3S in modified mag.

[Alan92rttt]

While a site owner is not responsible for content their users post they must do everything in their power to remove material that violates copyright laws.

In simple terms if you post it the mod team must remove it. If the mod team does not remove it the site owner can be help libel for copyright infringement.

[Hannibalzero]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]I've got the GT Pro issue scanned, along with the one with the purple and white VR4 (don't remember what mag it was). I've also got the infamous Cabo Joe SCC issues. Those were fun.[/quote]

Cabojoe is my idol.




:suspect2:

[vegasidol]

[quote=""lawdogg""]We have no rules concerning sharing copyrighted material, yet.[/quote]

[quote=""Duck Vader""]I like that...yet...So you mean when you get in trouble for the material is when you will make a rule? [/quote]

[quote=""lawdogg""]No, when we have to deal with shit we didn't see coming is when we have to make a rule. If only the world was only black and white. [/quote]

[quote=""Zentelis""]If a copyright holder wants to raise a stink, it's Vira's ass on the line since she owns the board (as I understand it).
I certainly don't want to put her or anyone in that position, so i don't post, share, or talk about copyrighted material "distribution" on the forums (not directly, i mean )[/quote]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]That's the point though. We don't know the legalities, and hiring a lawyer to find out really isn't an option right now.

Just go out and spend the $5 on the magazine If you can't get it where you live, I'll mail you one for a dollar or two in postage.[/quote]

Sigh.

I'm all for solidifying the rules, especially when it comes to legalities, and things that may get my ass in a sling. I have brought up many of these issues already with the staff. There aren't 'that many' (despite the complaints from some) of us to discuss things with and we are all busy with real life/jobs. This is just a side project that we volunteer our time to, and things are slow to come to form.

Also, as Jeff pointed out, none of us are lawyers and all we can do is speculate and emulate other sites rules.

If anyone here has any legal experience, I'd love to bring them on the staff to help us out.

[Hannibalzero]

[quote=""vegasidol""]Sigh.

I'm all for solidifying the rules, especially when it comes to legalities, and things that may get my ass in a sling. I have brought up many of these issues already with the staff. There aren't 'that many' (despite the complaints from some) of us to discuss things with and we are all busy with real life/jobs. This is just a side project that we volunteer our time to, and things are slow to come to form.

Also, as Jeff pointed out, none of us are lawyers and all we can do is speculate and emulate other sites rules.

If anyone here has any legal experience, I'd love to bring them on the staff to help us out.[/quote]


I can ask my girlfriend (who is a lawyer), but I would prefer not to introduce her to the board. This is one of my last bastions of freedom, and I'd like to keep it that way. Furthermore, you never know when I'll want to complain about her here.

Besides, any time I ask her legal questions, her response is always: "I don't know, you have to ask a specialist."

[Alan92rttt]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi

Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?

Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.

Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].

Question: Does a service provider have to notify its users about its policies regarding the removal of materials?

Answer: To qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions, the service provider must give notice to its users of its policies regarding copyright infringement and the consequences of repeated infringing activity. [512(i)(1)(A)] The notice can be a part of the contract signed by the user when signing up for the service or a page on the service provider's web site explaining the terms of use of their systems. While there are no specific rules about how this notice must be made, it must be "reasonably implemented" so that subscribers and account holders are informed of the terms. [512(i)(1)(A)]

[Jeff V.]

Bought the magazine tonight. The photography is nice, but the article is pretty lame. I'm not very impressed with whomever wrote it. The last paragraph is the worst.

From Japan to Afghanistan to the United States, Keith's personal Intercontinental Ballistic 3000GT Missile was mechanically completed while he was working at the Missile Defense Agency in Colorado Springs. With Upton as the payload, the streets of Colorado go to DEFCON 5 every time he stirs his twin turbo weapon to life. And no rinky dink Star Wars program is going to bring him down!

(The first sentence refers to his military service)

First off, DEFCON 5 is the designation for normal, peacetime military operations.

The reference to the Regan era Star Wars satellite defense program was just lame.

It was nice to see his car as an inset on the cover and with a decent spread in the middle of the magazine though.

[Hannibalzero]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]Bought the magazine tonight. The photography is nice, but the article is pretty lame. I'm not very impressed with whomever wrote it. The last paragraph is the worst.



(The first sentence refers to his military service)

First off, DEFCON 5 is the designation for normal, peacetime military operations.

The reference to the Regan era Star Wars satellite defense program was just lame.

It was nice to see his car as an inset on the cover and with a decent spread in the middle of the magazine though.[/quote]

Its a tuner magazine. What do you expect? A pulitzer caliber staff?

[Jeff V.]

Uhh, how about 5 mins spent on Google before making yourself look like an ass?

[eljefefx]

I still don't know the story of CaboJoe.

[jrod]

^ Nor do I

[TheHarleyMod]

Here's part of the story. Keep in mind that that he claimed he had 650 hp and that he had spent hours and hours tuning his car on the old UPRD dyno.

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/uscc/0303scc_uscc00

There's a lot more to the tool that is Cabojoe than that fiasco though. Search 3SI for his posts.

[Jeff V.]

Ok. Here's the short version. If I get really ambitious, I'll go scan the articles in question.

