Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open-Source Projects Are Getting Ripped On Amazon

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    They are also selling Rigs of rods as Transport Simulator (Aircraft, Truck, Car, Boat)
    and what seems to be Danger from the deep as U-Boat Simulator.

    Both of these are like alpha software at best.

    Comment


    • #47
      They are also selling Rigs of rods as Transport Simulator (Aircraft, Truck, Car, Boat)
      and what seems to be Danger from the deep as U-Boat Simulator.

      Both of these are like alpha software at best. Danger from the deep also includes media which can not be sold:
      Statement about commercially sold distributions

      Although the GPL allows for commercial distribution, provided that the source code and copyright notice is retained, there are a number of contributions included with Danger from the Deep that are not licensed under the GPL.

      These include, but are not limited to; the 2D and 3D artwork, the music/soundtrack and other miscellaneous audio/video/multimedia sequences. These are licensed under the CC At-Nc-Nd 2.0/2.5 and cannot be sold without prior consent from the copyright holders"

      Comment


      • #48
        rigs of rods

        So, they sell our simulation as well "Rigs of Rods" http://www.rigsofrods.com / http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Si.../dp/B004135660

        and we are currently looking into what options we have to take it down.

        Comment


        • #49
          no statement to the press ...

          I'm working for the german IT-press and tried to get a statement from Amazon UK. Of course I did not get one. The only thing they sent to me was how owners of intellectual property can file an official complaint. If somebody is interested in this ... here's Amazons answer:


          Dear Juergen,

          Greeting from Amazon.co.uk.

          We do understand your concern regarding the item "Space Shuttle Flight Simulator".

          Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the statement you are requesting.

          However, if you believe that your intellectual property is being violated by an item or information on the Amazon.co.uk site, you may fill out the Notice Form (below) using the corresponding numbered paragraphs to frame your communication. This signed form can be sent by FAX or by e-mail in a PDF file:

          FAX: +44 (0208) 636-9326

          or

          E-Mail PDF: notice@amazon.co.uk
          Subject Line: Claim of Infringement

          If you are sending your communication by e-mail, we will only accept a signed PDF file with the subject line "Claim of Infringement". We will also accept communication via FAX, unless by prior agreement we have agreed with you for an alternative receipt mechanism.

          An example of a completed Notice Form can be found here:

          http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/image...V21467829_.pdf

          Please fill out the following Notice Form using the corresponding numbered paragraphs to frame your communication:


          Notice Form

          Re: www.Amazon.co.uk (trading name for Amazon EU SÓrL and Amazon Services Europe SARL)

          I, [INSERT FULL NAME AND TITLE] of [COMPANY NAME, IF APPLICABLE], state as follows:

          (1) Contact information:

          (a) Your and/or your company's name, address, telephone number and contact email address;

          (b) The contact email address and/or name which we will provide to Third Party Sellers (if relevant) so they may contact you to resolve any issues regarding your notification to us. If you do not provide a separate contact email, you authorize us to use the contact information you provide in (1)(a).

          (2) Listing's ASIN (or ISBN-13 if applicable) and allegation of Infringed Right:

          (a) The listing's ASIN/ISBN-13 number or detailed description of where the information that you claim is infringing your rights is located on the site; if regarding a Third Party Seller listing please also provide the name of used to identify the Seller on the site (look for "dispatched and sold by _____" or "by ______" in the listing).

          (b) A description of your intellectual property right(s) that you claim has/have been infringed (e.g. copyright, trademark or patent) by the information of/for this ASIN/ISBN-13.
          [REPEAT (2)(a-b) as necessary for multiple items, see example Notice Form here.]

          (3) Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that the portion of the listing(s) described above violate(s) the intellectual property rights owned by the intellectual property owner or its agent, nor is such use otherwise permissible under law."

          (4) Include the following statement: "I represent, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is true and correct and that I am the intellectual property owner or authorised to act on behalf of the intellectual property owner for the rights described above."

          (5) Sign the Notice Form.

