@snout: I really didn't mean to offend you. I haven't seen any discrimination on newsposts. But you must agree that you have a lot of insight into Bazix and Woomb and I know you really like it. So its only natural that you want to promote and show what its all about. I'm sure that if some other guy in the MRC team was interested in something else, he or she would want to write a lot about that.
Sometimes I think you and wolf_ automatically get into a defensive position. You really don't need to explain to me why you like Woomb. I'm also passionated about some things too so I know. I guess it must be quite tiering to always read negative news posts or conspiracy theories.
But as I said to wolf_, I'm just trying to describe what I see, not put any strong feelings into it. I'm neither a rebel nor a stormtrooper

I mainly try to defend neutralness and discussion quality, I grow tired of those blindly yelling muppets who can't be bothered to read the obvious and assume (and propagandize!) doom scenarios at forehand. It then feels a bit like a rhino marching into your house full of china. Whether the subject is Bazix or something else doesn't really matter to me.

It appears to me that there is a lot of indignation about the fact that a magazine has been asked to remove a link to illegal software from the internet. This may be an oversimplified way of putting it, but that's where it comes down to. Most arguments have been written down already, so I will probably not be able to add anything new to the discussion, except for the fact that I wonder why every removal antagonist out here values the existence of such a link so much. I really don't understand. Is it a principle? In that case, every single party concerned, however small, has a stronger case to be in favour of removal than the removal antagonists have. You gain little to nothing with principles.

Apart from that, Manuel has already dug up an old thread discussing this MSX-MBOX thing. Everything that needs to be said about it, is said already. Fact is, that it was clear to the ones who hosted the thing after a removal request had been sent to the original developer, that it was (and this is an understatement) not really appreciated by certain parties involved (Bazix). Yet, they made it clear that they couldn't care less and that it might even be an extra reason for hosting the file in the first place.

Which may not be that dramatic, but as many have already pointed out in this thread, the MBOX could very well be a threat to the WOOMB system. The site where the MBOX was hosted, was not a very frequently visited site, so probably the amount of downloads was quite small. Thus, there was little reason to take any further action (as it had already become clear that the site where the program was hosted would not be as polite as the original developer to remove it upon request). With the link from the ComputerIdee website, suddenly a vast amount of downloads took place, which put the matter in quite a different complexion.

As for the 'they should say which games they have rights for' matter - I think this was already discussed in the old thread Manuel referred to. When the initial removal request was sent to the developer, it was already made clear that the product on itself didn't have to disappear, but that certain parts of it should be removed. No need to open that discussion again, maybe except for the fact that the MBOX doesn't only contain illegal games, but illegal system ROM's as well (as do, of course, many emulators, but those emulators aren't as close to WOOMB as the MBOX is).

As for the law - a clear distinction has to be made:

• Infringement on copyrights is punished by criminal law in almost every country. In this thread, I have seen some remarks that point to this aspect of the link removal request, yet it is also the one that would matter the least for Bazix. This is a matter of ethics and apparently most countries share the view that copyright infringement is unethical (and link removal requests are not). If it were unethical to request removal of a link to illegal software or to remove the software itself, the law would be written accordingly.
  
  
• Copyrights are protected by civil law. This protection exists, because if someone goes through a creative process in order to make something, it is his (and only his right to decide what will happen with the product he made. Some people make products because they want to sell them. If such a protection would not exist, they would not be able to sell it because it would be much cheaper to make a duplication. Which is bad, because nobody will be wanting to make anything for the public anymore. If you run a business, you will want to protect that business.
  

As for the term (as someone pointed out, it concerns old videogames) - the term is also decided upon in most countries on purpose. And the fact that the copyrights are used to protect Bazix' business is only a clear example of why that is decided in that way, because there might still be interest in professional exploitation. Tfh has mentioned the law a couple of times, and this is how that law works.

I might add, by the way, that copyrights come into existence automatically. Either a natural person or a legal entity becomes copyright proprietor. Copyrights can be transferred, but the most common way in which the exploitation of products protected by copyrights by others than the copyright proprietor himself, is by licensing a particular product to a third party. A license may contain more than just distribution or duplication rights; it may also authorize acts of legal protection. Another way is representation, in which the representative acts on behalf of the one he represents.

Anyway, I do understand the hassle to a certain degree and I guess it's just impossible to keep anyone pleased, but I do like to emphasize the fact that any actions Bazix or any other party takes in order to protect intellectual property of their concern, is legitimate and (at least aims to be) adequate. Some people may dislike it, but then again - to fall back to the matter I wrote about at the start of this post - why does everybody care so much about this specific event?

Last but not least I'd like to second Snout's comment. MRC is not particularly superfluous with Bazix or WOOMB related news; MRC is superfluous with MSX news in general. I am tempted to challenge the ones who wrote about this in this thread to point to a Bazix or WOOMB related post that would be of no value. If we make that post the 'criterion of interest', I would be very curious how many other posts would be judged 'of no value'.

