First of all. I never said VP9 is garbage. I said it is a piece of shit compared to VP8. And I made it clear I was speaking in terms of playing it as it was originally designed to be played, on a desktop computer, and in terms of graphics glitches, and in terms of code maintenance.
It does not say you can not give others your work, nor that those others can not then give it to others. It says that if Paul gives others your work by means of them downloading it from his site that they can not give it to others.
Second, you say the VP9 material, is not wanted here is why it is not here, and in another sentence that the same material is here. There is no basis for saying it is not wanted here. Because of one person? Me? Let me make it clear then. I want it here.
VP9 was solely made for cabinet use. It was made by making VP use hardware and graphic layout that would make that so. The code was not added for this properly, but instead, the existing code was altered for this, which is why one could say solely for cabinets.
The first hint of trouble for me as being member of VPF.org was the suggestion that this lost functionality be restored to VP, by those that work the VP code at VPF.org. I made it clear that I understand that UCdev did this and for reasons that were right for them. No thing, or person will ever convince me, and probably others that that was not a conflict of opinion that on my part represented anything negative towards VPF, but a love and respect for VP. A love and respect that frankly, I don't think the level of is approached by anyone else, and in my opinion, certainly no one at VPF.org.
In some ways VP was more open before it became open source. In some ways it was more public, more useful, more broadly appealing.
The problem is that UCVP now is VP and UCVP was a solely cabinet functional mod of VP by intention. From what I read from those involved in VP and UC, it was never intended to be a public version, but that those things be made available to be integrated into (not replace) VP.
I can not shut down VPF.org. Nor do I have any intention to shut down VPF. But I don't believe what you said either, that the same infringing material is here that is at VPF.org. My point is that VPF is illegally contractually making a monopoly on certain infringing material and should be shut down on that account. Not because I think it is wrong, but because it is wrong.
And I most certainly am not saying I have the power to do it. It is going to be a perhaps time consuming, expensive, tiresome process, but I do have ideas, and a tenacity, and a belief that it is going to happen. Not shut down VPF.org but to stop this contractual monopoly on this infringing material. Users seem to think they have no power, or are in fear of something, but compliance is there for this contractual monopoly for whatever reason. Authors have more power to stop this at this point than Paul does.
Have you ever heard of copyright sharks? no, probably copyright trolls. They are folks, usually law students, out of work, or even unemployable lawyers that find infringements on the net, which is easy, and approach the IP owners and the ones that are lawyers strike a deal to serve C&D orders and sometimes subpoenas for a small fee or percentage of recovery. In 30 days those web sites have no copyright material on them, are in court, or lost their case by default. Those that show up in court either win or lose.
Those that are not lawyers have no power of enforcement, but still sell the information and a mere c&d is mailed out by the IP holder and legal action on non compliance is up to them.
I am serious about this, and researching this and other options. It will be up to you, or someone else to see that a focused action trickles down to other infringing sites like this one. It is not going to happen automatically