I think Sonic_aka_T has brushed away some objections a little too easily, and now some people are trying to drown legitimate discussion about the MRC policies in talk about pancakes and a cat.

Quote:

[...] Quote: You also declare to periodically check the policies for changes This means you don't get to say "Oh, I didn't know I couldn't post my Konami warez collection on the forum?!? You sure that was in the policies? It wasn't last time I checked!" This is the basic principle of any legal system by the way. Every citizen (of age) of every country is obliged to know the laws of that country (all 1743 volumes of 'em) and is obliged to have knowledge of any new laws passed. You don't get to say "I didn't know that was illegal".

I think it would make sense to properly announce changes in the policies, rather than to let users periodically check the policies.

Quote:

Quote: 1.4 By disagreeing with this agreement/these policies you agree to cease using the MRC and its services immediately. This policy will stay in effect, even if you disagree with the terms of the agreement. Disagreeing with the agreement/these policies does not grant you any rights to violate the rulings of these policies. Also fairly standard. This means that the rules still apply if you don't agree with them. So no "I'm sorry Mr. Judge, but I don't agree with that whole Murder being Illegal thing, so I won't be going to jail..."

The first sentence goes way beyond that, it's more like "since you think the speed limits should be increased, you may no longer drive a car". As the rule in the first sentence has been openly violated in this thread, without anyone arguing that the violators should be punished or banned, it would be best to keep only the rest of article 1.4.

Quote:

Quote: 2.4 MRC preserves the right not to publish submitted content or to alter the distribution package of the submitted content, before or after publication, without prior consent. This means we have the right not to publish the pictures of someone's naked grandma if those are submitted. I hope you agree with this rule. It also means that if we do decide to publish those pictures we get to package them in a ZIPped .dsk file, even if the original was sent to us in a PMA file.

The description "to alter the distribution package of the submitted content" a bit general. It seems to include adding a small text-file (msx.org) as well. The MRC may be able to reassure some potential submitters by stating exactly what it will and will not do without prior consent.

Quote:

Quote: 3.2 MRC does not claim any copyrights to user submitted content. In accordance with 2.1 however, MRC may publish submitted content, without limitation, at its own discretion, in any form available This means that MRC does not claim copyright to any work you submit (meaning you're still the owner), but that we do get to distribute it (as in it stays on the site) once you decide to submit it.

The MRC claims far more than just right to let the user submitted content stay on the site, it claims the right to publish without limitation in any form available. The copyright holder loses the exclusiveness of his/her right to reproduce the content in any form, rather than just the exclusiveness of the right to put the content on a website.

I don't think "nuff is said" Hanso, you write "we" in your last reply and you say that you (plural):

Quote:

It is the other content we do not really agree on.

Sonic already explained that article 3.2 states content will remain your copyright. The only thing you're giving up when submitting content is the right to have it taken offline from MRC. Once you've submitted content we decide if we keep it online or not. I really don't see the problem because any content you submit to a public website will be mirrored and copied to other public websites aswell nowadays. Just take a look at archive.org and google.com. If you don't want stuff to be public, don't submit it. Not on MRC and not anywhere else.

Aside from that, MRC -does- always announce policy updates on the frontpage (just check here, for instance on when we last changed the policies).

@arnold: it's really just a matter of being able to plot your own course I suppose. It doesn't really matter what policies we put online, there will always be someone who disagrees with them. I don't really know why this debate on our 1.5 year old policy change got started (well, maybe I do...), but as you may understand it's hardly an option to change (and translate to 4 other languages) our policies every time someone finds something which isn't as it should be (in their opinion).

These policies were not made to protect the authors of software submitted to the MRC or MRC's user base, they were made to protect the MRC. And while I feel MRC's user base does probably benefit from the most part of our policies (and certainly what the policies aim to do) it is indeed a big-ass-legal-disclaimer designed to protect the MRC and most of all it's content. I don't need to tell you the MRC doesn't have the cash to have a lawyer draw up some policies, so I'm sure it suffers from the same awkward signs of amateurism as the rest of the site (and probably most of the MSX scene) does.

