~dehackerownz~ website got shut down ?

[LadyOs63]

I miss it too, especially having intelligent conversations with intelligent people.

[tvirusx1]

Originally Posted by LadyOs63

I would also be interested in seeing the actual copyright documentation.

Originally Posted by LadyOs63

lol you actually think we would provide the code?!?!?! really, really, get real. that's why the original is no longer safe. what an idiot. and as for copyright, having worked as a legal assistant for years, if the code was made public, anyone can do anything with it. but, then again, dehackerownz is using a whole new programming language, as stated before. no remnants of the old code exist in the new bot, which has had a name change.

If you would have been working as a legal assistant then you either did not pay attention or you did your job wrong.

Copyright does not have to be stated anywhere for it to be valid, anyone working in law should know that, even if you were just an assistant.

But thats off topic.

Making the Code public does not remove the Copyright, yes you can basically do whatever you want with it, just like Copyrighted software, but it being against the law is another story. Permission was granted to do whatever you like with it, but if I see something I don't like then I may take those permissions away, and if permission is not granted then it's against the law.

I'm not a lawyer but these stuff everyone should know.

If he is rewriting the Bot in a new language then he's basically writing his own bot from scratch, he should have stated that in his first post.

Besides, if he still writes it in C++ .Net, I'll be able to find out if he was using my source code or not, keep that in mind (yet an advantage that .Net brings, which in most cases is a disadvantage).

I had some hard times with UDOBot site too, but after a while the site generated enough revenue to keep itself up, it's all about management, and I even got more money back than I had payed into the server, even tough my software was always provided free. Donations were rather rare, so don't depend on them.

Remember that the Bot required you to download the new version of the Bot manually? Guess what, that was all site management, it brought traffic to the site which generated revenue to keep it going. I could have built in the auto-update but then no one would have needed the site, right?

I've also built in a Linkbucks ad when you close the Bot, that brought in some extra revenue too, an inconvenience that the users had to take as my program is provided free.

Go ahead and write your own bot and charge for it. You'll notice soon enough that it's not that easy to make money with paid software if there is a lot of other similar, well-known softwares out there too. (Adbot, kBot, iBot...)

Wish you luck with your bot.

PS: If I would continue to work on UDOBot I would probably write it in native code again, moving over to .Net was a mistake.

[LadyOs63]

And at this point in time, this is a moot point, as none of your original source code is in the new bot. So, this whole discussion is a waste of time and bandwidth

[tvirusx1]

Originally Posted by LadyOs63

And at this point in time, this is a moot point, as none of your original source code is in the new bot. So, this whole discussion is a waste of time and bandwidth

I don't think you even bothered to read my post??

If he is rewriting the Bot in a new language then he's basically writing his own bot from scratch, he should have stated that in his first post.

EDIT:
Just in case you're too lazy to read my above post:
If his code doesn't contain my source then he has his Copyright on it (he can do whatever he wants with it).

[roscatel]

Off-topic...
tvirusx1, maybe you want to get udobot v4 "out of danger". I don't know, if you can program 1,2 hours/day at a new source...In a month, it could be done. But without depending a forum/site.

This is it, who use basically udobot v4, has ~90% to get banned, and this isn't good!
Just a suggestion, thanks for reading!

[tvirusx1]

Originally Posted by roscatel

Off-topic...
tvirusx1, maybe you want to get udobot v4 "out of danger". I don't know, if you can program 1,2 hours/day at a new source...In a month, it could be done. But without depending a forum/site.

This is it, who use basically udobot v4, has ~90% to get banned, and this isn't good!
Just a suggestion, thanks for reading!

Whats the point? Didn't iNk release a free bot or something like that?

[Time Lord]

What ever happened to the Perl vs. C# text processing shootout I promised? Well, I will tell you what happened. Something had been bothering me for ages, but I could not put my finger on it. As I sat down to write the code, I finally remembered what it was: I am not allowed to publish benchmarks [...]

What ever happened to the Perl vs. C# text processing shootout I promised? Well, I will tell you what happened.

