4 ms·

I don't know how much of the explanation by the Book8088 dev is bullshit, but he exposes a valid point which could be rephrased as: if you attribute copyright t

I don't know how much of the explanation by the Book8088 dev is bullshit, but he exposes a valid point which could be rephrased as: if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately. We've seen this happening in similar contexts quite often, such as bogus DMCA complaints on YouTube that result in immediate takedowns and enormous efforts from the authors to reinstate the pages. Might be just PR, but the point is sound to me; copyright laws are necessary, but the way they're implemented is total crap.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning here...
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  If you aren't the copyright holder to the work you are presenting you can't counter-assert your rights to publish against the takedown claim. I don't get how this applies to this situation. Since the copyrighted work isn't being "published" outside of the physical computer.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    In this case you have a license to republish the work (the GPL, if you followed it correctly), so you have rights to counter-assert.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      I'm sure Amazon, Google, and everyone else like them make it really difficult to communicate such nuance.
      - jeroenhd 3y ago
        As if they're going to check the copyright text on a laptop in the first place.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Again, I said I didn't see how it applied to this situation. I'm just writing in general about copyright and takedown notices.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
It's an entirely bogus reasoning and there's no way to claim otherwise. The same device is shipping a myriad other software which can be classified into: A. Outright copyright violations of proprietary software (i.e. "abandonware") B. Legally distributed software (e.g. some of the BIOSes of some of the add-on cards), which their permissive licenses generally allow as long as you keep the attribution, which just from the screenshots I can see they did. C. The main system ROM BIOS, for which some unfathomable reason they _specifically_ decided to remove the attribution (which is technically in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the GPL). So to claim that they had to violate the copyright of C for "protection" is as bogus as it gets. They have already set themselves up for a cathedral-sized _non-bogus_ DMCA claim, and violating the copyright of the GPL'd BIOS is just the frosting in comparison. My wild guess: branding. They just disliked not to see their company name first on power on. Plus the general tendency to treat the GPL as a "guideline".
jeroenhd 3y ago
Why would a takedown because of the name on the copyright even work? The license states that you have full permission to use the work. There is no legal basis here. I can legally sell my purchased copy of Microsoft Office and no lawyer is going to stop me because I don't own the copyright to the software on the CDs. Hell, buy any laptop, you'll soon be greeted by screens that state that some company called Microsoft made all the software. HP and Dell will be ruined! Regardless of legal basis, I can false copyright strike this developer right now and there is no way for Amazon to get their hands on this device to verify the legitimacy of the claim. Even if they had one at hand, there's no way they're going to go through the trouble to actually check any of this.

DaiPlusPlus 3y ago

> if you attribute copyright to the author, and someone else complains about anything, the platform can take down the product page immediately I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning here...

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
If you aren't the copyright holder to the work you are presenting you can't counter-assert your rights to publish against the takedown claim. I don't get how this applies to this situation. Since the copyrighted work isn't being "published" outside of the physical computer.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  In this case you have a license to republish the work (the GPL, if you followed it correctly), so you have rights to counter-assert.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I'm sure Amazon, Google, and everyone else like them make it really difficult to communicate such nuance.
    - jeroenhd 3y ago
      As if they're going to check the copyright text on a laptop in the first place.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Again, I said I didn't see how it applied to this situation. I'm just writing in general about copyright and takedown notices.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

It's an entirely bogus reasoning and there's no way to claim otherwise. The same device is shipping a myriad other software which can be classified into: A. Outright copyright violations of proprietary software (i.e. "abandonware") B. Legally distributed software (e.g. some of the BIOSes of some of the add-on cards), which their permissive licenses generally allow as long as you keep the attribution, which just from the screenshots I can see they did. C. The main system ROM BIOS, for which some unfathomable reason they _specifically_ decided to remove the attribution (which is technically in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the GPL). So to claim that they had to violate the copyright of C for "protection" is as bogus as it gets. They have already set themselves up for a cathedral-sized _non-bogus_ DMCA claim, and violating the copyright of the GPL'd BIOS is just the frosting in comparison. My wild guess: branding. They just disliked not to see their company name first on power on. Plus the general tendency to treat the GPL as a "guideline".

jeroenhd 3y ago

Why would a takedown because of the name on the copyright even work? The license states that you have full permission to use the work. There is no legal basis here. I can legally sell my purchased copy of Microsoft Office and no lawyer is going to stop me because I don't own the copyright to the software on the CDs. Hell, buy any laptop, you'll soon be greeted by screens that state that some company called Microsoft made all the software. HP and Dell will be ruined! Regardless of legal basis, I can false copyright strike this developer right now and there is no way for Amazon to get their hands on this device to verify the legitimacy of the claim. Even if they had one at hand, there's no way they're going to go through the trouble to actually check any of this.