Diep 2.0

[syzygy]

Does an active legal copyright currently exist for Diep? And would Vincent gain anything in court, assuming an initial cease and desist notice was ignored?

Exactly! The judge would laugh and fine Vincent for making the court waste time.

And yet another utterly misinformed and disrespectful posting.
Of course Vincent would win a court case. The amount of damages awarded will depend on the jurisdiction. At least within the EU you'll start by paying all his lawyer fees.

[kgburcham]

Does an active legal copyright currently exist for Diep?

I have a legal copy I purchased from Vincent.

kgburcham

[BrendanJNorman]

Have the owners of Houdini, Komodo etc taken ANYONE to court over it?

Oh my...

You believe that something illegal becomes legal when people go unpunished.
You believe that valid copyrights somehow cease to exist when they are being violated.

I had a "debate" with another Dutch guy on here once before, and it seems that some of you guys (certainly with the exception of Ed, who seems to have critical thinking ability) like to make sweeping assumptions and deduce what you like, essentially putting words in another person's mouth.

This other guy did exactly the same thing (also accusing me of stealing software actually+arrogantly demanding to see receipts! - that is until Houdart came and said "err Brendan is my customer...").

Where did I say "illegal becomes legal when people go unpunished"?

Plus, you've also done the very manly thing by completely avoiding answering the questions I posed to you...

Nice way for a lawyer to put down an argument, huh?

To not even address it. You must be making the big bucks.

But I do hope that the moderators here take action to stop the propagation of your lies on this senstivie topic.

"Propagation of lies"??? "Sensitive topic"?

ROFL... I don't see any lies from me, and the only one crying is you.

No need to get all sensitive bro.

Oh wait...you lied when you deliberately misquoted me, thus creating a straw-man which would be easier to take down than what my assertion truly was.

I can see through this type of intellectual dishonesty in my sleep.

Why not address any of the reasonable questions I put to you?

Don't say "not worth my time" - that's high school excuses.

Please tell me you are behind the scenes in your legal work? This is weak argumentation for the average Joe, but for a lawyer...?

P.S. We both know that even if I were banned (do it! whatever... ), it would do nothing more than expose once again, the tendency of this forum to lean toward mob-justice (as long as the mob is made up of Germans and/or Dutch guys), group-thinking tendencies... and suppression of opposing ideas.

New engines which are unknown to the gang must be clones... New ideas/opinions rejected by the gang are "nonsense"...Even new members who have some knowledge of computer chess must be dupe accounts (I've been accused of being someone else before). At the same time, if a member is truly new, and doesn't know how to setup a WB engine or something, they're called "stupid", or an "idiot" by many of you guys.

So tolerant...

You're right, best to ban me - Otherwise I might say something "insensitive" when your friends insult an innocent chess enthusiast.

And don't get it confused - I will.

BTW...Do you agree with your buddy Vincent that engine testers are "idiots"? Not going to answer, right?

That's computer chess through the eyes of TalkChess.

And why so many people leave the hobby.

[BrendanJNorman]

Does an active legal copyright currently exist for Diep? And would Vincent gain anything in court, assuming an initial cease and desist notice was ignored?

Exactly! The judge would laugh and fine Vincent for making the court waste time.

And yet another utterly misinformed and disrespectful posting.

Yet, you have no problem with Vincent calling engine testers "idiots", right?

"Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others..."

[hgm]

Have the owners of Houdini, Komodo etc taken ANYONE to court over it?

Oh my...

You believe that something illegal becomes legal when people go unpunished.
You believe that valid copyrights somehow cease to exist when they are being violated.

Believe what you want, but that does not make it true.

But I do hope that the moderators here take action to stop the propagation of your lies on this senstivie topic.

Well, earlier postings of this guy have revealed he considers himself above the law in any case, because he is living in China, beyond the reach of any western law enforcement. And we all know how much respect for copyright exists in China.

I am not sure what my task as moderator is in this. If people want to confess their criminal tendencies, it is not really against the charter.

Things are of course exactly as Ronald says; copyright expires only a long time after someone's death, and the fact that you can get away with a crime unpunished, and others actually do just that, doesn't make it anything less of a crime.

So for now I will leave it at a warning to all readers that they should not be fooled by pleas to engage in thievery.

[BrendanJNorman]

Have the owners of Houdini, Komodo etc taken ANYONE to court over it?

Oh my...

You believe that something illegal becomes legal when people go unpunished.
You believe that valid copyrights somehow cease to exist when they are being violated.

Believe what you want, but that does not make it true.

But I do hope that the moderators here take action to stop the propagation of your lies on this senstivie topic.

Well, earlier postings of this guy have revealed he considers himself above the law in any case, because he is living in China, beyond the reach of any western law enforcement. And we all know how much respect for copyright exists in China.

I am not sure what my task as moderator is in this. If people want to confess their criminal tendencies, it is not really against the charter.

Things are of course exactly as Ronald says; copyright expires only a long time after someone's death, and the fact that you can get away with a crime unpunished, and others actually do just that, doesn't make it anything less of a crime.