Something had been bothering me for ages, but I could not put my finger on it. As I sat down to write the code, I finally remembered what it was: I am not allowed to publish benchmarks of .Net without Microsoft’s expressly written permission. This is part of the Microsoft .Net Framework EULA, and it also applies to many of its other products, such as SQL Server 2005. Therefore, instead of writing about Perl vs. .Net, I will be discussing how licensing terms can affect the work of a programmer. Please note: I AM NOT A LAWYER.


In the late 90s, I worked for a small startup. One of my tasks was to research patents and copyrights. The company had a clever system (for the time) on its Web site that it wanted to protect. The Amazon “One Click Shopping” patent had already been used against Barnes & Noble, and my boss wanted to be able to do the same to our competitors if they put a similar feature on their sites. So I became fairly familiar with patent and copyright laws. I was able to determine that we could probably not get a patent on what we were doing (it was pretty obvious how to do it), but we were implicitly and automatically granted copyright over the code and could argue in court if need be that a competitor’s code was based on ours without proper payment.

The lesson I learned from this was fairly striking: Copyright is powerful. Most folks do not realize how strong it is and that you don’t actually have to do anything to copyright your work. If I make a doodle on a dinner napkin, I automatically have a copyright on it, which can be enforced. Of course, proof of authorship is always helpful and publicly marking something as being copyrighted makes it clear to all those who view the work that there is a copyright on it. However, the lack of copyright markings does not grant free usage.

How does this work in the world of programming?

For starters, programmers are notorious for going to a search engine when they get stuck on a problem and then copying and pasting code into their code without the necessary modifications. Unfortunately, this is most likely illegal unless the poster of the original code expressly granted usage rights to you. In other words, by hitting the search engine and grabbing some code, you are opening your employer up to a potential lawsuit. Granted, the chances of this being noticed are probably billions to one; but if you aren’t granted express usage rights, you are probably in violation of the law.
There are even more problems with doing a copy/paste of code. What happens when you copy/paste a piece of open source into your project? Well, it depends on the type of open source license it has. If it is the BSD license, you are in great shape because the BSD license is forgiving. However, the GPL is a completely different story. You have to be careful when copying/pasting, linking to (in the compilation sense and not in the URL meaning), or otherwise making use of GPL-ed code. The GPL has a sneaky way of injecting itself into projects in a way that can potentially force large amounts of a project (if not the entire thing) to be subject to it.

Microsoft is a huge contributor to the license and copyright headaches. For one thing, Microsoft is one of the largest obtainers of patents in the world, in no small part to the massive amounts of R&D it does. If you are working on a project, there is a darn good chance that Microsoft has a patent on something identical or similar, particularly in some oddball parts of computing. And Microsoft has never been afraid to flex its legal muscles (in other words, when buying out the offender would be more expensive than suing them). Microsoft also has a bad habit of slipping unusual license terms (like the no benchmark clause) in places that you would not expect. Before embarking on a project that makes use of Microsoft technologies, I recommend that you carefully inspect all relevant licenses; if you are unsure about what they mean, consult a lawyer.

Even clip art can turn around to bite you. One of my favorite Web sites, iStockphoto, has reasonable licensing terms for its images. Royalty free may be used on Web sites and marketing collateral, etc., but it’s a problem if you want to: use one of the site’s images in a template library that you redistribute or use an iStockphoto image at a resolution above 800×600. And so on. You have to be very careful with these types of agreements. For instance, say that your Web developer uses one of these images for your company’s Web site, which is a permitted use. Then you decide that you like the photo so much, you will use it in the splash screen for your application. There could be liability if there wasn’t clear communication between the person who read and signed the license and the developer using the image.

It is extremely unlikely that your project’s miscellaneous and/or accidental violations of copyright and license terms will ever be noticed, unless it receives large enough mainstream usage. In addition, violations within closed source, proprietary code are difficult to find. Nevertheless, there are plenty of lawsuits in the history of IT to show that it is quite possible to have the pants sued off you too.