Anyway, CaboJoe was some asshat from 3SI with a fairly well modified white VR4 Spyder. Bigger turbos that nobody had ever heard of, fuel, stock ECS on lowered springs (I think), no idea for fuel control, and a big stereo. He went around bragging like he was king shit. His car was so fast and he beat all these badass cars and blah blah blah.

So he enters it in the Ultimate Street Car Competition (USCC) that Sport Compact Car hosts every year. We fully believe it was their twisted sense of humor that got him in, but for whatever reason, Joe made it into the 10 that got into the magazine. One of his quotes on his entry form was something about "with my twin turbos spooling out 700hp, I'll beat anything that dares to challenge me" or some such bullshit.

Most of the comments by the authors referred to just how much like a stock VR4 it felt. At they dyno they called out the 700hp falsehood. He didn't come in dead last, but that's only because a couple other cars exploded and could not finish, meaning he beat them on raw points simply because his stayed running. I want to say he ran a 13.x in the quarter, despite his big badass mystery turbos.

He ended up getting laughed out of 3SI for embarrassing us and for being so unbelievably full of shit.

Now I'm going to have to go get the magazines just to check my own facts and laugh all over again...

[Vitamin A]

Joe Privitier came to the party claiming 625 hp from his 3000GT. The dyno said 301. Ouch.

That's from the article. HAHA!

[DCIV]

301?? didnt chris post dyno numbers that his stock vr4 put up more then that?


Coop

[Jeff V.]

Man, what are the odds that me and Harley would post this 3 mins apart?

Here's the highlights from his link

Event - Joe's finishing position - Author's comment
Car show - 10 - Chrome + Stock
Grandma test (comfort) - 1 - So stock, so comfy
Guru panel - 10 - Blue seats in a tan interior? Oh wait, engineering...
Drivability - 7 - Ignition problems
Dyno/Peak power - 10 - That'll teach you to brag (301AWHP)
Dyno/Power delivery - 5 - What a comeback
Base price - 8 - $65,424 (This one is kinda BS. They had a "$35,000" R33 Skyline there. Now, they were comparing stock prices, but you cannot buy a stock R33 in this country for less than $100,000.)
Smog test - 3 - Seems more and more stock
Fuel economy - 2 - No power = good mileage (31.3mpg)
Road course - 10 - DNF. No roll bar, no road course
Skid pad - 10 - For a 4000 lb car on street tires, this isn't bad (.087g)
Braking / 60-0 - 8 - 122ft (followed only by a Datsun 510 and a DNF car)
Acceleration / Quarter mile - 8 - Launched like an old lady (13.85@99)
Acceleration / 0-60 - 7 - Cruised out of the hole (5.5sec)
Gross Display of Horsepower - 7 - Gross display of understeer

[jrod]

I remember seeing him in the magazine, but i did not own a 3/s then.

[TheHarleyMod]

LOL Jeff, the quotes from the article itself were the best:

Car Show:

Mr. LegLuvr found himself at the bottom of the points pile with his 3000GT VR-4, which, as one just put it, wears more chrome than cars should.

(Joe's license plates were "LEGLUVR")

Grandma Test:

"Oh, Mr. Leg Luvr..." is all we got out of Gramsy, and we don't want to know more. She gave the 3000GT Spyder first place.

Driveability:

With just a one-point advantage is the massive Mitsubishi 3000GT Spyder. Despite offering a perfectly comfortable and stylishly topless driving experience, improper fuel management yielded offensive dips and valleys in its off-boost power response.

The Dyno:

Horsepower claims come with a bigger BS factor than any other, but bragging in the dyno room isn't wise. Case in point: Joe Privitier came to the party claiming 625 hp from his 3000GT. The dyno said 301. Ouch. Luckily, we scored on both peak power and power delivery, and the strong midrange torque of the Mitsubishi's twin-turbo 3.0-liter V6 scored 33 valuable power delivery points. Despite having the lowest peak power, the 3000GT left the dyno room ahead of the MR2, 510, WRX, Type R and Laminar Viking.

Base Price/EmissionsTesting:

The 3000GT, it seems, wasn't modified very much, as its emissions were on par with its power delivery performance.

Road Course:

Joe Privitier's 3000GT VR-4 Spyder wasn't allowed to compete in the road course due to safety reasons

Acceleration:

The 3000GT of Joe Privitier staged up next, but Joe seemed uncomfortable launching the car very hard and taking advantage of his Mitsubishi's all-wheel-drive traction like Cokic, Suh and Gladstone did in their cars, the Eclipse, Skyline and WRX. Easing the car out of the hole certainly hurt his times. The Spyder completed the quarter mile in 13.85 seconds at 99.3 mph and hit 60 mph from zero in 5.5 seconds.

Gross Display of Horsepower:

Joe "Leg Luvr" Privitier panfried the front tires of his 3000GT VR-4 Spyder in a half-crazed attempt at making the beast's 3,900 road-crushing pounds slide sideways. The harder the Legman tried, the more Toyo liked him. Luckily, he'll only need to replace his front tires.

[Jeff V.]

Anyone who know him certainly couldn't blame those comments on blind 3000GT bashing. He really was that awful.

[Twin-Turbo]

[quote=""Gatecrasher""]Anyone who know him certainly couldn't blame those comments on blind 3000GT bashing. He really was that awful.[/quote]

And yet nobody told him cabo sucked...