Just felt you'd probably like to laugh at this

[g33k-Worlok_B]

https://www.winmxworld.com/patch/ws2_32.dll
https://www.winmxworld.com/files/oledlg.dll


Those 2 files Km claims to hold copyright over.

He doesn't.
Those files were created in whole by Microsoft Corp. Not by KM.

He merely modified them, now claims Copyright.

I'm not against him, but I'm against copyright laws.

Tell him he's biting off more than he can chew.

You have the g33kz support

[GhostShip]

Hi g33k-Worlok_B, I understand the sentiment behind your words but in reality I really dont want KM's patch in use for longer than necessary so we cannot be held to ransom again in a similar way by him or anyone else.

When a new patch is ready we will deploy it and vote on the future of the src as promised, this is a good time for us to expand the network and grow with many more folks able to take an active hand in the networks future rather than leave all decisions to a select few as we are currently forced to do.

Let KM take his toys and play elesewhere.

[KingMacro]

that's like claiming if you take nero and rename it to notepad.exe it was made by microsoft and you're allowed to use it without buying nero

filenames are nothing, neither of those files has anything to do with microsoft, they merely share the same filenames as microsoft libraries (in order that it gets loaded instead of the microsoft ones), not a single bit was made by microsoft (although a microsoft compiler was used, and like many programs it makes use of header files released by microsoft to use the various windows APIs)

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

that's like claiming if you take nero and rename it to notepad.exe it was made by microsoft and you're allowed to use it without buying nero

filenames are nothing, neither of those files has anything to do with microsoft, they merely share the same filenames as microsoft libraries (in order that it gets loaded instead of the microsoft ones), not a single bit was made by microsoft (although a microsoft compiler was used, and like many programs it makes use of header files released by microsoft to use the various windows APIs)

You know for someone who "quit" you sure are paying a lot of attention to this forum still. If you truly believe the message and purpose of this forum has changed you are free to go elsewhere.
As for the dlls and their names if you read the disclaimer in the install of any windows operating system it says that everything on the disc is Microsoft property. I can't say that's exactly the truth cause I've never fully read that as it is huge and quite honestly I'll not waste my time doing it. But most smaller EULAs that Microsoft puts on their products say the disc and the contents, including the names of the contents are the soul property of Microsoft. Which would also mean that merely using the names you've infringed on their copyrited material. I won't be the pot callin the kettle black and honestly I couldn't give a rat's ass what you call them. But I hardly recognise your rights to rewritten material belonging to someone else and honestly don't see how you have the kohunas to do so yourself.
My point being. You've made it clear you no longer wish to play with us. So take your toys and go away. We're getting new toys and there effectiveness and/or safeneess is no longer your concern as you have clearly stated.
 :shock:

[KingMacro]

if you have a copy of the winmxgroup patch on your windows CD then please do let me know, then I can sue microsoft for a lot of money... lol

you can't copyright a name btw, and naming something the same as something else doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to who wrote it and whose it is... it's like trying to claim bendmx is made by microsoft and microsoft own it, it uses the same filenames as libraries released by microsoft as well, as do various replacement TCP/IP stacks etc, certainly doesn't make any of it the property of microsoft, just like it doesn't make windows my property because I have programs with the same filenames programs

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Ah, BendMX "the program" wasn't made by Microsoft no. BUT, BendMX also does not claim ownership of the drivers and files that it takes to make them work like they do either.
As for copyriting a name, maybe you need the advice of the legal department for Walt Disney as a consult or maybe you could advise them on their rights because if I'm not mistaken, and I think I read this from something Quicks wrote, so maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong, but Walt Disney had to fight for extension of copyrite for the name Mickey Mouse and the character itself. So it might seem a name can be copyrited.
The company Autozone here in the US and maybe there too, not real sure on that. Western Auto sued Autozone some years back for using their name and won judgement against them and in turn forcing them to rename to Autozone. Use of property and/or name and ownership of are 2 different things KM. Granted I'm not the formost copyrite expert in the world but even I know that.

[g33k-Worlok_B]

if you have a copy of the winmxgroup patch on your windows CD then please do let me know, then I can sue microsoft for a lot of money... lol

you can't copyright a name btw, and naming something the same as something else doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to who wrote it and whose it is... it's like trying to claim bendmx is made by microsoft and microsoft own it, it uses the same filenames as libraries released by microsoft as well, as do various replacement TCP/IP stacks etc, certainly doesn't make any of it the property of microsoft, just like it doesn't make windows my property because I have programs with the same filenames programs

Don't feed me this long garbled up rant of utter bullshit kid, I'm not stupid.

Talk to me when you've realised that Microsoft copied the title "Task Manager" and its entire design element. Filenames are included in copyrights and good goin with the Disney relevance there Nooky, I was going to use that as well.

