pouët.net

You're really off the mark if you think being a scene.org is a nice hobby..

...

Well you seem to suggest that being an archivist is a "nice" role that we would do as a main activity, supposedly feeding on your hard work. Most members of scene.org are actually active which makes your attack rather puzzling.

Doom : most members of scene.org are actually active criminals, actively busy doing extortion, large scale scams, awards rigging, corruption, demoscene money laundering, which makes your attack rather puzzling !

the scandinavian conspiracy returns to curse you all with an historic archive of material you waved permission to distribute freely on the intrawebs!!

Uuuh! - "the scandinavian conspiracy" - I've missed that term for a long time! :)

The ... was for rhmet ;)

And yes, some scene.org members are also active sceners, I don't doubt that, but that simply has nothing to do with the fact that it's wrong to disregard the wishes (and legal rights (but whatever)) of other sceners. All this databasing may be nice and all, but don't force it on people who didn't ask for it.

Since you can't reasonably verify that all information is given and all material is uploaded with consent, and since it'd be too much to ask you to just stop what you're doing, at least acknowledge that being the original author, or the subject of whatever information is being published, counts as a damn good reason all by itself. Unless there's a specific reason not to respect that (no proof of identity, or a readme file that says "public domain", or whatever) why isn't the default reaction to just comply?

to summarise:

(some guy submits something to scene dot org)

some guy: i hate scene dot org they are a bunch of degenerates

scene.org: what? who are you??

some guy: i submitted this one production that was an entry to the demoscene in 1982

scene.org: wom

ps "bit"

preacher called it - a release is a release - work out ethical issues before release >:(

Doom, the matter here is not about things that appeared "randomly" and were uploaded by somebody else.

doom: can you read? he filled out an appform granting us rights to distribute his stuff. our default reaction when requested to remove files the owner didnt upload _is_ just comply. perhaps you should stop projecting your personal discontent with some of the staff members personality to the legal and dedicational effort of the entire group, no?

word

phrase

i'd hereby would like to ask ronny/fr to come here and share his knowledge about the person in question.

ps: This assumption that i have personal discontent for anyone sounds like you're the one doing the projecting. I have no problem with the scene.org people, only with the attitude behind this:



"Part of history"? Who asked for that! Of course I'm not talking about the people who did ask for it by signing release forms or voluntarily uploading to distribution websites (like the confused troll who started this thread).

But I have stuff on AMP too that was never meant to be released. I have pictures on Slengpung that I didn't even know were taken. I've never had the chance to add any of my own productions to Pouet or upload them anywhere because someone always beats me to it. The scene is a very invasive environment these days, and the attitude common to all the database sceners (forgive me if I'm not differentiating enough between them) seems to be that they won't back off unless I give them a damn good reason to. And that frankly is very distasteful.

You see, there's this thing called "Public Domain"..

Well it pretty much suggests that if people were able to put their hands on that prods and add them to pouet or any other scene db you released them at a party. AFAIK party release == immediate spreading and no excuses.

if it's a problem to you that things you've made might end up on the internet, don't do anything. ever.

doom: so you're not projecting, you're just too fast decontextualizing things for your demagog conclusions completly disregarding they been written by people who been discussing the importance of these issues from both sides of the fence for years. you're completly right, i take it back, you're not projecting personal discontent, you're just plain dumb.

:D

Ah, so what do you suggest then, that party organizers ask every visitor to sign a form giving them permission to make pictures of them and to publish these? Or that they forbid people to make pictures? Great, more rules disclaimers and contracts, just what we needed.



I don't think it's any different than it always used to be. Everybody in the scene took for granted that scene releases could be spread unlimitedly for free. Unfortunately the scene entered the Internet together with the big record labels and their distorted view on IP and copyrights with the negative side effect that we now need rules, disclaimers and contracts to protect our scene and it's unwritten rules against the big companies. People like you who want to control every single bit of information that is being published are only making it worse.

If you compete at a party, then accept that your files will be spread.
If you visit a publicly accessible event, then accept that people might make a picture of you and publish it online.
If an unreleased file of you shows up on an archive, then blame your 'friend' who leaked it instead of the archive.

sparcus, thanks, you expressed exactly what i was thinking on this subject

ps: you forgot the fact where he happily linked to the files himself two weeks prior as "these are some songs I made" ..

Then got critizised for by someone there for whatever he's done in the past..

Then suddenly went cease and desist..