Regarding policy changes, we always announce those, as we did when this policy was put online. This clause is merely intended to cover the period between a policy update and the news post about that update (and the translation of those news posts which sometimes takes a few days, depending on the site). It also covers any minor changes such as typos, formatting and translations.

Regarding clause 1.4, I suppose it would indeed stay in effect without the first line of the paragraph as I think the last part pretty much covers most legal situations. As you noted yourself no one was asked to leave the site or stop using MRC indeed.

Clause 2.4 does indeed also cover that darn MSX.ORG file which I really hope we'll stop using. It also covers making .dsk files which we've been doing for many demos lately and making LZH archives for content submitted in uncompressed or zipped/rarred form. The fact that we don't specify exactly in what type of package we'll distribute is just a matter of convenience. Whether it's zipped, rarred or in some yet to be invented package makes very little difference.

Clause 3.2 does not mean MRC claims anything. The author grants us that right, or doesn't... The author does indeed loose exclusivity, but that's normal when you submit something to another site. The only difference with MRC is that this means it'll be online for the foreseeable future. I suppose it would be possible to narrow down in what form MRC will and/or will not distribute the content, but again, all this means is more time/work/effort for an already stressed MRC crew.

I guess this debate shouldn't really be about whether or not MRC's policies are flawless/perfect or not, as I'm sure they're not. It's more about none of the MRC crew (well, at least not myself) really caring enough to be arsed to change, update, translate and post about them. MRC's download db is a freeware downloads db, which really means you should only submit freeware to it. And there's really not much these policies allow MRC to do which they wouldn't be able to do with freeware in any event.

Hope that clarifies at least some points...

The reason why the debate is now is probably because nobody actually read them up till now.

Anyway, the big problem with the policies is basically the contradiction. On the one hand members stress (and rightfully so) that this is a hobby project, but on the other hand the policies read like those from a professional organisation. This is mainly because it focusses on the negative and on the things that mrc *can* do while not saying a word about what mrc won't do. If the description added some details about what the rights you 'take' are meant for and what they are not meant for, then it would look a whole lot more like something from a hobby website.

I'd certainly appreciate it if those who think the policies should be changed (a bit) come up with ready-made suggestions. That may sound a bit like a lazy bum, but I think it will be hard enough to come up with alterations to the policies in our public forum which are acceptable to all of you and will still respect the general idea MRC has regarding the ToS. If a good proposal comes up, we most certainly will seriously consider and discuss it.

Quote:

Cheese Yummie, and Bacon is sometimes also tasty!

Sometimes? "Spek" is the best!

It's not the same as "bacon".

Bake an egg with "spek" (or bacon) and cheese! It's almost as big a gift of God as garlic is!

Spanish guys, how do you guys call "spek" (it's bacon, but more fatty)?

Spek rules the world!!!

Oh, to stay on topic, sorry guys

What would you care? You could have those files of TNI removed in a jiffy.
But you won't, because they once gave it to you from their own free will?

And now, TNI does not accept MRC anymore and they want to withdraw their once submitted programs?

Seems to me, "semi-wise-man" that you could either:

(1) Remove those programs from MRC. No, I'm not "telling" you to.
But anyone could get those programs somewhere. Maybe at msxposse. Just not at MRC.

(2) Laugh 'n' cry. That's what I'm doing right now. But, never bother, you know.
What the heck are we talking about anyway... MSX? Love it! New stuff? Gets me enthousiastic!
Trouble?
No thanks, people cause enough of it without draggin' in their favourite computer system!

Though, I seem to sense some sort of rigidness. But I like a stubborn attitude.

Please, don't take it too serious! In the end, we're all chasing nosalgia!

@Sonic_aka_T: Proof positive!

[hippie mode] Let's use our talents to actually do something! [/hippie mode off]

Are we in the disposition to slag at each other? No, we're not!

But... What makes you *not* remove this content which the authors are raving about?

Is it determination, is it policy, or is it a weapon, lost in discussion?