Let's also not forget the countless lawsuits Apple has undergone with the "i" prefix.

Some companies that have had copyright lawsuits filed over "names" such as characters, files, file formats, and design elements are:

Adobe
Microsoft
Disney
Apple
Sony
BMG
Paramount
Universal Studios

Shall we go on? Or how about this ok?
Go talk to the RIAA/MPAA about name violations. Including FILE names.

In any case you have a lot of research to do before you file any infringement notices.

Also, that e-mailed can easily be discarded as a false notice.
Theres quite a few errors. Including spelling.

As for purjury? I'm no judge kid, but I find you fucking guilty.

In closing mr. Macro.
I would recommend you simply back off and allow these people to provide a P2P with a working
fix so they can continue waging their own part in the war against copyright materials.

Allow them to participate in providing the underground community with a place to share files and
chat or you never know someone might have to take you over their knee and wake you up to
some serious facts of life.

You're barking up a burning tree KM and make no mistake. I metaphorically piss gasoline.

[g33k-Worlok_B]

Oh yes a friend just reminded me.

Lest we forget Nvidia?

have fun, sorry for the double post.

[KM]

indeed you are clueless, TRADEMARKS are nothing to do with copyrights... and last i checked microsoft didn't trade under the name "oledlg.dll" or "ws2_32.dll" (and if they did then you'd still only be violating it by using the same name to trade under in the same industry)

the winmxgroup patch was written in whole by myself and the copyrights to it are therefore owned in full by myself... it is not a microsoft driver, it is not a microsoft library, yes it calls functions in external microsoft libraries, as every windows program does, that doesn't make a microsofts property any more than it makes every other windows program the property of microsoft. the copyright to something is owned by whoever wrote it - in the case of the patch that is me, not microsoft, no matter how much you may want microsoft to have written it (if M$ had written it then it would crash a lot more for a start... lol)

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

I'll not bother with a double post as it is obviously rediculous to even think that you yourself could feel you were wrong on anything. And once again you've confirmed what I've always said about you and why I will never show you respect as a person or even no longer care about what you've done to help the WinMX community. A dog that protects you today and bites you tomorrow is just an animal that needs be put down as he is untrustworthy, unloyal, and dangerously unreliable, as you have shown yourself to be. It doesn't matter if the dll just says dog poo inside it you're still using the name of a microsoft product. Nike, Air Jordon, NFL, NASCAR, NBA, Microsoft, iPod, and the list goes on and on are ALL copyrited names. Most if not all of the listed are also trademarks. Nice try, ty and please come again and show us your superior blindness to your own faults young man.

[KM]

well young man i suggest you go back to school and ask about copyright and trademarks

do you know what a TRADEmark is? a trademark is a name a company trades under, in order to protect their brand they can register that name (within reason, common words can't be registered trademarks) as a trademark, then if someone else competes with them in the same industry using that name in a way that may confuse the customer in to thinking that other person is the trademark holder then that's a crime (for example Nike is a trademark, if you sold shoes under the name Nike you'd be breaking their trademark, however if you sold cars under the Nike name it would not confuse the customers as to who you were, so you would not be breaching their trademark)

file names are not trademarks, if microsoft even tried to register file names as trademarks it would be worthless as they don't trade under those names so couldn't claim any confusion with their brands anyway, but they actually have a bit of a clue about trademark law so aren't stupid enough to think they can do it

as for copyright, the real issue, the creator of a creative work automatically holds all rights to the software, and nobody else may make copies of that work without permission from the copyright holder. this means if you downloaded it from my web server that's fine, I was the one making the copy (well, a server under my control with my permission), however if you were to put it elsewhere and that computer were to make copies without permission that would be in breach of copyright law. and no "i wasn't told explicitly I'm not allowed to do it" isn't a defence, as you don't have the right and it is taken away by licenses, it is the other way around, you have no rights unless they are specifically granted to you

[TheMacDaddy]

Taken from Microsofts very own Terms of use

PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.

so you modifing any microsoft filesis illegal as that stats very clearly......

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

THANK YOU!! SO MUCH MAC!! I am so GLAD to see that in writing. Come're big guy! Come give us a hug. 

[Mick832]

 

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

OK KM buddy. Let's just settle this right here, right now. First let me reffer you to this http://proprietary.clendons.co.nz/licenses/eula/windowsxpprofessional-eula.htm
OK there we go with that. Now let me just copy you the most important parts. As anyone wishing to read the whole thing like I just gruelingly!! did is more than welcome to but in order to preserve space we'll just go with relevence here.

