Sythe Rule Reform -- which rules do you want gone?

A recent case caught my attention.

User A commissioned a custom piece of software from user B. User A then sold a copy of said software to user C.

User A was banned for a month, and had to give a refund to user C.

The ban was issued in regard to this rule "If you are selling something of someone else's creation, you must have proof of consent"

I assume this rule was to protect guides, art, someone who is selling multiple copies of a script, etc.

Technically user A was "selling something of someone else's creation" without express consent. But user A hired user B to write him software for his own personal use. Legally/ethically he has every right to use/modify/distribute unless there was a prior agreement. As long as user A isn't claiming to have written it, I don't see a problem.

I'm suggesting a re-wording of this rule, to allow for situations like these.

 

I agree with this, unless it's a different circumstance where, for example the original scripter plans on distributing it to others (in which case the buyer would have to be aware before paying).

The 1month ban seems really harsh in this situation - the transaction looked pretty harmless, or at worst misguided.

 

I think the distinction is essentially whether he is buying the rights to use a script or whether he is buying the code to the script. If the latter, then he should be free to do as he will with what he now owns. If the former, then he shouldn’t be free to do with it as he pleases as he does not own sole rights to the redistribution of said product.

I think with the scenario you are talking about, it was the latter. It would be different if hypothetically, user B had already created the script and then sold the use of the script to user A. That was not the case at all. So essentially, user A was purchasing the skillset of user B in order to create his own variation of a desired script.

The ruling as laid out is somewhat ambiguous. I would interpret the proviso as meaning if you take someone else's creation, i.e. never purchased prior to, and then went on to resell that creation as your own - then this is grounds as plagiarism. But if you purchase the software prior to and then decide to redistribute/sell, then this is to your discretion.

We ought take a step back and observe the forest first of all. What does the word plagiarism mean? Plagiarism is defined as: "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."

Taking - here we can infer that the idea of plagiarism requires one to 'take' something. This would mean that you never paid for the rights of something in the first instance and have merely grabbed someone else's creation and decided to sell it as your own.

We first need to find out what was intended by staff when enacting the rule. What did it seek to cover in the first instance. Thereafter, the proviso should be reworded (if intended to) so as to include instances such as this. But the amendment should not be retroactive.

 

I'm completely in agreement.

There is a distinct difference between buying a copy of a script the programmer is selling, and hiring someone to write you custom code. The latter you own, the former you do not.

 

The rule has grounds for a permanent ban, I instead issued a one month ban. Gracious lied to me about not selling the script, essentially told me they fake vouched, and put Pure Addiction in an unfavorable situation because of his negligence.

Gracious did not disclose the full details of the script he sold to PA, and he clearly didn't read the scripters terms of service because it clearly states that he won't fix any errors included in the script if it's resold or distributed. PA essentially has a script that is broken and can't be fixed.

The rule is clear cut and simple. If you did not make the software, you don't have the right to distribute it further without the permission of the creator, and the creator did not receive a notice, nor does he approve of such things.

Explain to me how this punishment is harsh? I think I went too easy on Gracious considering all that has happened here.

 

This is more of a policy than a rule but the "right to vanish" policy needs to be looked at again. I strongly believe that if your case is an exceptional one, then the admins should review your case and consider on helping you out on it.

And before people come in with the "if you don't want something on the Internet, don't post it in the first place" argument, the majority of stuff people want gone is when they posted it when they were younger and more oblivious to the world + the Internet and just didn't know where they were going to be in a few years.

^ This would need its own thread anyway.

 

I disagree highly, Darkest you dont know the botting world, that suggestion is frankly,quite stupid.


You would suggest that developers do custom work that people buy for $250-$500 then can re-sell?


Suggesting this is absolutely moronic, I know for a fact on botting forums, I could commisson a private script here then re-sell it for a profit x10.



Whether they charge $250 or $500, its not hard AT ALL to sell a custom script for $50-$100 a piece lol.



All that rule change would do is kill software developers and make the rich,richer.



I actually did botting starting out, and trust me when I say, you dont know the hype around getting custom scripts for $50 a piece(example).


I completely disagree with letting users sell custom software and Will fight to keep that in place.


Also I 100% agree with Ghast.


He issued a 1 month ban when gracious re-sold someone elses work AND LIED TO STAFF ABOUT IT.


He overlooked being lied to and issued a lower form of punishment, people are just retarded.

 

I don't think what the rule says matters at all in this thread.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

@Darkest Dream @Ghast I actually had a conversation with Richard about authorship & selling rights

Here is what he said:

 

^ The above statement would contradict sythes free market would it not?

 

Unless he modifies the longstanding rule which has been placed and enforced for nearly 4 years, I don't quite follow. He doesn't seem to be referencing this incident in specific, but about the idea of ownership and contracts. I would agree with him to an extent, but rules are rules.

 

@Ghast - I understand there we're other factors in your decision. Thank's for clarifying.

@Bus - If you hire a freelance developer to to work for you, the product of that labor becomes your property.

Whether money can be made is irrelevant. Software developers are free to write their own script, on their own time, using their own idea and reap the profits themselves.

@Xier0 - I have a similar stance on IP. Although what I'm talking about here is already completely legal.

Anyway, I'll leave Richard to decide what he wants to do.

 

User B also doesn't condone the reselling of his scripts.

In his TOS, he states he will not fix a script that is resold, as stated here:




And after purchasing his scripts, he includes this in the script:

 

It says in the script that re-sale of the script is not allowed and the person sold it regardless..

 

People are retarded, can I say anything else lmao, I mean how much clearer and common sense can you make it?

 

I know right? Once user B receives property from user A, User B free to do with it what he wants with his new property, including reselling it (hopefully for a profit!), making copies, etc. If user A doesn't want to sell his script to user B, he doesn't have to.

 

http://prntscr.com/9j4npi


TOS trumps a "unofficial rule m8"

 

It's not HIS script. It was sold to someone else, who is now the new owner of a copy of the script. You don't get to decide what other people do with their scripts.

 

it is HIS script. Before the trade was completed it was made clear there would be no re-selling of this script and Gracious knew this and went against it anyways out of spite that he didn't like the script and wanted to recover lost funds.
He even went as far as not providing details about it/lying about things supported/not supported. In this case, there is no argument at all.

I also think there was possibly no legitimate sale here and they both wanted a free nice vouch because they are indeed friends and this happens to have bitten them in the bottom.
They both had different stories on what had happen, Pure said it was sold to via split of it. Gracious claims it was a straight out sale which is another copy of the script to a new user and is considered a sale and if they were going to do this the smart way they
shouldnt have left each other cute little vouches, which when questioned about they admitted were fake vouches...