Solidcoin DMCA takedown

[localhost]

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.

Yup, not only he turns free software into proprietary one, but he removes the credits... That's a bit too much I think...
The worst thing is, he then gives lessons about the spirit of open source...

[1714093586]

1714093586

[1714093586]

1714093586

[onelineproof]

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.

[k9quaint]

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.

If Coinhunter hadn't attempted to restrict others from Solidcoin using Copyright law, I wouldn't have cared.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[localhost]

If Coinhunter hadn't attempted to restrict others from Solidcoin using Copyright law, I wouldn't have cared.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Yup, exactly what I think of this: he uses copyright laws against us, we do the same. We're not all gandhis.

[pooler]

Alright, time for some fun.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428

[DeathAndTaxes]

It is called theft.  If Microsoft stole the Bitcoin code, made it proprietary and then tried to commercialize it would you also say to not respond w/ legal action.

I personally don't support copyright law, but if you do, keep in mind that you will have to sacrifice free speech & market competition.

But, Bitcoin, in my view, should be able to operate without help from governments. Filing a DMCA report is basically like crying to the government to help us so that we can stay in business. Why do we need government to help us for this? There are many other ways to verify who the authors of certain pieces of software are.

Saying Bitcoin should operate without any "help" from govt is naive.

So when someone breaks into your house and beats your face in with a hammer until you give them the password to your wallet and walks away with your life savings you aren't going to call the Police?  There are many ways to get justice other than calling the Police.

If corporations decide they will engage in a massive DDOS attack against the blockchain in order to promote their corporate control version you want any law enforcement to look the other way?  There are many ways to end the attack other than law enforcement.

Stupid.  Beyond stupid. The reality is Bitcoin exists in a world of laws. Laws will certainly be used AGAINST Bitcoin regardless of what users, developers, and service providers do.  So to then tie the hands of users, developers, and service providers to not use law to PROTECT Bitcoin makes no sense.

What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

[Luke-Jr]

should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

I was with you up till this. Patents are not protection. Patents are monopolistic abuse.

[DeathAndTaxes]

should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

I was with you up till this. Patents are not protection. Patents are monopolistic abuse.

Well we will need to agree to disagree.

Patents CAN (and often ARE) abused.  So are drugs and so are guns.

A good friend of mine developed an innovative product only to have it stolen by company who showed it to and "wasn't" interested.  Long story short after a couple years of legal battles if it hadn't been for his patent he would have made nothing.  The product in question does about $50M in sales.  His royalty is about 1% of sales price.  Companies would gladly violate the law (even with a filed patent) then give up 1% of the revenue for a product that wouldn't exist without his innovation.

I do think we need significant patent reform.  ... bad.

[Ahimoth]

What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

Like the innovative ways that SolidCoin addresses the 51% issue, the pyramid scheme issue, and the deflation issue. According to you, we should patent those. Thanks for the advice.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Like the innovative ways that SolidCoin addresses the 51% issue, the pyramid scheme issue, and the deflation issue. According to you, we should patent those. Thanks for the advice.

Go ahead.  Waste about $4K or so on a scam coin.  Current time frame for a response (not necessarily a patent) is about 17 month for the USPTO.

So my advice is go ahead.  Of course we both know nobody will.  ScamCoin isn't worth a $4 investment much less a $4000 one.

[Littleshop]

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project.  

Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Bitcoin Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

[Syke]

Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

And again, he has figured out another way to mess it up. He thinks he can remove all copyright notices from every file, and then bury a vague reference that there may be some code fragments that may be copyright by Bitcoin Developers included somewhere in the package, but he won't tell you, you have to figure it out by comparing SolidCoin source code with Bitcoin source code.

[Littleshop]

I think Solidcoin is a joke...BUT please bitcoin developers, do not file DMCA Takedowns. We are supposed to be encouraging internet freedom, not the policing of the internet. Does it really matter if they claim that your code is their code? Anyone can verify the claim for themselves.

The solidcoin people (person?) can easily comply with the basically free license.  What they did is wrong as they took the code and put new terms on it (which they can not do) as well as stripped out the proper credits.  Making it right is near trivial and should be done to respect everyone who put in code into the bitcoin project.  