Yes, I think it'd be better to give them exactly what they want in this case.
While it's logical the MRC wants to uphold the policy, it might not be a good idea this time.


I put lots of "poedersuiker" on my pancakes.

Should I assume from what I am reading that a developer wants his creation to be deleted from the MRC Downloads Database and the MRC refused?

that's what I think (but correct me if I'm wrong, please)
then again, the following is clearly written in the policies:

Quote:

2.1 Content submitted to the MRC remains copyright of the author/copyright owner. Any user submitting content to the MRC to which they do not have the copyrights must have approval of the copyright owner at the time the content is submitted. Once content has been submitted to the MRC, the author/copyright owner agree to irrevocably allow the MRC to have this content displayed online and/or available for download. This ruling is solely meant to protect the archival value of the MRC, and to prevent disruption of the integrity of the content of the MRC.

so, unless that was just added yesterday, the ones submitting their stuff should perhaps have read that.
It's not that weird. You could potentially get a mess otherwise.
Still, I'd honour the request in this case.

Yes Viejo, that's correct. We have a policy that once you submit content we can publish or remove that content at our discretion. That policy was introduced in january 2006 for the sole reason that people like the particular developer in question had already been trying (sometimes succesful) to destroy content and with that cripple MRC by doing so. We are not some filesharing site on which you can publish stuff and remove it when you feel like it. Once you submit -freeware- into our -freeware- downloads section we will treat that as freeware and publish it if we feel like it. This does NOT infringe any copyright as the copyrights of the products will always remain with the original author. We just -publish- the content as we can do with any freeware title.

Anyway, although it is stated in the site policies, the MRC crew should consider developer's askings. This strict reading of the policies will just lead into the MRC archive hosting old files, as I doubt the author will give liscence to the MRC with future versions of the program(s). Policies talk about the uploaded content, not future versions of the same program... I really can't point where, but I remember snout talking about the MRC site policies as just guidelines for being cool and polite, not as opressive laws for users or developers: this is the oportunity to show that's real. I mean: stick to the policies or have an outdated file archive with an angry developer behind?... man, I say: let's stick to common sense, dudes.

Viejo: lets use our common sense indeed. In our communication with BiFi I have asked him to motivate -why- he wanted his software to be removed, -why- he was continuously acting this way against the MRC and (as he still had not answered that one) -why- he felt he could hurt me deeply by having a laugh about my father's lung cancer.

Instead of even remotely answering those questions Albert Beevendorp went straight for his goal as this whole thing is not about his software being on MRC or not (as it's freeware, he submitted it to the MRC himself a loooooooong time ago, the policies discussion was held more than 1.5 year ago as well and he himself made the foundings of the MRC downloads database while he was still an MRC team member he of all people should know what the MRC downloads database is all about). Not very long ago BiFi was very pleased with MRCs downloads database and before we introduced statistics he would mail every single month and ask how often his software was downloaded. He knew that hosting your software on MRC is a great way to get your software to an as large audience as possible and - as far as I know - was very pleased with the amount of downloads. The fact that he is completely incapable and unwilling to support his arguments in a mature discussion only proves what he is set out to.

Albert Beevendorp and Patriek Lesparre reopened the discussion on the policies and then took a second step by asking us to remove two freeware titles not because they are against the policies, not because they want to look for a solution, but merely because they want to cause just another fuzz. My guess is the "press release" had already been written even before the first request of removing the software was sent. The MRC policies are exaclty about this, as we feel it's wrong to "play with the site content" and bug our site visitors with conflicts that are not about the software itself. Albert and Patriek just found another opportunity to put MRC in bad light of day, that's all. No more no less. If the community should act (as they are so eager about), they should point out that Albert and Patriek should be totally ashamed about their pathetic behavior of the past years. We are, as usual, open to enter a mature discussion to get to the core of the case though. But Albert and Patriek have clearly shown they don't want to get things better, they only want to make more and more and more fuzz and use everything they can get their hands on to achieve those goals. It's behaviour like that we should banish from the MSX community.