It really depends on the context. In a thread debating if marijuana is more harmful than tobacco, no one is going to get warned for saying they have smoked pot in the past. If you post about how high you are and how much marijuana rules, that’s not OK. Similarly, if you mention that you once claimed some deductions you shouldn’t have on your taxes, no one’s going to care. If you post about how you always take a bunch of phony deductions and the IRS never audits you so it’s just free money, that’s probably over the line into promoting illegal activity.
This makes it even funnier. The Reader runs ads for ‘escort services’ and ‘happy endings’ massage therapy?
catisix, the Chicago Reader website has a whole x-rated “X-Matches” section! And the paper’s even raunchier.
Not-safe-for-work URL: chicagoreader.selectalternatives.com/gyrobase/adult?readDisclaimer=yes
:smack: And I neglected to answer your question. Yes, they run ads for escorts and questionable massage.
Thanks, but you skipped the primary thing I wanted clarified, “If a user just says that s/he got a file via p2p, without even mentioning which network it came from, let alone not giving instructions or links to do so, that’s not permitted?”
p2p networking/filesharing is not illegal. I will say that again
p2p networking/filesharing is not illegal.
Some of the files that are shared on a p2p network may be there without the copyright owners permission, which is an infringement.
Filesharing is a perfectly legitimate way of distributing information, just like any other form of distribution. What is being distributed may not be legal, but that does not invalidate the means.
If it’s a copyrighted file, then it’s probably not permitted. If it’s ambiguous (e.g. the specific file is not itself germain to the conversation) or definitely legal (e.g. linux distros), then it’s probably OK. It really depends on the context. Do you have a specific situation in mind?
No disagreement here.
But, be honest. What fraction of files on the big P2P sites do you think are copyrighted? Me, I’d guess around 99.999%. (I’m being generous here and assuming a full 0.001% is homemade porno.) As long as the P2P networks are predominantly used to violate copyright, I’m guessing the Reader is going to limit P2P discussions.
Yes, I know. I was asking about board policy, not US law.
Isn’t the Chicago Reader free? They’re giving away newspaper content? OMG, they’re sharing information!!!
There was a thread where I mentioned I got a copyrighted file via P2P, but didn’t mention the method or the network. A mod threw a fit, which I thought was odd because I thought it was OK to simply mention it, as long as I didn’t give instructions how I did it. I asked for clarification in that thread, and even reported a post to get clarification, with neither method resulting an answer.
Thanks for the clarification. Is this a fairly recent change, or was my assumption above never true?
I don’t know. I’m a fairly recent mod. 
Don’t forget that we mods aren’t given a long list of rules for how to handle every situation. Rather, we’re given a few general guidelines and have to use our judgement in the grey areas. What one mod would let pass, another may deem inappropriate. So you’re never going to get absolute consistency, at least not until they figure out how to make some sort of RoboMod.
That would be tomndebb. Only a bot could post that evenly, in an undisturbed manner, immune to all manner of insults, etc.
Not the same thing. The articles and such in the Reader are written by people that know the paper is given away. It’s also not free. The revenue to pay saleries, cost, etc are generated by ads. This is an income, how do you think the boards were paid for before the pay-to-post? (Heh, almost used P2P there)
xash, thanks for the response. I thought it was clear what info I wanted, but I guess not. I figure the reason for my mistake here was assuming everyone just knew the rules of posting P2P info on the boards, never taking into account newer members that may not know the guidlines and therefore would post just about anything. I’ll try to word it better in the next thread.
Immune to insults? Thanks for pointing out the sky is blue. tomndebb could make Don Rickles cry like a little girl. He/she/it is a fair and competent mod, but God help you if you receive a lashing. It ain’t fun. Trust me. :eek:
I suspect you’re wrong. BitTorrent is used to distribute Linux distros, and those geeks are forever releasing Susy Slackware v6.4.2.1.8.3 at 12GB total size. That’s a lotta bandwidth even if it is only the readers of /. who are downloading every version.
I thought the courts ruled that it’s the users of P2P sites that are liable, not the sites themselves, because they have legitimate uses. So the RIAA is going after people with huge numbers of copyrighted material “exposed” in their storage area–not the P2P sites.
Yes and no.
For the most part, what you say is true. But the Supreme Court’s recent decision (June 2005) in MGM v. Grokster ruled that a case could proceed against file-sharing software producers Grokster and Streamcast. The reasoning behind this ruling was essentially that these software companies, in the opinion of the court, had actively promoted their software for the purposes of copyright infringement.
The longstanding “Betamax” (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 1984) decision, which i forms the key case that protects the producers of copying technology from being sued, held that, because the Betamax tape technology had substantial non-infringing uses, the company could not be held responsible if people used it to violate copyright. Sony was not specifically promoting the VCR for illegal copying, and its product had many other uses, so it was off the hook.
By contrast, the Court’s opinion in Grokster (delivered by Justice Souter) held that the file-sharing companies in question had actively sought out users who were known to violate copyright (previous Napster users), had made no attempts to filter or otherwise prevent the sharing of copyrighted work, and had a business model that relied on advertising, hence on high volume, which suggested (in the context of the other evidence) that illegal sharing would make up a large part of the traffic on the network. Here’s a relevant paragraph from the decision:
Now, it’s important to note that the Grokster case did NOT actually find that these file-sharing companies had undertaken illegal activity, and it did not rule that the companies should pay MGM. Nor did the Grokster decision, as some have cried, overturn the “Betamax” decision.
Grokster merely overturned the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, denied summary judgment in favor of the file-sharing companies, and ruled that the case needed to be heard in full in the lower court. MGM still had to prove its case against Grokster, but the Supreme Court ruling gave it an opportunity to do so. I’m not sure where the case it at now, or what the developments have been since Grokster was handed down.