User talk:BazookaMed

Simply put: you do not(!) own the rights to the content linked. Distribution of it is illegal. You can do this stuff on your own if you want to have pressed charges against, but wikipedia is not meant to be used as a distribution system of matter you don't own the rights to.


 * Thanks for responding. Not to spite you or your contributions, but you removed the entire paragraph, not just the external reference link (if that's what you are disputing). This is why I have reverted your edit.


 * Please also consider the context of the situation:


 * 1) The Pirate Bay (TPB) does not host copyrighted content. TPB only provides means to access it. The WP page of TPB also directly links to the same website. Should that page or the external reference link also be removed? You'll understand that this approach would amount to censorship.
 * The sole reason I added the external link to the material was to simply add a reference so readers can verify whether the claims I made in the article are true or accurate (per WP virtue). The reader can still decide for himself if he wants to download the material, and verify whether doing so is legal in his/her country.


 * 2) The source code package has been circulating the internet for quite a while (roughly a year), only now it has been documented. My intent was not to use WP for distribution, but to document the existence.


 * 3) The IP status of the title in question is unknown. The former rights holder (DreamWorks Interactive, DWI) no longer exists, and current assumed IP owner, EA-LA (Electronic Arts Los Angeles) has failed to confirm they own the rights. So until someone claims the rights, the title should be regarded as an "orphaned work". Various individuals in the Trespasser fan community have distributed copyrighted materials (as part of 'mods'), and at no point has a rights holder invoked IP laws or otherwise shown that they care, despite any suspected rights holder being duly informed.


 * 4) The fact that someone with access to the material leaked it should provide an indication that a legal threat is unlikely. This is a time when IP legal wars are at an all-time high (see SOPA). Most game developers have to sign an NDA, violating such is highly risky. In this instance the person who distributed the material appears not to have regarded legal repercussions as realistic. It seems highly unlikely that WP would be at any legal risk (see also #1 and #3).


 * 5) The linked material does not contain a functional copy of the game. The prime reason I intend to have it listed is for educational purposes (the other reason being conservation for future dissemination and hardware compatibility, though irrelevant for WP here). At time of release, the game featured technology then regarded as ground-breaking. Despite commercial failure, there is and has been considerable interest in game development circles to this technology. With this reasoning, "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law would apply, even if the material was copyrighted. Though this would still be irrelevant to WP, see #1.


 * I hope this sufficiently explains the situation.
 * BazookaMed (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice proposition, but the facts remain:

1) Another party is the holder of the copyright to said content. As long as they don't state from their end, that this is abandonware, they do have the power and the right to prohibit distribution. As long as they don't state otherwise, the distribution is illegal. 2) TPB is not the distributor of said content, that is correct, but the link gives access to said content. By providing the means to the content not piratebay, but the uploader, gives means to obtain copyrighted material. TPB is out of the hook, because it does not promote, nor shares the files. 3) Wikipedia is not (!) a page for the distribution of content you don't have the right to. If you want to do that, use TPB, as you have, where it isn't distributed by a single person, nor promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.35.83 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree and am aware of that. But copyright also has it's limitations; Fair Use. Just because the 'Big Content' industry doesn't like that part of copyright legislation and attempts to do away with it, doesn't make it less than the law. Again, this is still irrelevant in this instance, because my paragraph is not duplicating any of said material on WP here.
 * 2) Linking to copyrighted materials is by no means illegal. Let's face it, if linking to copyrighted content would be illegal, the internet (and WP with it) would cease to exist. See the debate on SOPA.
 * 3) My paragraph and the link to external content does in no way contain copyrighted material. Thus, WP is not distributing said material. My paragraph is merely stating facts, which cannot be copyrighted (again, see Fair Use). Adding the external link also does in no way involve distribution. Truthfully speaking, even if it would make distribution more prevalent, it is not illegal under current copyright law. WP nor the reader would be infringing IP laws.
 * So if you agree that TPB is not infringing on copyright nor promoting it, then how can you claim that a reference to TPB on WP is?


 * I would like to suggest to further inform yourself on copyright law. I refuse to blame you for your ignorance; I am well aware that invested interests are intentionally disinforming the public. If you still want to dispute the legality of my contribution to the article, then please explicitly state which parts of my contribution (as submitted) are infringing on which laws.
 * I hereby respectfully request that you restore my contribution, until you can conclusively prove it is illegal.
 * BazookaMed (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't really need to get into a discussion with you, nor am I interested in all that. We can either contact the other wiki-admins to have a look at your account and said content, or you can just remove the link that directly distributes said content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.227.35.83 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a little disappointed that you do not consider the consequences of your actions worthwhile to discuss. If you prefer to spend your time on other matters, I would indeed appreciate that you contact WP admins to take care of this. I still hope you will re-inform yourself however, if only to prevent future misunderstandings.
 * I will await further action by you or others, if not within a reasonable period, I will restore my contribution as submitted.
 * BazookaMed (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * BazookaMed, while linking to a torrent site is not copyright infringement, it may or may not be contributory copyright infringement, and Wikipedia policy is to err on the side of caution whet it comes to copyright matters. The relevant policy can be read at WP:LINKVIO, and while it does not explicitly discuss torrents it would be disingenuous to claim that the material available via the torrent is not a copyright violation. Whether the copyright holder chooses to take any action or not is irrelevant, unless that action is to release the content under a free license or into the public domain.


 * Further, (unrelated to the copyright policy issue) material on Wikipedia should be sourced to reliable sources which means that you should be citing a third-party source which talks about the leaked code, rather than directly citing the page where the source code has been leaked. If there is no reliable third-party source supporting the paragraph then it should not be restored to the article. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding this matter. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)