I stand corrected: it is legal to use msn chat control

Copyright law has 3-year statute of limitations, and msn chat control has passed its copyright statute of limitations. In layman terms, it is not illegal to use msn chat control on the basis of copyright law.

Check the following link for copyright statute limitations: http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_pro...limitations.htm

From what i'm aware (and the way i see it) is that it's a limitation based on the last modification and copyright handle on the ocx, or as the website put it "statute of limitations starts from the date of the last infringing act".

I believe they still made upgrades to the OCX in 2006. This being the case, they would not be allowed to use the OCX till 2009. So don't go and say, it's legal just because the original version game out 3+ years ago. Because it's from time of last publication. They continuely modified the OCX, even though it was mandatory to download, they continually upgraded it.

I'm only a high school graduate, but I believe that the context should be taken as a whole, not just the words you like.

Agreed with TGK

From what i'm aware (and the way i see it) is that it's a limitation based on the last modification and copyright handle on the ocx, or as the website put it "statute of limitations starts from the date of the last infringing act".

 

I believe they still made upgrades to the OCX in 2006. This being the case, they would not be allowed to use the OCX till 2009. So don't go and say, it's legal just because the original version game out 3+ years ago. Because it's from time of last publication. They continuely modified the OCX, even though it was mandatory to download, they continually upgraded it.

 

I'm only a high school graduate, but I believe that the context should be taken as a whole, not just the words you like.

All the articles I've come across doesn't mention renewals with version changes at all. Each public version starts with its own copyright, so logically that would apply to copyright statute of limitations too. However, in the end it depends on the court(s). The details are very complex, following links would give better understanding:

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/s...s-part-one.html

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/05/s...s-part-two.html

Speaking of context, I suppose Buzzen would be subject to Canadian Law.

In contrast, Canada has a criminal limitations periods only for summary (less serious) offences. The period is six months from the date of the offence. Thus, for instance, a Canadian can only be charged with an "indecent act" within six months of the time of offence, unless both the Crown and the defence agree. In the case of indictable (more serious) offences, if a hypothetical assailant committed sexual assault, the assailant could be charged any time in the future—even if the crime happened twenty years ago.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_li...ns#Applications

Philosophical justifications

One reason for statutes of limitations is fairness; that is, over time memories fade, evidence is lost or never found, and people prefer to get on with their lives without legal intrusions from the past. The length of these statutes varies from country to country, state to state, or province to province, and often depends on the type of civil action or the seriousness of the crime. Some crimes such as murder or war crimes (see Rome Statute) are so horrific to society that they have no limitations period in some jurisdictions. Generally causes of action relating to real property have longer limitations periods, slander and libel usually have short periods. Japan is one country that does have a statute of limitations for murder. There, if one can manage to evade the law for 28 years after committing a homicide, they will be free to go public with details of the crime.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_li..._justifications

"not just the words you like."

Is that directed to me? I'm just looking at the words l like?

chuck i'm sorry the information or at least the way you are representing the cause is not how it works. If that were true a song that was written 3 years ago would be free to use by whoever wanted to. Is that the case? Not even remotely.

Also the article in question isn't about the copyright. It's about having three years to dispute the action of someone using something that is copyrighted. The article is saying if you can prove MSN knew you were using the ocx and three years had passed that they couldn't take civil action. I"m not saying that is true. I wouldn't base my knowledge of the law from what a blog says. But in this instance you are wrong in the matter of how long copyright lasts. They are still fighing over beatles songs to this day. Nice try chuck

P.S. i stand corrected.. part of the article you posted.

The general rule is that the statute of limitations starts from the date of the last infringing act

That means that you would have to stop using the ocx and if three years went by after you used it they couldn't do anything.. everyday you use the ocx it's three years from that day. So if you stopped TODAY msn still has 3 years to sue you lol.. that sux.

Sighs

Just when I thought we we're getting past the whole OCX thing ..

And, if you have that much time to look up copyright terms, I'm starting to think you need a life ..

That means that you would have to stop using the ocx and if three years went by after you used it they couldn't do anything.. everyday you use the ocx it's three years from that day. So if you stopped TODAY msn still has 3 years to sue you lol.. that sux.

lol yup it would.

Looks like buzzen is a heated discussion at Rumbaars place also. Interesting discussion there on how buzzen is said to have lied about running more than one server, from more than one location. Apparently now, buzzen is said to be run through mIRC from someone's home. I wonder how much $$ buzzen has collected from people to date?

http://www.public.rumbaar.net/modules.php?...p;p=61355#61355

i think the legality of the whole ocx issue is still very important. Regardless of who is doing it. While it's a good thing that chuck is still researching the matter I think he is a bit confused as to what he found really says. The articles he found were not really about how long copyright lasts but rather how long the ability to take civil action against someone using copyrighted material lasts.

lol yup it would.

