Antigua-based software developer charged for breaching country’s copyright laws

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by gsingh13, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Ummm..........
    The suit has nothing at all to do with US law - read the article next time.
    RClark was just speaking from the typical "US-Centric Worldview" that most Americans seem to have. :p
    This is actually about the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.

    Also the allegations about "millions of dollars of lost revenue" are BS. It's been determined that most people that make a pirate copy of a rental would never have bought the title to begin with. They are like pack-rats building a "huge movie collection" - that they never would have considered building at all were they to have to buy the real DVDs.

    I share the overall optimism that the case can be disposed of.

    -W
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2011
  2. RClark

    RClark Well-Known Member

    Yes, my question was that since SlySoft is NOT a US based company then what laws would apply to this case other than WIPO? They are being sued by what I believe is a US based company hence my question on the laws. If the article is correct in what they claim to be the maximum fine/penalty then I would tend to agree Clams statement of "I share the overall optimism that the case can be disposed of".
     
  3. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    From my read, I don't take this to be a civil lawsuit by any company.
    I read it as C.B. being charged with violating Antigua law because he is accused of being in violation of WIPO.

    That said... all the studios (not just US) could perhaps be "Third Parties" to the case - with a list of grievences or something.

    I'm sure we'll here an outcome when it happens.

    -W
     
  4. RClark

    RClark Well-Known Member

    @Clams. Thank you. That helps answer my question.
     
  5. mike20021969

    mike20021969 Well-Known Member

    What's C.B?
     
  6. jokesonme

    jokesonme Well-Known Member

    @ mike20021969 I believe C.B. means Complete Bullshit ;)
     
  7. Lifetime Licences

    Perhaps all this angst would have been prevented if Slysoft had re-emailed all members of the decision to retain lifetime licences with the associated rationale? I agree with gsingh13 that the decision & its reversal appears misleading and i applaud his stance & Slysoft's final decision to refund. I just wouldnt have linked this issue with the legal proceedings as this was pure speculation. I'm glad lifetime licences of this great product are still available for the benefit of future members but i dont agree that keeping quiet on the decision to retain them was the best way to handle it seeing they had originally emailed each of us of the decision to terminate the option of new lifetime licences. Perhaps it was the reaction to what some considered ambiguous wording of the original email that made Slysoft determine that keeping quiet the second time around was the best option?

    Peter
     
  8. mmdavis

    mmdavis Well-Known Member

    I think he meant G.B. (Giancarlo Bettini).
     
  9. RClark

    RClark Well-Known Member

    This was my understanding as well.
     
  10. MineSight

    MineSight Member


    Prolly cuz of the shift in the battle plan was made through complaints from both sides.
    You know./ customers not wanting to loose the option to buy a lifetime licence.
    Also the PR that would be ultimately accomplished by doing bad by those customers who wished to keep the option open.
     
  11. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    It's unfortunate the court case issue; and the lifetime license issue got intermingled.
    Yes, C.B. was supposed to be G.B. (sigh)

    Yes, I agree that the lifetime issue was handled poorly. (silence is never golden in the marketing business)

    No, I don't think the court case is related. (as the thread jumps back and forth) And even if the outcome is poor - they can always move the "front office" to Nigeria or Somalia. :D

    -W
     
  12. MineSight

    MineSight Member

    Nice!:rock:
     
  13. fast eddie

    fast eddie Well-Known Member

    And the NEW Slysoft under a different name, could devote all of their time to develope a Cinavia removal tool. That should NOT fall under the control of the "World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty" and which could be potentially a huge money making business.
    :agree:

    Also, under the control of the WIPO, and if the court ruling is not in Slysoft favor, the only products that should effect Slysoft is the ripping products.

    Companies of the past, (such as DVD Decrypter) where the MPAA has taken legal action, and they have more than one product and is NOT a ripping software program, these products should not be effected by the WIPO and are still in business.

    But in the end, final outputs are almost unlimited, depending on the agreements with the petitioners and the respondents and the court.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
  14. Pelvis Popcan

    Pelvis Popcan Well-Known Member

    Again, what the heck are you talking about? SlySoft gets shut down then comes back but no longer decrypts DVD's or Blu-Ray, but instead ONLY removes Cinavia? I don't get it.
     
  15. gsingh13

    gsingh13 Well-Known Member

    Hmm. Yes the court case started on the 9th. I'm wondering has a lawsuit been filed against Slysoft before from the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. To be honest I'm curious as to why it has taken this long for such an organisation to file a lawsuit. May be they have been preparing all that time and making their case rock solid.
    Either way I think for the first time Slysoft might be in trouble and all those lifetime licenses that have been bought could mean nothing very soon. My suspicion started when they decided to extended the lifetime license but it really inflated when they kept tight lipped about its extention.
    It was all speculation and it still is. I'm guessing Slysoft has had many court cases in the past and not been affected by it so may be this one isn't any different but I don't know. It would be good if there were details on the court case and how it's progressing. Perhaps nothing will come of the court case but one thing I do know is it will be a shame if slysoft had to close.
     
  16. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    This whole thread is speculation...... :D

    -W
     
  17. mike20021969

    mike20021969 Well-Known Member

    No need to guess. It was stated earlier in this thread.
     
  18. gsingh13

    gsingh13 Well-Known Member

    Linked or not, the issue is still the court case which still remains and it could be a very big problem. However, I am very glad the moderators on the forum think this whole court case thing is a farce and nothing will come of it. Like someone else said it could take years to resolve.
     
  19. fast eddie

    fast eddie Well-Known Member

    @ pelvis popcan

    If the court rules against Slysoft, the court has the potential of completely stoping the current Slysoft as a business or just force them to stop the ripping software programs only, or whatever both parties can agree on or what the court rules.

    In the worse case Slysoft could start a new business in a different name and most likely a different president (Slysoft 1) and get into the Cinavia business of developing a Cinavia removal tool, WIPO control should not be a concern with only the Cinavia removal tool business.
    :agree:
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2011
  20. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Just FYI - If and when Cinavia on commercially released DVD's becomes a widespread problem - I'm sure they will address it if needed - REGARDLESS of any other external issues.

    -W