          For more information, please visit our Help pages on the following URL:

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cust...nodeId=1040616


          Thank you for contacting Amazon.co.uk.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TwistedLincoln View Post
            I think you're being very unreasonable here. Why on earth would any business go out of their way to point out that something they are selling is available for free elsewhere? Why is "adding value" a necessary component of being ethical here?
            As a customer I would feel cheated if I've been told something is cheapest here when it is free somewhere else. I believe it is false advertising.
            Even if it didn't state its cheapest, taking free stuff and selling it for money is making fools out of the customers, unless there is added value (packaging, ease, availability, support, charity you name it).
            And most importantly, why should anyone have to justify where the profits go??? Maybe they just go in his pocket. That doesn't matter here.
            Again, unless it is clear why you demand money for free stuff, I would like to know what you are doing with it. If its the own pocket - that's fine, but people would likely assume that by paying for free software they are somehow supporting that software financially. So it should be clarified. Everything else is trying to earn money by deliberately withholding information to mislead and take advantage of the ignorance of the customers. That's not ethical.

            Those issues even though they appear a fair deal in an open market society (people shouldn't blame others for their own stupidity). They do abuse customer trust and are often directly misleading (which in itself is a direct violation of many consumer laws ).

            What Butterfly Media is doing is likely a problem, because they are probably NOT offering the full source code, and in at least one case are violating a CC license. However that is not automatically an argument for demonizing anyone who takes an application like OpenOffice.org and sells it as "Amazing Office' without doing anything other than changing the name and burning a CD.
            There is one good thing stemming from this kind of activities - the advertising and usage spread. This itself could justify putting the money to your own pocket.
            I must admit I didn't know of many of those programs before this issue came up. Granted, its not thanks to ButterflyMedia, as they didn't actually advertise which projects are their products based on. They didn't do much advertising at all.

            If an enterprise is serious about making money from free software projects in a long term, they would have to share their interests and support them. Otherwise a such a company would not appear seriously committed to the product they are selling. Not good for customers.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
              As a customer I would feel cheated if I've been told something is cheapest here when it is free somewhere else. I believe it is false advertising.
              Even if it didn't state its cheapest, taking free stuff and selling it for money is making fools out of the customers, unless there is added value (packaging, ease, availability, support, charity you name it).
              I mostly agree (about feeling cheated), but most companies do put the software on physcial media, and mail it to you. Which could be a huge added value if you are on dial-up. If someone is just selling you a link to a download, that does enter into false advertising territory if they are claiming to be the cheapest, as it clearly isn't the cheapest source.


              Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
              ...but people would likely assume that by paying for free software they are somehow supporting that software financially. So it should be clarified. Everything else is trying to earn money by deliberately withholding information to mislead and take advantage of the ignorance of the customers. That's not ethical.
              Again, I agree here. At no point should anyone EVER indicate that the Free Software they are selling raises funds for the original project when it doesn't. I don't think that people have to disclose where their profits go, but they should never mislead people into thinking they go somewhere they don't.


              Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
              If an enterprise is serious about making money from free software projects in a long term, they would have to share their interests and support them. Otherwise a such a company would not appear seriously committed to the product they are selling. Not good for customers.
              Indeed. My company sells Free Software, and in many cases we do rebrand it first in order to avoid trademark issues. But we are always up front and open about it, and don't hide what we are doing. We provide access to the source code as required. We also contribute bugfixes and reports upstream to help in development. In the long run, doing things that way makes much more sense for everyone.

              Comment


              • #52
                Old times....

                I was a little amused by this debate on the lawfulness of Butterfly Media free software (re)sales and rebranding... just a little flashback...

                When I was a kid, in 1980s, newspaper stands were full of magazines that came with tapes and diskettes CRAMMED of games for VIC-20, C64, Spectrum and other systems, in later 80s even some Amiga ware... Those tapes, which could contain 10 or even 20 games each, didn't cost more than 10,000 lire (6-7 USD), a kid-affordable price... while in computer and media shops one single game couldn't cost less than 10$!
                And the games were the same (!!!) with some artwork stripped down, a very bad italian translation and the names changed (sometimes with exilarating effects... "wizball" turned into "no mercy" (why on earth?? maybe we had to have no mercy for the wizcat?), "Impossible mission" became "special agent", "boulderdash" had lots of different names every time we found it in one of those tapes, "Star Wars - return of the jedi" became "glow", "batman-the movie" became "bat boy", and in the magazine they wrote "you're a boy who plays Batman's role", well, you get the idea)