 

Looks like buzzen is a heated discussion at Rumbaars place also. Interesting discussion there on how buzzen is said to have lied about running more than one server, from more than one location. Apparently now, buzzen is said to be run through mIRC from someone's home. I wonder how much $$ buzzen has collected from people to date?

 

http://www.public.rumbaar.net/modules.php?...p;p=61355#61355

poor deanne!

I feel your pain!

Gwen always cracks me up, running from mIRc from someone house now that is funny hahaha. That kind of server wont even handle 1000 users, where as buzzen gets over 5000 users. This was posted on the exterme team forum.

hear Buzzen has a handful of remote dedicated "chat" servers (similar to MSN's tkchatchataXX servers). I would imagine, NightStorm, that irc.buzzen.com would be the equivalent of MSN's "directory" server (since the MSN webchat control first connects and sends FINDS to this server).

 

So to clarify, their server load is distributed across a handful of servers

Koach: Please everyone, let's not bash other networks. So far, the posts have been very informative and positive. Let's keep it that way.

http://groups.msn.com/KoachsWorkShop/gener...6089&CDir=1

Fair and sensible advice Koach made in his community. Won't hurt to follow it here or any other forum.

Who cares? lol, Just see This Thread and build your own using your choice of compiler, Even use visual basic if you like, Its official, But its illegal for them to decompile your code, Which then means unless you use an image created by them etc, They couldnt know, Remember you can modify the modules using something as simple as reshacker, idk - what do you think?

But in this instance you are wrong in the matter of how long copyright lasts. They are still fighing over beatles songs to this day.

Off topic: I don't really know the details, but as far as I remember copyright expiration comes after 28 years (unless renewed) for intangible form of expression.

P.S. i stand corrected.. part of the article you posted.

That means that you would have to stop using the ocx and if three years went by after you used it they couldn't do anything.. everyday you use the ocx it's three years from that day. So if you stopped TODAY msn still has 3 years to sue you lol.. that sux.

I stand corrected. I agree with your interpretation for the rule of thumb. However, correct legal perspective is given in example in the article - courts normally differ. PS: That doesn't mean people should go on keep using the mp3's from file sharing programs like Morpheus or chat ocx from msn clones like Buzzen: In worst case scenario court can use last infringement date.

Coming back to the original topic a lawyer once said to me that a copyrighted can get into public domain if statute of limitation passes. I can't find any clear ref. for or against it... I found one but it is not clear cut:

There is a common belief that if someone infringes a copyright, and the

copyright owner does not sue or otherwise put a stop to the infringement,

the copyright is lost and the work goes into the public domain. There is

some pre-1988 law on this (e.g., Stuff v. E.C. Publications, 432 F.2d 143

(2d Cir., 1965) and Transgo v. Ajac Transmission Parts, 768 F.2d 1001

(9th Cir. 1985)), but it seems to derive mostly from the fact that the

copyright holder had acquiesced in the publication of the work without

notice back when notice was a requirement. It was the publication

without notice, and not the lack of enforcement, that actually worked to

put the work in the public domain. This is forfeiture of copyright, not

abandonment. Because the notice requirement is now gone from copyright

law, these cases don't have much weight today.

 

I can't find anything that supports the idea that failure to assert a

copyright against an infringer can alone lead to placing the work in the

public domain (if you have any authoritative information on this, please

drop me a note at one of the addresses listed in the introduction). Of

course, circumstances may be such that the ability to sue a particular

infringer might be waived (e.g., a statute of limitations may expire (see

section 3.4), or if the infringer has reasonably relied to his or her

detriment on the copyright holder's failure to sue, the doctrine of

laches may bar a suit), but that's only with respect to that particular

infringer, and does not affect the status of the copyright with respect

to others.

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part2/

If anyone has an online law article on this with clear details, then link it please.

One more thing, don't ruin a perfectly good discussion with personal attacks. Purpose if this thread is to gain more knowledge surrounding copyright issues, I used msn chat control to make it more interesting, but that doesn't ok personal attacks to anyone. So please refrain from using personal comments.

Personally attacks Chuck and smacks him with a large, wet trout

If we followed everything Koach did, this site would be boring.

If it gets too interesting like usual with buzzen topics then I'm afraid it will get closed. This is not to bash or promote anyone, I've done things in my life without permission and most of the time I've refrained from doing things without permission... I never stole any tangible object, but I've downloaded mp3s from Morpheus... in the end, it differs from situation to situation and person to person. If anyone considers me a bad person for this, then so be it, but it is the truth.

"dont take it so personal Chuck."

I'm not. Just don't want to get things out of proportion.

Regarding the copyright issue, I'll try to get an answer from someone who is studying law.

am i rite inthinking you are a little bias towards buzzen chuck , because they host the project your working on?