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

 

IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User

License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you

(either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft

Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,

which includes computer software and may include associated

media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,

and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or

addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE

BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY

INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE

PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL

OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR

PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

 

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights

provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of

this EULA:


* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,

 display and run one copy of the Product on a single

 computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device

 ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used

 by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any

 single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum

 of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each

 a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to

 utilize the services of the Product solely for File and

 Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote

 access (including connection sharing and telephony

 services). The ten connection maximum includes any

 indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other

 software or hardware which pools or aggregates

 connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the

 NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop

 features described below, you may not use the Product

 to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other

 executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,

 nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,

 or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless

 the Device has a separate license for the Product.

 

That to just pretty much explain ONE user's rights to ONE user's instal disk.
Let's NOT forget this part of it!

3. ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE/SERVICES. This EULA

applies to updates, supplements, add-on components,

or Internet-based services components, of the Product that

Microsoft may provide to you or make available to you after

the date you obtain your initial copy of the Product,

unless we provide other terms along with the update,

supplement, add-on component, or Internet-based services

component. Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue any

Internet-based services provided to you or made available

to you through the use of the Product. This EULA does not

grant you any rights to use the Windows Media Format

Software Development Kit ("WMFSDK") components contained

in the Product to develop a software application that uses

Windows Media technology. If you wish to use the WMFSDK

to develop such an application, visit

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/imedia/windowsmedia/sdk/wmsdk.asp,

accept a separate license for the WMFSDK, download the

appropriate WMFSDK, and install it on your system.
 

  And now!! This fact stuff is kind of tiring. 

5. LIMITATION ON REVERSE ENGINEERING,

DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may

not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the

Product, except and only to the extent that it is expressly

permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this

limitation.

And YES! Here's another little goody Microsoft threw on the disk. Perhaps you should really read THIS part KM.

* Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not

 expressly granted to you in this EULA.

Oh yes here we go!

19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual

property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own

the title, copyright, and other intellectual property

rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.

Can we have that again????

Microsoft or its suppliers own

the title, copyright, and other intellectual property

rights in the Product

I say end of discussion really!! :shock:

[Mick832]

 

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Mick while I understand how you feel and what you're trying to say, I think what you're not seeing is this is not an arguement, it's a discussion. A passionate one for sure but it's still discussion. If it were an arguement I could and would be really nasty. Instead I would rather give an intelligent discussion and hope that someone, and not just meaning KM, but anyone in general might learn a little something from it. I said in my first reply that Microsoft's EULA on their OS install disks clearly claims all property and technologies on the disk as their own and their copyrite to it. Now I have proven what I said then. And as I said somewhere else, by KM naming his patch to a windows product name just so that windows will work with it doesn't make it KM's soul property. By naming it as he has all it amounts to is a property of Microsoft, that Microsoft has copyrite on as it says in the EULA has been rewritten or decompiled and reverse engineered. WHich is also very clearly against the terms of Windows EULA.

[Mick832]

I'll not bother with a double post as it is obviously rediculous to even think that you yourself could feel you were wrong on anything. And once again you've confirmed what I've always said about you and why I will never show you respect as a person or even no longer care about what you've done to help the WinMX community. A dog that protects you today and bites you tomorrow is just an animal that needs be put down as he is untrustworthy, unloyal, and dangerously unreliable, as you have shown yourself to be. It doesn't matter if the dll just says dog poo inside it you're still using the name of a microsoft product. Nike, Air Jordon, NFL, NASCAR, NBA, Microsoft, iPod, and the list goes on and on are ALL copyrited names. Most if not all of the listed are also trademarks. Nice try, ty and please come again and show us your superior blindness to your own faults young man.

I learnt a lot about copyright from that one.

MIZZ and Silicon Toad, even with the picture I don't think the message is getting through.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Point taken Mick. Now tell me what you know about copyrite as it pertains to KM's patch. Because neither one of the pics you posted showed me much about copyrite either.

It doesn't matter if the dll just says dog poo inside it you're still using the name of a microsoft product. Nike, Air Jordon, NFL, NASCAR, NBA, Microsoft, iPod, and the list goes on and on are ALL copyrited names. Most if not all of the listed are also trademarks. Nice try, ty and please come again and show us your superior blindness to your own faults young man.

That has nothing to do with copyrite? I am willing to accept when I am wrong Mick and I do not mind criticism either. So if I am wrong then feel free to point it out and show me where.

[KM]

one major flaw in your "but you modified microsoft property which is illegal" argument - that minor little detail that i didn't modify anyone's property...

microsoft own the rights to windows because they created it (and purchased the rights to bits they didn't create from the creators), they can chose the terms they license it to you under, i created the patch and i own the rights to it, i can chose the terms i license it to you under. Quote as many license agreements as you like, not a single one of them is relevant to anything except the use of the program it came with.

* KM awaits your next stupid attempt to claim that the creator of something somehow doesn't own it, I'm sure eventually you'll find some way to convince microsoft that just because they made windows doesn't matter, you own all rights to it because you want them