                Were these cassettes a blatant copyright infringement? well, yes... and no.
                the Italian copyright law did not provide explicit copyright cover on computer programmes: it was about copyrighting books, newspapers, music, paintings, photos, radio and TV programmes, films... "and any other intellectual work". Software was included in the law only in early 90s. This meant, you could tell video games are a product of intellect (and undobtely are!), and by redistributing them in those cassettes the magazine publishers (who NEVER had permission to) were breaking the law... but stop them doing that you had to demonstrate in a court the computer software is copyrightable material FIRST, and if the courts said you're right you could pursue the publishers. This means, you had to sue them twice (and publishers had lawyers too). And in 80s computers in Italy were considered "a too difficult matter" for judges too, so no one was ever punished for selling pirate copies of C64 games in newspaper kiosks (but when in 1990 the first draft of a law enforcing software copyright appeared, all those magazine vanished).

                All that butterfly/amazon thing looks very similar to what was going on in Italy in C64 times... on the edge of lawfulness... somewhat.

                Comment


                • #53
                  The GPL stuff is hardly on the edge of lawfullness. It is completely legal to sell GPL software.

                  The non-GPL stuff probably is in violation.

                  The only real worthwhile thing to do is register on Amazon and give the company bad ratings with links to the actual project.

                  And notify the owners of the proprietary products that this company might be violating their copyright.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by yesterday View Post
                    The GPL stuff is hardly on the edge of lawfullness. It is completely legal to sell GPL software.
                    The non-GPL stuff probably is in violation.
                    Well, in our case ( i am a codeveloper of www.rigsofrods.com ) sold as Transport Simulator by the same people ripping other open source projects, this is not correct.

                    Its right, that we are GPL3 and anyone could resell our work as long as he includes the GPL3 license, what they actually did ( we bought on of the amazon offers ), but the executable ripped from our svn included copyrighted private contents not GPL3 licensed, ( including stuff i made beside my codework ), which is a harm of my right of intellectual property and my copyrights.

                    And thats definetly fraud. Rigs of Rods never relicensed contents made by users, so its still there copyright and there property. So ripping this parts fropm our svn is not legal at all.

                    @developers of affected projects:
                    we should find a way to communicate and negotiate what to do.
                    Our development team and our community are really unhappy with the things going on, our codework and content is distributed at a large scale over various reseller platforms on the net illegaly.
                    We definetly have a leverage against this people ( stolen content ), but we would like to sync with other affected developers before we take action.

                    So, if you interested in grouping up to end this fraud, please contact me via PM.
                    My Rigs of Rods account is LIFTER, i am the official spokesman of the development team.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by RoR-Lifter View Post
                      Well, in our case ( i am a codeveloper of www.rigsofrods.com ) sold as Transport Simulator by the same people ripping other open source projects, this is not correct.

                      Its right, that we are GPL3 and anyone could resell our work as long as he includes the GPL3 license, what they actually did ( we bought on of the amazon offers ), but the executable ripped from our svn included copyrighted private contents not GPL3 licensed, ( including stuff i made beside my codework ), which is a harm of my right of intellectual property and my copyrights.

                      And thats definetly fraud. Rigs of Rods never relicensed contents made by users, so its still there copyright and there property. So ripping this parts fropm our svn is not legal at all.

                      @developers of affected projects:
                      we should find a way to communicate and negotiate what to do.
                      Our development team and our community are really unhappy with the things going on, our codework and content is distributed at a large scale over various reseller platforms on the net illegaly.
                      We definetly have a leverage against this people ( stolen content ), but we would like to sync with other affected developers before we take action.

                      So, if you interested in grouping up to end this fraud, please contact me via PM.
                      My Rigs of Rods account is LIFTER, i am the official spokesman of the development team.
                      yes, please. I hate frauds like these and amazon should be the first to stop these kind of people, i wonder why they haven't so already, since am pretty sure they might have received an email or 2 about it (i would think)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X