XL Trading - Selling copied software

[Fekker]

He brought it upon himself, if he'd have kept his mouth shut about suing anyone who questioned the legality of his operation then he wouln't be in the poo he's in now. I wonder where his vast legal team are now?

 

[Tony]

I have noticed that a few threads on other forums concerning XL Trading have been closed down. Has any explanation been given for this?

 

[1984ReturnsForReal]

I have noticed that a few threads on other forums concerning XL Trading have been closed down. Has any explanation been given for this?

People were putting the full personal details on the web of the 2 lads who are linked to the sites.

Other than that you should maybe email MSE to find out why they closed it.

Thats the info I got.

xltrading.net has now been shut down also.

Funny that they spend all day getting it up & running & its shut down in milliseconds...

 

[Tony]

Thanks for the update I was just curious really.

If they have backups they can set up on any host with any domain name assuming they are still in business. They seem to be confident that they will return:

We will return Keep watching this space lol!

XL Trading (XLTrading) on Twitter

Tony

 

[Fekker]

He's still brassing it out, just posted this on Twitter!!!

Stay tuned for further info as we have it and the 'real' reason why we went down.

 

[XLTrading]

Good Evening All!

We have had quite a busy day today indeed so it is only fair we come on here and explain what is going off and the situation.

In regards to the sites being down - not dead - down... this is due to the companies in question, having found out that they could not prosecute us as (will post a link for all to view shortly) we have done nothing illegal have decided to run to our webhosts to get us suspended.

Not a problem, we now have 6 other webhosts instead of the one.

The .net went live again tonight until the webhosting was pulled - again, not a problem as again, just waiting the the other webhosting details and we will be right back live again.

All it does, is just create a minor inconvenience which at best, will last for about an hour before the site re-ups again.

Again, nothing illegal.. but if the companies want to come and have a word with us, we will make it a lot easier for them rather than being quite spineless and attacking the hosts instead because they know they cannot convict for something that is not and cannot be proved illegal.

Stay tuned peeps

EDIT: ELSPA info on backups - nice little post on the net a while back

BACKUPS – WHY DO I NEED ONE ANYWAY?

The legally-enshrined right to make a backup of computer software is one the games industry is very keen to keep quiet. Until very recently, the FAQ on the website of games-industry representative body ELSPA answered the question “Am I legally entitled to make a backup of my original software?” with a strident and unequivocal “No!”. A few public-minded citizens from a games forum took it upon themselves to contact Trading Standards about this clear misrepresentation of the law, and ELSPA hastily changed their website to a rather muddier statement which nevertheless still essentially, and wrongly, asserts that you’re not allowed to backup your own games. (As support for this position, the ELSPA site relies chiefly on the precedent of a judgement given in 2002 in a case brought by Sony against a seller of PS2 modchips, who was ill-placed to stand up to the financial muscle of Sony and their lawyers. However, there are a number of serious legal issues with the judgement - detailed in a paper published by the Faculty of Law at the University of Hertfordshire – which would make the judgement unlikely to survive a further challenge in court.) The industry’s position is, in a nutshell, “If your disc goes wrong, we’ll supply you with a new one, therefore there is no need for you to make your own backup and the law does not apply.” There are, however, several extremely obvious flaws in this policy.

Firstly, if you look in the back of the manual of any game you own, you’ll either find no information on what to do with a corrupted disc at all, or an instruction to send it back with a fee to cover “handling”, which in most cases will be between £7 and £10. Which seems like a hefty charge for them having sold you shoddy merchandise. (EA backed down on this charge after a series of complaints, detailed in recent PCZs, about the state of Battlefield 1942 discs. But the policy is only a “gesture of goodwill” and only applicable under certain conditions. In almost all cases with almost all publishers, UK gamers will still be charged a hefty fee to return non-working discs.)

Secondly, of course, there’s the issue of replacements being available at all. Anyone who’s ever tried to buy a copy of an older PC game (say, more than three years) will be familiar with the near-impossibility of the task. Half the time, the publisher won’t even be in business any more.

