to take it lightly, because as I said, you're competing directly against them in their market using counterfeit versions of their products.



RayB:

You're probably right, but the MS example is a poor one. They rely on their "End User License Agreement" to set the terms. See what I mean? It's greyer than we think when it comes to the actual end-user. Otherwise EULAs would not be necessary.

Anyways, I'm gonna opt out of this thread before I start to sound foolish.

Haze:


--- Quote from: RayB on September 12, 2010, 07:38:46 pm ---You're probably right, but the MS example is a poor one. They rely on their "End User License Agreement" to set the terms. See what I mean? It's greyer than we think when it comes to the actual end-user. Otherwise EULAs would not be necessary.

Anyways, I'm gonna opt out of this thread before I start to sound foolish.

--- End quote ---

At the end of the day it's not all that different tho, the EULA, the Mame license, they all state terms and conditions of use and sale.  Failing that it simply comes down to copyright, and it's a clear-cut infringement.


Driver-Man:


--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---So, you agree nVidia, ATI/AMD, Intel already did sue each other, and therefore these products everyone has/had were illegal at some point in time... and it was illegal to poses, buy and sell offending hardware. Yes?

--- End quote ---

I articulated it well enough, I also presented links. You however are the one waving your hands trying to justify something. You ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up, accept it. You purchased the X-in-1 board, you are the one that should have known better. Then you come onto a board to somehow justify your purchase?

--- End quote ---

My angry friend, can you not answer these question:

Q1) You agree nVidia, ATI/AMD, Intel already did sue each other, and therefore these products everyone has/had were illegal at some point in time... and it is/was illegal to possess, buy and sell this hardware? YES/NO


Q2.) U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Nvidia violated three of five patents held by Rambus which could lead to a possible U.S. ban on the import of some Nvidia products. -- So, anyone who has, buys or sells this offending hardware is breaking the law and can be held accountable for trafficking or possession of illegal item? Or maybe, the government needs to issue a BAN on the particular item first? YES/NO



--- Quote ---Tax laws don't even address that (I could be wrong and I would take great delight if someone proves otherwise).  I gave you the relevant copyright info. It's not my fault you're too lazy to Google for it.

As for liability on the buyer/seller/re-seller. Here, the answer is, it depends. An example would be Lik-Sang getting nailed to the wall for various copyright and patent infringements.

--- End quote ---

You went from being uncertain and "I could be wrong" to calling me stupid in a matter of couple posts. You silly human, when did you have that revelation, what convinced you, what possessed you? Anyway, does that liability *depend* or not? What does it depend on?

Can you make your mind, what say you?



--- Quote ---Yes, some retail stores do this.  This is why Microsoft introduced the Genuine Advantage program in the first place.

--- End quote ---

I don't think so.

But again, whoever bought that is not breaking any laws, nor is liable to recover any damages.

So, you have no singe court case to support your opinion, why so certain then?



--- Quote ---I believe that would be a fair thing to assume, however, further details of any settlement between Rambus and Nvidia could change that and a licensing deal, retroactively covering the products could be (and given that they needed the technology moving forward, probably was) established, any damages awarded (to Rambus, the owner of the patents / technology being infringed upon) could also cover products already on the market if it wasn't.  Patent rulings are not as clear cut as copyright infringement.  99% of these PC cases you keep bringing up involve complex licensing deals.  Your xx-in-1 PCBs are neither licensed from the manufacturers, or MAME, nor has there been any kind of retroactive settlement that compensates all those who have had their copyrights infringed by this illegal product.  The nVidia Rambus case was between two parties and could easily be resolved.  The xx-in-1 boards involve copyright infringement of the IP of a whole multitude of companies, there is practically no hope of it ever being resolved.  Even if Namco won a case against them, and their use and were compensated you'd still have to deal with Konami and all the others.

--- End quote ---

You did not answer the question, please...

U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Nvidia violated three of five patents held by Rambus which could lead to a possible U.S. ban on the import of some Nvidia products. -- So, anyone who has, buys or sells this offending hardware is breaking the law and can be held accountable for trafficking or possession of illegal item? Or maybe, the government needs to issue a BAN on the particular item first? YES/NO


Pages: << < (16/35) > >>

Go to full version