My general rules of thumb about copyright and licensing

I only use content in a project that I have created or that I know another employee within our company has created. I do not copy and paste code from the Web, and I do not use GPL-ed code within a project unless the project is to be released as GPL-ed code. I carefully check any content, code, images, etc. for copyright and license terms before using them; if I’m confused, I kick it over to a lawyer. If I do not see any explicit rights granted to me, I assume none. I think this is a fairly reasonable and sensible approach.
Basically, think twice before copying and pasting code you dig up on the Web into your project.

[LadyOs63]

tvirus, i read every word of your post. I do believe he did state that in his original post. did you read mine? And at this point in time, this is a moot point, as none of your original source code is in the new bot

*****, your abundant wisdom of 16 years of life is astounding! ROMFFLMFAO

[deHackerOwnz.]

tvirus, I tried to send you a PM, had no reply.

Please check them and get back to me, we need to talk.

Thanks,

~deHackerOwnz~

[LadyOs63]

dehack, i think they would much rather risk a defamation lawsuit than handle this like men. oh, that's right, they are just boys. funny how some 16 year olds comport themselves better than others, and quite possibly better than some adults.

[LadyOs63]

i think at this time, we should just let the children play in their sandbox and move on to grownup activities. this is getting very tiresome. i've raised my children. let someone else babysit this group. lmao

[Aimed&dead]

chill the **** out, Dehackerownz is the only of you so called "Experienced and grown ups" that was mature enough to take this private with t-virus.

Also Many many people have respect for t-virus for THREE years of Free bot :] if he started to remake a bot and start again Many many people would follow him, you have my word on that.

Dehackerownz seems like a nice person and i honestly dont know why people keep flaming him... THE BOT WAS ONLY 2$ ...If you didnt like it DONT F***ing use it. its that simple you dont have to personally attack him and he stated many times before that he re wrote the code and was not based on T-viruses code.

Also ALL BOTS ARE BANNABLE, so dont claim people cant get ban by your bot.

[tvirusx1]

Originally Posted by Time Lord

What ever happened to the Perl vs. C# text processing shootout I promised? Well, I will tell you what happened. Something had been bothering me for ages, but I could not put my finger on it. As I sat down to write the code, I finally remembered what it was: I am not allowed to publish benchmarks [...]

What ever happened to the Perl vs. C# text processing shootout I promised? Well, I will tell you what happened.

Something had been bothering me for ages, but I could not put my finger on it. As I sat down to write the code, I finally remembered what it was: I am not allowed to publish benchmarks of .Net without Microsoft’s expressly written permission. This is part of the Microsoft .Net Framework EULA, and it also applies to many of its other products, such as SQL Server 2005. Therefore, instead of writing about Perl vs. .Net, I will be discussing how licensing terms can affect the work of a programmer. Please note: I AM NOT A LAWYER.


In the late 90s, I worked for a small startup. One of my tasks was to research patents and copyrights. The company had a clever system (for the time) on its Web site that it wanted to protect. The Amazon “One Click Shopping” patent had already been used against Barnes & Noble, and my boss wanted to be able to do the same to our competitors if they put a similar feature on their sites. So I became fairly familiar with patent and copyright laws. I was able to determine that we could probably not get a patent on what we were doing (it was pretty obvious how to do it), but we were implicitly and automatically granted copyright over the code and could argue in court if need be that a competitor’s code was based on ours without proper payment.

The lesson I learned from this was fairly striking: Copyright is powerful. Most folks do not realize how strong it is and that you don’t actually have to do anything to copyright your work. If I make a doodle on a dinner napkin, I automatically have a copyright on it, which can be enforced. Of course, proof of authorship is always helpful and publicly marking something as being copyrighted makes it clear to all those who view the work that there is a copyright on it. However, the lack of copyright markings does not grant free usage.

How does this work in the world of programming?