@Rikusu,

OK... I can't do anything else then agree with what you have written. Now follow your own piece of text:

* Are emulators with embedded MSX system ROM illegal?
* Does Bazix also represent the rights to the MSX system ROM's?
* Is linking to an emulator with embedded ROM's just as illegal as to an emulator with embedded games?

Someone copies a page from a book and publishes it on the internet. Someone else copies the entire book and publishes it on the internet. Strictly spoken, both could be asked to remove it. In general, the one page copy is often tolerated, whereas the copy of an entire book is generally frowned upon. Both break the same copyright, but there's a difference in severity, which in turn causes a different reaction.

Instead of seeing Bazix as the inconsistent factor you could also praise them for being more tolerant than they have to be

I'm not Rikusu, but AFAIK:
1) Yes, but not as harmful as thousands of games in one download that mimics Woomb, so no real threat, so probably not interesting. But yes, it is illegal.
2) What do you mean? AFAIK Bazix represents MSX-A, who has the copyrights of the MSX system ROMs. So, Bazix can act as the copyright holder of the system ROMs as such.
3) AFAIK linking to illegal software is not illegal. Hosting it (offering for download, uploading) is.

Of course I haven't checked this with Bazix at all, it's just what I think is the case. This goes for all my posts in this thread. It's what I think is the matter. I'm glad that I seem to be mostly correct, as Rikusu confirmed.

@Manuel,
If hosting is the problem, and linking isn't, the magazine shouldn't have received a phonecall/mail/letter, as by hovering over the link, it was quite clear that they weren't hosting the file, as the link pointed towards MSXPosse, which wasn't actually hosting it either btw.

Anyway, my target is not getting those software away from the web, nor asking MRC to stop posting news about Emulators. But I am trying to make the point that it's just not nice that the same persons are telling others to remove (a link to) illegal software, the next day they will hapily post a link towards illegal software themselves. No matter what way you look at it, it's not correct.

tfh, as I said before, they didn't host it, but the way they linked to it, did draw a lot of attention to it, which I can imagine is a good reason to ask them to remove the link on such a high profile site.

You're right that it's not 100% consistent, but as was said before, it makes a difference whether it contains a few ROMs (still illegal of course, but not worth the trouble ("gedoogbeleid"? )) or thousands of ROMs, threatening directly a business model.

Quote:

Anyway, my target is not getting those software away from the web, nor asking MRC to stop posting news about Emulators. But I am trying to make the point that it's just not nice that the same persons are telling others to remove (a link to) illegal software, the next day they will hapily post a link towards illegal software themselves. No matter what way you look at it, it's not correct.

And that's pretty much where this discussion deadlocks

@Manuel,
It would be OK, if it wasn't done by the same persons. It's just like finding drugs at Mr. Donner's house, but would comment it's the amount that is accepted by the Dutch "gedoogbeleid", so it's fine by him.

TFH: You clearly overlooked the fact that ComputerIdee actually hosted Mbox on their (www2.computeridee) servers for quite a while which, combined with the large scale of it all (VNUnet) was the proverbial 'drop that overfilled the bucket'. If Bazix allows such a large scale infringement of copyrights to take place by such a large organization, we might as well close our doors today.

I on my turn would like to second Samor. Instead of expecting Bazix to hunt down every corner of the internet for every single infringement of the MSX trademarks/copyrights and/or software licensed for distribution in WOOMB, be glad we don't.

Quote:

Anyway, my target is not getting those software away from the web, nor asking MRC to stop posting news about Emulators. But I am trying to make the point that it's just not nice that the same persons are telling others to remove (a link to) illegal software, the next day they will hapily post a link towards illegal software themselves. No matter what way you look at it, it's not correct.

You seem to be overlooking the distinction I wrote in my post, as you keep on using the word 'illegal'. Illegal is not as much the problem, as is the simple fact that the MBOX is harmful and a concerned party wants to protect itself from that harm (bullet 2). You seem to be looking mainly at bullet 1, which is, as I stated before, not really relevant. It's not as arbitrary as you think. And apart from that, you're talking about 'the same persons', whereas you should be talking about 'a different entity in which the same persons happen to be involved' .

Add to that, by the way, that the matter is not the fact that something is illegal and can therefore be removed from the internet, but that something is harmful and the requestor has the rights to request removal of it. And for completeness' sake: hosting as well as linking can be considered tortious. And it's the tort that is of concern here, not the criminal act.

Here in Brazil, it IS illegal to link to warez, or illegal stuff, and you can be sued for it (since you're supporting the use of illegal material by linking to it - it's called here "apology to crime", there were even singers arrested for songs about drugs, and "how cool it was", since the song motivated people to use drugs), and I guess that's the case, and why the magazine decided to remove the link - they simply didnt want a lawsuit upon them.

Anyone could write to the magazine, pointing out that it infringed copyrighted material, and they would probably remove it anyway...

OMG, I'm so glad I don't live in Brazil