The fact is, as ELSPA was keen to point out during last year’s FairPlay campaign for lower game prices, when you buy a computer game, you’re not buying the disc it comes on. You’re buying a licence to play the game code, and that licence lasts for your whole life. You are, therefore, entitled by law to protect that right by ensuring the safety of the code, regardless of whether the publisher can be relied on to help you out or not. And since it’s no good waiting until the disc gets corrupted and THEN making a backup, obviously you have to make the backup first.

Also this:

Computer games users enjoy a special privilege under the existing copyright law. According to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase. (Interestingly, the rule specifically applies to computer games. For no adequately-explained reason, purchasers of music CDs or DVD movies are not granted the same rights to protect their investment. The only rational explanation your reporter can come up with for this odd anomaly is that the law recognises that (a) computer software is overpriced in comparison to other leisure media, and (b) the games industry is so fragile, and hostile towards backwards-compatibility, that your chances of being able to obtain a legal replacement for a duff disc after anything more than a couple of years are so remote as to require legal remedy.)

This section of the law has NOT been changed by the CRRA. You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally. Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work.

This is a direct copy (ironically) of the section in the US DMCA under which the prosecutions of Skylarov, Halderman and many others were made possible, and in short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Hmm. Bit of a mixed message being sent out there, don’t you think?

Now, lesser publications might be content to highlight this glaring contradiction in law and leave it at that, were they alert enough to have noticed it in the first place. But not your super soaraway PC Zone, viewers. Because we’ve examined the evidence and come to the only logical conclusion, and that conclusion is this: Under the new UK copyright laws, any software publisher which implements any form of copy-protection on its discs will be breaking the law. Because it’s an offence, obviously, to deprive the consumer of any right which is explicitly granted to him in law. And if you implement copy protection which there is no legal way to circumvent (which, thanks to the CRRA, there now isn’t), then you are, obviously, depriving the consumer of the opportunity to exercise his legally-enshrined right to a backup. Which is illegal. So, who wants to be the first in court?

 

[Fekker]

I can't believe the brass neck you have. The hosts wouldn't pull your site if it didn't look illegal as they would be liable for damages. Why would the software companies complain and ask for removal if they can't touch you? Are you dillusional? If not, post your written approval to copy software on here. I phoned Microsoft today and asked if it would be ok to set up a service to send copies of their software to punters as a backup and only charge for "my time" and "cost of discs and postage". Guess what they told me!, especially as I wanted to provide Windows 7. the same response came from Adobe.

 

[XLTrading]

I can't believe the brass neck you have. The hosts wouldn't pull your site if it didn't look illegal as they would be liable for damages. Why would the software companies complain and ask for removal if they can't touch you? Are you dillusional? If not, post your written approval to copy software on here. I phoned Microsoft today and asked if it would be ok to set up a service to send copies of their software to punters as a backup and only charge for "my time" and "cost of discs and postage". Guess what they told me!, especially as I wanted to provide Windows 7. the same response came from Adobe.

Not at all.
The hosts - if threatened - of course will suspend a site.. not delete it.
They have to protect themselves.

The big companies know they cannot legally pursue us as the court would throw it out for a waste of time... hence they persue the webhosting.
It is quite an effective tactic really.

We have been in touch with Adobe actually and asked them to look into it, we are still awaiting a reply.

They all really say the same thing - you only own the 'licence' to anything which as I posted on our 1st thread is a cop-out in legal definition.

 

[Tony]

My understanding is that individuals can make copies of their own software, but they are not allowed to distribute these copies.

If I understand it correctly, you make copies of your software and send it to your customers. This sounds like distribution to me rather than a backup service.

Tony

 

[Joy2theworld]

Well XLtrading we all know what you are doing is illegal you may think you are getting away with it but one day you may get busted

I have it on very good authority that you are being monitored, the same person who told me this also got your web site shut down today

 

[Fekker]

Computer games users enjoy a special privilege under the existing copyright law. According to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase. (Interestingly, the rule specifically applies to computer games. For no adequately-explained reason, purchasers of music CDs or DVD movies are not granted the same rights to protect their investment.
<SNIP>
Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work.
<SNIP>

and in short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

<SNIP>
And if you implement copy protection which there is no legal way to circumvent (which, thanks to the CRRA, there now isn’t), then you are, obviously, depriving the consumer of the opportunity to exercise his legally-enshrined right to a backup. Which is illegal. So, who wants to be the first in court?