Ironically they CAN change the terms.  MIT license has no "copyleft" (google it) provision.  You can take Bitcoin and make a closed source, pay only version if you want.  MIT license allows you to do that.  MIT license allows you to do almost anything EXCEPT:

a) remove copyright from other's work
b) remove the MIT license notification.

That's it.  That is literally all you need to do to be compliant and somehow King RealScam figured out a way to mess that up (willfully IMHO).

Copyright (c) 2009-2011 Bitcoin Developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

Ok, but adding terms is a whole lot less effective if he has to keep the MIT license and copyright in there.  But you are correct, so all he has to do is put that text back in there. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

Ok, but adding terms is a whole lot less effective if he has to keep the MIT license and copyright in there.  But you are correct, so all he has to do is put that text back in there.  

No it isn't.  Any terms he puts would apply to the modified code.  He says you can't use it for any derivative work so you can't period (well not lawfully).  Any restrictions would be just as effective. 

This is one of the "complaints" with MIT license.  It has no "copyleft" provision.  Derivitives of MIT license don't need to be "Free" (as in free speech) despite the fact the derivitive wouldn't even exist if it were not for the "freedom" in the original.

Microsoft could take Bitcoin code, modify it call it MicroCoin, release it as restricted source, require users to pay $20 for a consumer license, $80 for a merchant license, and $200 for a mining license.     They could sue users who don't pay for a license under software piracy laws.  They could write the license than any derivative work is unlawful and becomes the property of Microsoft.  When you try to release a bugfix that they keep neglecting you they could sue you for software piracy.  All of that would be legit with MIT license.

Literally the only thing that needs to be done is keep the copyright and include that piece of text.  Period.  Nothing more.
Don't read ANYTHING beyond that.  The MIT license has no other restrictions on the user.

[onelineproof]

Saying Bitcoin should operate without any "help" from govt is naive.

So when someone breaks into your house and beats your face in with a hammer until you give them the password to your wallet and walks away with your life savings you aren't going to call the Police?  There are many ways to get justice other than calling the Police.

If corporations decide they will engage in a massive DDOS attack against the blockchain in order to promote their corporate control version you want any law enforcement to look the other way?  There are many ways to end the attack other than law enforcement.

Stupid.  Beyond stupid. The reality is Bitcoin exists in a world of laws. Laws will certainly be used AGAINST Bitcoin regardless of what users, developers, and service providers do.  So to then tie the hands of users, developers, and service providers to not use law to PROTECT Bitcoin makes no sense.

What other legal protects should "all true Bitcoin users" restrict themselves from.  Should businesses not file trademark registrations,  should we not seek take downs of scam sites,  should an individual who comes up with a unique method to advance Bitcoin commerce not file a patent?

For me the main purpose of government is to protect each individuals' physical land from intruders and also to provide a way to easily and safely communicate with others, and to get into government protected contracts. But that's just me...

So in the case of someone trying to break into my house, yes, I may call the police.

In the case of corporations trying to DDOS the blockchain - I don't mind. This will only strengthen bitcoin. But note that I would probably not be funding these corporations in the first place. Yes you may lose a lot of "buying power", but the chances of this are very low and if you're wise you would diversify your wealth into other assets. Bitcoin is a liquid asset. It should be used for short term purchases (like cash), not for holding your life savings.

[ArticMine]

It's the first time I ever heard about an open-source developer making use of DMCA. I don't really like the idea of DMCA at all, but now it pwnd SC and made me laugh.

This video is related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsLuIipny88

The MPAA beat Solidcoin by well over four years for this dishonour. The MPAA was on the receiving end of a DMCA take down over pirated Free Libre Open Source Software back in 2007. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/12/mpaas-university-toolkit-hit-with-dmca-takedown-notice-after-gpl-violation.ars.

[joulesbeef]

Still pretty lame and the DMCA is a draconian tool, which is constantly abused, like in this case.

[Luke-Jr]

Still pretty lame and the DMCA is a draconian tool, which is constantly abused, like in this case.

No, this case is clearly proper use of the DMCA for good. Unfortunately, solidcoin.info was moved outside the DMCA jurisdiction, so I need to figure out German law to resume.

[FlipPro]

Even though I have personal issues with the current Solidcoin developers,

I still think this is lame as shit... And probably goes against everything this community stands and preaches for.

Why is it always the Christians who are always out to seek "revenge"?

I mean that with all seriousness...