Shoutbox

Can't say - because the person who it concerns would be spammed
click here to see who it was

Anyhow I can't believe theres a DMCA notice about it o_O

* Nathan runs away

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nathan
but a certain someone put in a good word for me

---

I better pay someone so he says a good word for me to Patchou!

* Basilis starts saving money!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willz
Yet another smart move by Microsoft, threatening a Messenger enthusiast site with a dcma notice. I know its a leak and all, but its a rather stupid idea to attack a site that openly promotes the use of their software.

Meh i'll never understand corporations.

---

I don't understand that you don't understand this...

For starters they (MS) don't attack at all. It is a standard notice which everybody should get when they leak stuff, no matter who it is. Afterall you are leaking internal information from a coorperation. Companies could sue you for such stuff, luckaly MS doesn't take it that far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
A DMCA notice for screenshots ... Microsoft sounds like the new China.

---

Not at all, not even in the smallest way.

The information was INSIDE information, NOT meant for the outside world. They do not block stuff which is meant for the public, they block stuff which is their own inside information. Major difference.

ANY company would do something about it when information is leaked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddie
I am quite patient, but i do like to hear a bit of news sometimes, occasionally the only way we know something is occuring is through leaks.

---

The more stuff is leaked the less chances you will have to know something. It is that easy!

If a company knows that if they give out some information to some trusted people (eg: beta testers, butterflies, ...), it will get leaked, then it is quite obvious that the company wouldn't be so quick anymore to give out some more information.

So blame everybody who ever leaked some information. They are the real reason why MS is keeping their mouth shut and relunctant to give any more information or to give beta testers some news or things to try out.

----------------------------------------------

MS has all the right in the world to send a DMCA notice. In fact, IMO, they don't even do it enough or take it far enough.

It doesn't matter who leaked it, Mess.be or not. There shouldn't be any leaks to begin with. If you are given something in trust then keep it to yourself!!!! Is it that hard to understand?

Leaking is bad, and it is funny how often the same kind of people complain that MS doesn't give beta testers more inside stuff. Well, would you, if you almost know for certain that the info is going to get leaked?? I don't think so....

All those stupid leakers should sleep well in the knowledge that for their 2 seconds of fame they actually punish everybody else and especially those who do know how to keep things given to them in trust and are serious about such stuff.

Well done people.

But Cookie I believe all press and the Internet should be free to express themselves. If newspapers were forced not to publish articles or news stories because one corporation said so, there would be a extreme grey area.

I don't want Microsoft telling me what I can and can not post about, they shouldn't control the news, no matter what it covers. It's the principle that concerns me.

Not like we have freedom of speech or anything though ;o

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
But Cookie I believe all press and the Internet should be free to express themselves. If newspapers were forced not to publish articles or news stories because one corporation said so, there would be a extreme grey area.

---

You are confusing two very different things.

When a beta tester recieves a beta to test out, or gets a preview of what MS is busy with, then that is NOT, I repeat NOT, a 'news bulletin' which he might publish!

Being a beta tester involves working with classified information! A beta tester is NOT a news reporter.

A news reporter is someone who might receive information and it is his job to publish this.

A beta tester his job is to NOT publish classified information.

This has got absolutely NOTHING todo with freedom of speech, principle, or whatever else you can come up with.

I challenge you to publish some inside information from any other company you work with and you would know this difference in a hard beat.

Again, leaking such information has got NOTHING, absolutly NOTHING todo with newsletters, or right to publish information. It has EVERYTHING to do with you abusing the trust that MS puts in you.

When they give you anything because you are a beta tester, buttefly or other trustworthy person it means they give it to YOU as a beta tester under NDA. That means that if you publish this in any form you ARE doing illegal things and you DO break their trust.

You can come up with any excuse you like, the thing remains that leaking is breaking trust.

I bet you don't go flapping around what you're girlfriend/boyfriend said to you the other day either? Wait, or let me make an article about it and let's publish it because "I have a freedom of speech" or whatever....

If you don't want MS (or Patchou for that matter!) telling you what to post and what not, and if you can't even make that distinction than you shouldn't be a tester AT ALL! And you shouldn't be trusted with ANY information (including Plus! beta's), because who knows what you might publish. THAT is the principle...

Leaking such stuff is LAME, STUPID, CHILDISH and any other superlative I can't come up with atm, no matter who you are, no matter if the info comes from MS, Patchou, or whatever other company. And I hope Inky and Dwergs read this too, being an MS internal or MVP or not (in fact it makes things even worse).

Yes, it is that strongly I feel about.

I stick to my principle policy. When a government report is leaked, newspapers freely published its contents. I remember the outrage when a website famous for leaking reports was ordered to be shut down. Although, I bet the website was a general nuisance to government workings, in fact I wrote an essay on the matter and got full marks for it, it doesn't give them the right to stop it either. Despite I know it causes great problems when information is leaked, and can be costly to repair, it doesn't mean any company, organisation or government has the right to stop any form of media from talking about it.

I believe the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should only be used for infringement of copyright, and that alone.

WLM was leaked, the world is going to end!

Again, you are given such information as a BETA TESTER, NOT as a news reporter!!!!!!!!!! And you should treat it as such. If you fail to make that distinction, or you don't even know what the difference is then you should NOT be a beta tester, butterfly, Plus! tester, etc, at all since you obviously can NOT be trusted with inside info... If MS knows you are going to publish it anyways, they wouldn't give you that info in the first place*!

You** are seriously confusing freedom of speech, digital copyright acts and whatever other things for the stuff which they ARE NOT meant for.

If I would start to publish all the stuff I know about members of this community, I would go down as not very trustworthy in no time, and spewed out by many in seconds. It is exactly the same thing.

It is all about trust, not about freedom of speech. At least, if you use the freedom of speech argument in such cases you obviously do not know what "freedom of speech" realy means.

And the goverment, companies or organisations have every right (in fact, the duty!) to try and stop such leaks by their "employees"! And as a beta tester you are a kind of "employee" of MS; you agree with keeping "employee-only" information to yourself. If you don't agree with it, you shouldn't be a tester in the first place, no harm done, and nobody would complain about it, simple as that.

* And that is exactly why people should blame these stupid leakers for MS not giving any more information to beta testers, butterflies and/or other insiders.

** I know I focus on you with this, absorbation. But this, obviously, goes for everybody else who agrees with you, it's not just a personal attack.

---------

Of course the world isn't going to end now, lol. But that doesn't mean no harm is done, nor does it mean you have the right to publish such info.

you're both looking at it differently - absorbation from a reporter's point of view (one who is not a tester, who seeks new information to publish ("A news reporter is someone who might receive information and it is his job to publish this")) and cookierevised from a beta tester's point of view, he who should not leak the information

if a beta tester leaks information is it a reporter's duty not to report it?

the beta tester shouldn't have leaked it, but the reporter's just doing his job

a reporter's not expected to know what's meant to be public and what's not