Quoting your own post you are breaking the law, also, why are you selling "backup" DVD's when this also states it is illegal to do so, especially the Blu-ray copy on your site.

 

[Inactive]

All comes to those that wait, it seems.

 

[1984ReturnsForReal]

All comes to those that wait, it seems.

If he (sorry they. Adam,Tim & Mark) carry on like this they are all going to jail.


Back Up, I believe, will have a whole new meaning to them in jail.

 

[1984ReturnsForReal]

& by the way MR XL TRADING.

30 mins my ar*e getting the xltrading.net up & running.

You were first clocked a 1pm adapting .net & it was pulled by your host at about 8.30 (when I posted it had been pulled).

If you had half a brain you could be dangerous.

Anyway quoting 2004 website snippets is idiotic.

You want modern day case law.

& that says you may be entitled to copy your own sh*t now or sometime soon for your own needs when a new directive comes in.

It doesnt say you can illegally copy your own stuff & sell it on to someone who ticks a box saying they already have it.

Carry on & you are going down.

 

[XLTrading]

My understanding is that individuals can make copies of their own software, but they are not allowed to distribute these copies.

If I understand it correctly, you make copies of your software and send it to your customers. This sounds like distribution to me rather than a backup service.

Tony

Not at all Tony.
People are painting quite a different picture it seems to what we actually do and why FAST are NOT investigating us at all.

We DO NOT sell anything on the store, what we do is this:

1. Client MUST already own the product they wish to have a duplicate made for them - signs a legal disclaimer on the site via checkbox.
2. Client orders the duplicate, having agreed the T&C's on the site.
3. A duplicate is then created for that purpose.

We DO NOT just sell copies about to people, this is the whole crux of our arguments, and why we are NOT illegal in any way, shape or form... the clients must agree legally, that they already own the product they wish a safe keeping backup to be made for.

This can be for any digital media product ie: CD/DVD/GAME/PC SOFTWARE.

 

[Chutzpah]

Hm, if I was you I'd be getting a good solicitor. I'm sure the courts would love to see what reasonable steps you took to ensure that someone had a legitimate copy to begin with. Them simple ticking a disclaimer box won't cover you at all.

Incidentally, if you already have company legal representation I would change it, as they obviously aren't experts in copyright law.

 

[Chutzpah]

To use an over-simplified analogy:

"Can I have 20 Lambert and Butler please?"
"Have you got any ID?"
"No, but I am over 18"
"Will you sign this legal disclaimer that states you are so we can't get prosecuted if you turn out to be under 18?"
"Sure"
"Excellent!"

 

[1984ReturnsForReal]

Hm, if I was you I'd be getting a good solicitor. I'm sure the courts would love to see what reasonable steps you took to ensure that someone had a legitimate copy to begin with. Them simple ticking a disclaimer box won't cover you at all.

Incidentally, if you already have company legal representation I would change it, as they obviously aren't experts in copyright law.

As their "customer" has never supplied them with their own original copy of the software it cannot be a backup copy XL are supplying.

XL are supplying a backup of software from another source & that is being traded ILLEGALLY.

& without the customer supplying the original to XL to copy there is simply no way around it.

 

[Tony]

As their "customer" has never supplied them with their own original copy of the software it cannot be a backup copy XL are supplying.

XL are supplying a backup of software from another source & that is being traded ILLEGALLY.

& without the customer supplying the original to XL to copy there is simply no way around it.

This is the point I was trying to make.

 

[1984ReturnsForReal]

This is the point I was trying to make.

I know.

After 3 years trading & thousands of pounds of lost revenue to the manufacturers & thousands of illegal transactions XL fail to grasp this concept.

I suspect they actually know this but will attempt to use this as a defence of ignorance when they are convicted.

But if they carry on like this the manufacturers & authorities will have no choice to take them down & they will go to jail.

They will all be collecting evidence right now & letting things go by then in a few weeks/months they will all get arrested.

I would of thought that if they had any sense at all they would shut the **** up but their brazen attitude & relaunch is only going to backfire on them big time.

Even the email from FAST & XLs' interpretation made me laugh.

That just showed me how stupid they really are.