So for now I will leave it at a warning to all readers that they should not be fooled by pleas to engage in thievery.

Another Dutch guy runs in to defend the cause - this is like clockwork.

And he also puts words into my mouth, rather than trying to understand what my assertion truly was.

Above the law? Beyond the reach of Western law enforcement?



If you are racist toward Chinese, that's one thing (it's common for you guys, I've noticed), but don't pretend you understand why I am not.

I shared a link of an engine which I still had on a ten year old HDD, and when I realized that the author didn't approve, I took it down.

This is the reality of what happened.

Any honest person reading can see this clearly.

The rest is Dutch guys creating straw-man, revealing their racism and trying to twist my words...

...which were nothing more than queries to the community - not my common practice.

If you want to preach about piracy, go over to immortal and do it.

Many of your members are already there.

[Ovyron]

And yet another utterly misinformed and disrespectful posting.

No, I'm not misinformed, I have peeked into these things related to fair use and the safe harbor, related to Youtube videos.

One day I was hit by Content ID, because my Youtube video contained fragments from a Jim Carrey movie owned by Warner Bros. Entertainment. I disputed the claim, explaining my knowledge of Fair Use and how the video belonged to me.

What was the answer?

Good news! After reviewing your dispute, Warner Bros. Entertainment has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

And then everything was fine.

Have you had to do special research about something like this because you were involved in a legal dispute? Or would you just assume it's not right to use copyrighted material from movies on your videos and wouldn't dare to do it?

Because, the fact is, I could use Diep legally to teach my students about chess and it would fall under fair use. I can't use Komodo 11 and would lose the case in court since I don't have a valid licence, but with Diep, I can't buy a valid licence, I'm not given the option, the author isn't being damaged because my students can't physically buy it.

I also approve of piracy in places of the world when the thing being pirated can't be bought at all, where again, no damage is taking place, because it's the fault of the author for not selling there.

You can't just shout "COPYRIGHT!" and expect people to be filled with fear and stop doing things, because copyright still allows people to do plenty of things with the material, which is fine.

[syzygy]

You think Diep's copyright can be violated at will just because the fair use exception of US copyright law allows you, in certain circumstances, to include movie fragments in your YouTube video? Ehmm..... duh?

Show me some authority that, in the US, all that is needed for the fair use exception to apply is that the protected work cannot be bought.

[Ovyron]

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.

...

Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.

I mentioned a specific case, using Diep to teach some chess to my students. So at least there's one thing I can do without violating copyright.

I'm not claiming that violating copyright is fine, just that you can do many things and they will be protected.

There's also "criticism" on there, I could use Diep to play some chess games against anything, so long as I use those games to make some Review of the engine, as criticism.

And I'm not saying that copyright only protects commercial material, what I'm saying is that the damages claimed by the copyright holder would need to have a price attached, because I wouldn't be sentenced to jail for any of this if I were to lose the case, I would be ordered to pay something to the claimant.

If I were caught pirating Komodo 11, the authors could ask for damages to at least the price of the engine. If I bought Komodo 11, and distributed it to pirate sites, they could make some calculations regarding how many people didn't buy it because they downloaded it from my link, and charge me for the missing licences.

But Diep?

I'm not claiming to be the author of Diep.

I'm not changing Diep's with a resource hacker and releasing it as my own engine.

I'm not making a new product that consults Diep from its output to make desicions.

There are many clear cut cases of copyright violations, distributing abandonware isn't one.

So tell me, what would you tell the judge about the damages Vincent is suffering if I happened to download Diep (I'm not doing it) and use it privately? What damages? Using the product without buying it is one thing, the loss of money is clear, here, is it, his feelings?

[syzygy]

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.

...

Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.

I mentioned a specific case, using Diep to teach some chess to my students. So at least there's one thing I can do without violating copyright.

I know what the fair use doctrine is, and I know that it applies only in limited circumstances.

I'm not claiming that violating copyright is fine, just that you can do many things and they will be protected.

Well, the questions in this thread were whether (1) Diep is actually protected by copyright (the answer is obviously yes, and it seems you are not disputing this) and (2) whether distributing Diep over the internet would nevertheless be legal because of fair use or whatever. The answer to (2) is a resounding "no".

There's also "criticism" on there, I could use Diep to play some chess games against anything, so long as I use those games to make some Review of the engine, as criticism.

No, the "criticism" part just allows you to cite from a protected work in a review of the work. So if you own a legal copy of Diep and you want to review it, you can include in your review a screenshot of Diep provided that it is somehow relevant to the review (which would probably be the case). You need this exception to be able to legally include the screenshot if the screenshot includes some copyrighter material, such as an ascii-art logo or some text that goes beyond the most straightforward description of Diep's functionality.

There are many clear cut cases of copyright violations, distributing abandonware isn't one.

Distirbuting abandonware without permission of the author certainly is a clear-cut copyright violation.

As to damages, when you lose the case you will have to pay court fees, moral damages, and you may have to pay a fine for any future violations of the copyright. As I said, this will depend on the jurisdiction.