For starters, programmers are notorious for going to a search engine when they get stuck on a problem and then copying and pasting code into their code without the necessary modifications. Unfortunately, this is most likely illegal unless the poster of the original code expressly granted usage rights to you. In other words, by hitting the search engine and grabbing some code, you are opening your employer up to a potential lawsuit. Granted, the chances of this being noticed are probably billions to one; but if you aren’t granted express usage rights, you are probably in violation of the law.
There are even more problems with doing a copy/paste of code. What happens when you copy/paste a piece of open source into your project? Well, it depends on the type of open source license it has. If it is the BSD license, you are in great shape because the BSD license is forgiving. However, the GPL is a completely different story. You have to be careful when copying/pasting, linking to (in the compilation sense and not in the URL meaning), or otherwise making use of GPL-ed code. The GPL has a sneaky way of injecting itself into projects in a way that can potentially force large amounts of a project (if not the entire thing) to be subject to it.

Microsoft is a huge contributor to the license and copyright headaches. For one thing, Microsoft is one of the largest obtainers of patents in the world, in no small part to the massive amounts of R&D it does. If you are working on a project, there is a darn good chance that Microsoft has a patent on something identical or similar, particularly in some oddball parts of computing. And Microsoft has never been afraid to flex its legal muscles (in other words, when buying out the offender would be more expensive than suing them). Microsoft also has a bad habit of slipping unusual license terms (like the no benchmark clause) in places that you would not expect. Before embarking on a project that makes use of Microsoft technologies, I recommend that you carefully inspect all relevant licenses; if you are unsure about what they mean, consult a lawyer.

Even clip art can turn around to bite you. One of my favorite Web sites, iStockphoto, has reasonable licensing terms for its images. Royalty free may be used on Web sites and marketing collateral, etc., but it’s a problem if you want to: use one of the site’s images in a template library that you redistribute or use an iStockphoto image at a resolution above 800×600. And so on. You have to be very careful with these types of agreements. For instance, say that your Web developer uses one of these images for your company’s Web site, which is a permitted use. Then you decide that you like the photo so much, you will use it in the splash screen for your application. There could be liability if there wasn’t clear communication between the person who read and signed the license and the developer using the image.

It is extremely unlikely that your project’s miscellaneous and/or accidental violations of copyright and license terms will ever be noticed, unless it receives large enough mainstream usage. In addition, violations within closed source, proprietary code are difficult to find. Nevertheless, there are plenty of lawsuits in the history of IT to show that it is quite possible to have the pants sued off you too.

My general rules of thumb about copyright and licensing

I only use content in a project that I have created or that I know another employee within our company has created. I do not copy and paste code from the Web, and I do not use GPL-ed code within a project unless the project is to be released as GPL-ed code. I carefully check any content, code, images, etc. for copyright and license terms before using them; if I’m confused, I kick it over to a lawyer. If I do not see any explicit rights granted to me, I assume none. I think this is a fairly reasonable and sensible approach.
Basically, think twice before copying and pasting code you dig up on the Web into your project.

Nice find, found it interesting to read. Copyright is a serious business, which most people do not know.

But next time link to the original source.

Originally Posted by LadyOs63

tvirus, i read every word of your post. I do believe he did state that in his original post. did you read mine? And at this point in time, this is a moot point, as none of your original source code is in the new bot

LMFAO, your abundant wisdom of 16 years of life is astounding! ROMFFLMFAO

I'm 17, but thats none of your business, or is it? Making fun of someones age is inappropriate, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Time Lord

Seems there is a lot of non reading and comprehension lacking skills going on.

I heard it from a friend, you think I care about Dark Orbit anymore? I don't bother to research anything related to Dark Orbit as I have stopped playing and I wont start playing again, thanks for asking.


Most of you might not know but I don't lurk around Elitepvpers very often, nor do I barely read my private messages because most of them are Dark Orbit/Bot related. So sorry that I didn't notice that you messaged me deHackerOwnz.


EDIT:
Ok, I and deHackerOwnz. have talked about this matter.
There seemed to be a lot of confusion going around, but this matter has been solved.

You two, LadyOs63 and Time Lord haven't really helped in this matter either, other than personal insults and double (or triple, or quadruple) posts, and causing even more confusion.

If you want more info then ask deHackerOwnz.

I wont reply to this thread anymore.