So what’s up with this “I’m going to make a point and then cut off your mic” attitude?
C K Dexter Haven closed This CS thread about the upcoming Family Guy movie, which has been leaked onto the internet. Now, I’m not objecting to the decision to close the thread. The SDMB has a history of closing threads about copyright infringement, and this falls perfectly into line.
However, I do object to these parting comments:
As anyone who has participated in any copyright-related thread in GD, or the Pit, or anywhere else on the internet knows, comparisons between copyright infringement and theft are controversial, to say the least. I’m not going to argue here whether Dex’s statement was right or wrong, I’m just pointing out that it’s a political opinion that has sparked many debates, not a legal fact. IMO, it is an abuse of moderator powers to post a jab like that in a message that no one will be able to respond to.
Imagine if someone started a thread about performing illegal abortions. Such a thread would surely get closed, since illegal topics and serious medical advice are both frowned upon. Would it be appropriate for the moderator who closed the thread to write something like this:
No, I think not. The final post in a thread being closed is no place to make political jabs, especially in a forum like Cafe society. This is a board filled with members who are paying for relatively open and honest discussions, not a talk show where you get to make political points and then immediately prevent anyone from rebutting them.
Your analogy is flawed because downloading copyrighted material without the copyright holder’s permission is defined as theft under US law. Abortion is not defined as murder under US law.
As far as the law is concerned, Dex was undeniably right: it’s theft and it’s illegal. (That much is not controversial.) I’m sure that’s all he wanted to emphasize.
First to say I don’t see a pitting of CKDH being warranted in this case. One use of the Pit is to bring stuff like this up so the mods don’t have absolute power over getting the last word. (Short of banning that is)
Second, just so I can finally be involved in a thread concerning copyright infringement of any kind and not pick up an official warning.
This is the second time I’ve seen you compare file-sharing to abortion, and again, I boggle at the fact that you see no irony in claiming that “theft” is too emotive a term for copyright infringement while having no problem whatsoever in drawing parallels between filesharing and abortion rights.
While it’s quite possible you do consider the right to take other people’s works to be as contentious as a woman’s right to choose, I should point out that the comparison does make you look just a little bit loony.
I stand corrected. It appears that the term “theft” is usually not applied to copyright infringement. In my opinion the term should be applicable, but that’s certainly not the point.
Based on this knowledge, I agree that Dex shouldn’t have used that term when closing the thread.
I agree with the OP. And Dex is not the only moderator I’ve seen do this.
Strictly the closed thread is not even discussing any illegal acts so I can’t see why it’s closed but I don’t really care much either. I just think that it’s bad form to post a jab at someone and not give them a chance to reply.
I’m not comparing them, though I see how you might get confused. I’m comparing the use of a loaded, controversial, and legally incorrect term to describe one act to the use of a similar term to describe another act. In both cases there is a neutral and legally correct term that could be used instead, and I contend it should be used instead in a situation like a mod making one last post before closing a thread.
If Dex didn’t want to look like a jerk, he could have easily posted something like this instead:
Doesn’t that look more professional without the needless editorializing?
I agree.
So you’re saying Dexdidn’t make a political point immediately before closing the thread? Gee, maybe there’s a bug in my browser that inserts random opinions into people’s posts.
Depends on the circumstances: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netact.htm
“NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT An Act to amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes”
Pray tell what the fuck this thread is doing?!? You’re getting a chance to counter the statement. At the same time trying to whine about not getting a say about it? What the fuck are you talking about?
Bitch away. It’s the Pit. It’s part of what the forum was created for as far as I can tell. Just don’t complain you can’t give your opinion on a closed thead because the mods closed it, when you come right here and bitch about it. We see it. You’re not being oppressed. :rolleyes:
