119 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

supertrap, on 22 January 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Are we reading the same topic. I said in a non literal way that codex could be taken down. The argument grew to semantics. I might have been wrong about the exacts about the copyright laws, but the main point stays the same.

Everyone was responding to the fact that you implied it was a legal move to take us down.

Can you quote anyone who said that Viacom would not be able to take us down at all?

Quote

Know who your talking about first. Your all just halfwits on neo forums to me.

Go on then, dazzle me.

[supertrap]

Rainie, on 22 January 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Now that's just a bunch of bullshit.

Your first argument:



Then:



And finally:

Sure. Add in the middle posts. Changes the story huh?
You just fox newsed the topic.

i honestly dont know what to say. But LOL.

[iargue]

At what point is trading items for USD legal basis to take our site down?

[Sage]

Man, I miss all the fun when I sleep.

Btw--Fox Newsing a topic doesn't mean taking stuff out of context, that's what news media does as a whole (even though removing all the posts inbetween your point changes does not actually change what took place, as all you did was repeatedly try to argue those points and fail). Fox Newsing specifically would be lying about it. Nobody's lied to you, and all you really did was change your point twice, to something so vague that no one could disagree with it based solely on the letter of the statement. That's not winning an argument or making your point well.

Viacom could have the site removed if they wanted, but not due to the enforcement of any law. They could do it because they have this magical thing called 'clout' and they can intimidate smaller companies into compliance without actually needing to levy any real charges, as putting up a legal battle and winning is still extremely costly and time-consuming, and nobody wants to do it if they can possibly avoid it. (This is why you often see huge companies settling on cases they could've won if they tried.)

If all you can do is say 'well they started it' and start name-calling then perhaps I'd consider saying "I'm sorry for being rude, I still believe my point was valid, have a nice day," and walk away.

Edited by cuddlydemon, 22 January 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[Waser Lave]

iargue, on 22 January 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

At what point is trading items for USD legal basis to take our site down?

We just got rid of him, don't make him come back...

[Sage]

Waser Lave, on 22 January 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

We just got rid of him, don't make him come back...

But some of us never even got a turn. ._.

[Waser Lave]

cuddlydemon, on 22 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

But some of us never even got a turn. ._.

Lucky bastards...

[Sage]

Waser Lave, on 22 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Lucky bastards...

It's okay, we'll shield you from the dumb for a little while. Rest, sweet prince.

[Turnip]

supertrap, on 22 January 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

We all know that the word "other" means USD.

Don't you mean can be/usually means that, but not limited to just USD?
For example, someone could trade, say, their VWN whatever + loads of cool things on this aged shell for your unopened, perfectly working (enter video game system here) or something~ Not sure if anyone even does this but yeah, there's my two cents~


/crawls back into lurking mode

[MsRose]

so..

did you guys hear about anonymous deleting CBS.com? Apparently this was all that was left after their little expedition:



The reason anonymous is so furious is because a lot of them originate from LUE (from gamefaqs) or LUElinks (also known as endoftheinter.net iirc), and they used megaupload for everything. Basically, they have a helluva lot of dead links now. The drama level has been upgraded to Code Kermit, an all time high on LUElinks lol.

[Elindoril]

MsRose, on 22 January 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

The reason anonymous is so furious is because a lot of them originate from LUE (from gamefaqs) or LUElinks (also known as endoftheinter.net iirc), and they used megaupload for everything. Basically, they have a helluva lot of dead links now. The drama level has been upgraded to Code Kermit, an all time high on LUElinks lol.

A lot of the sources I used for material used Megaupload too, it's a pain in the ass when everything I had yet to get for myself is now lost for good.

Also, the /rs/ section of 4chan was just loaded with dead links, it was a ghost town in there.

[Sida]

I know fuck all about law, so posting this is probably not a smart idea, but honestly if they wanted to do anything about this site, the 'other' stuff would probably be the way to go about it. Isn't there some sort of "acting like you have no idea what's going on when really it's blatantly obvious and it's clear you knew what was happening, and so we'll take that as 'overlooking' illegal activity on the board" clause/law-thingy/whatever? I'm not saying they would ever even bother, but I'm just not convinced that changing the term used for USD is enough to deny all knowledge of trading happening for cash.

[Sage]

I don't know for sure if it's ever actually been the case but isn't this the whole basis for those silly "If you've got the money, I've got the stuff" jokes? The 'stuff' in question actually has to be exchanged in a way witnessed by the guy wearing the wire, and thus prove the crime actually happened in the first place. In the case of non-physical product, it has to be more directly referenced than 'stuff', yes?

[iargue]

Sida, on 23 January 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

I know fuck all about law, so posting this is probably not a smart idea, but honestly if they wanted to do anything about this site, the 'other' stuff would probably be the way to go about it. Isn't there some sort of "acting like you have no idea what's going on when really it's blatantly obvious and it's clear you knew what was happening, and so we'll take that as 'overlooking' illegal activity on the board" clause/law-thingy/whatever? I'm not saying they would ever even bother, but I'm just not convinced that changing the term used for USD is enough to deny all knowledge of trading happening for cash.

There is a huge difference between its happening and being able to do something about it.

All trading for USD, happens off site. We do not allow people to trade for real money on the site. They are not allowed to mention that they want money in any way. Even if we banned the usage of other, they would choose cookie, or peanuts, or anything else to signify it. We have no way of knowing if they actually mean USD through other, or if they mean other items, or Neocash, or something other then what they are offering. The best that we can do is tell them that they are not allowed to do it, and remove it if we see it happening. We have no control over what they do off site.

[Boggart]

Removed the latest posts not related to the topic.

Also, Drak was the responsible one. Wut.

[Sida]

Boggart, on 24 January 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Removed the latest posts not related to the topic.

Also, Drak was the responsible one. Wut.

-.-

-rep

[Maloo]

Damnit, I didn't even have time to report argue for calling tsvete a bitch
So unfair!
BOGGART:

[onlyme]

Boggart, on 24 January 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Removed the latest posts not related to the topic.

didn't i post a darrengif? damn you.

[Unseen]

Well, that was all a fun read.

[Boggart]

Haha sorry guys, had to be fair. And I'm not giving argue a warning 'cause we've all done worse. Let's not make this an arguecentric discussion, k?