# Dex, you are not Bill O'Reilly **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 31, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045 "2005-07-31T22:53:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/41 "2005-08-01T13:45:11Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Moral, political… it’s still your own opinion on a hotly debated issue. Why do you feel the need to “remind” people of your moral code as you close a thread? of course, it also coincides nicely with the **position** taken by the fucking host site. If it offends you so profoundly to think of it as **Dex’s** _personal_ position, perhaps you could instead reflect on that fact? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/42 "2005-08-01T13:48:51Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Well, that’s a funny phrase coming from a telemarketer. Mr2001 – a telemarketer. That goes a long way to explaining his combinbation of ignorange and lug-headedness. Smart like bull; stong like streetcar. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/43 "2005-08-01T14:06:40Z")
**Muffin** , thank you for those quotes. While I’m obviously not a lawyer, I can honestly say that I’ve been studying the effect and ethics of copyright for many years, I’ve read and participated in many copyright debates here and elsewhere, and this is the first time I’ve seen any legal references to copyright infringement as “theft” other than in the title of the NET Act. I will take them into consideration. Feel free, though, to cram those judgments about my employment history up your ass. I’m not proud of it, but call centers are among the most reliable sources of income in this area, and I’m hardly the only person with embarrassing moments in his past. > [@wring](#): > > of course, it also coincides nicely with the position taken by the fucking host site. If it offends you so profoundly to think of it as Dex’s personal position, perhaps you could instead reflect on that fact? The Reader’s position is that it’s theft, huh? Interesting. What’s their position on recreational drugs? Human cloning? Late term abortion? Just wondering what other preachy gems I can expect to see in thread closure messages. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/44 "2005-08-01T14:19:22Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001The Reader’s position is that it’s theft, huh? Interesting. What’s their position on recreational drugs? Human cloning? Late term abortion? Just wondering what other preachy gems I can expect to see in thread closure messages.[/QUOTE] They’ve not voiced an opinon on any of those other subjects asshole. (except of course that “threads about how to commit a crime are not allowed”). they **have** however, voiced an opinion on the issue of copyrights. as a matter of fact, there are two entire paragraphs about the issue of copyrights in the user agreement: > [@](#): > > You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by the operator of the SDMB, except as permitted by the “fair use” provisions of the U.S. copyright laws (in general this means brief excerpts only). You agree to abide by the wishes of the board moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules. Refusal to cooperate with board moderators or to abide by these rules is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. and (to a lesser extent) > [@](#): > > All postings and other material on the SDMB are copyrighted by the Reader. Republication of material appearing on the SDMB without express written permission of the Reader is prohibited, except that users retain the right to republish their own work. By posting on this board you grant the Reader and its successors and assigns a nonexclusive irrevocable right to reuse your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation to you You’ll note that the user agreement doesn’t really discuss other laws specifically, or issues (other than the aforementioned stuff about not posting about how to commit a crime), so I’d take it to mean that the SDMB **specifically** takes copyright laws pretty fucking seriously. now, do you have anything that remotely suggests that the Reader **doesn’t** take the position that **Dex** verbalized? (which is, of course, the point I made and you attempted to address w/that red herring) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/45 "2005-08-01T14:31:11Z")
> [@wring](#): > > as a matter of fact, there are two entire paragraphs about the issue of copyrights in the user agreement: Both of which are straightforward policies, not political or moral stances. > [@](#): > > You’ll note that the user agreement doesn’t really discuss other laws specifically, or issues (other than the aforementioned stuff about not posting about how to commit a crime), so I’d take it to mean that the SDMB **specifically** takes copyright laws pretty fucking seriously. Agreed. Now, what exactly does that have to do with your claim that “copyright infringement = stealing” is an official policy of the Reader? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/46 "2005-08-01T14:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > **CK Dexter Haven** said: > (I hate to come in here, but I do have a fascination with throwing kerosene on flames…) I’ll take ‘Things mods can say but regular members can’t’ for $1000 please, Alex. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/47 "2005-08-01T14:47:17Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > **Muffin** , thank you for those quotes. While I’m obviously not a lawyer, I can honestly say that I’ve been studying the effect and ethics of copyright for many years, I’ve read and participated in many copyright debates here and elsewhere, and this is the first time I’ve seen any legal references to copyright infringement as “theft” other than in the title of the NET Act. I will take them into consideration. Your “studying” has been grossly deficient. You should not put forth arguments when you do not understand the fundamentals, for all you are doing is spreading ignorance. There is a wealth of information to be found under “intellectual property” in law libraries and on reputable internet sites, so rather than continue to fly your shorts in the wind, start doing your homework. I have had to point out some very basic cases to you concerning theft of intellectual property, and concerning the fundamentals of coypright law with respect to tangibility. These are cases with which you should have already been familiar, and in any event, you should have found yourself before making rediculous assertions that run contrary to them. You failed to do your homework. wring has had to point out the SDMB user agrement which you have no excuse for not having read. You again failed to do your homework. When you blather about making profoundly erroneous statements without first having taken the time and effort to do some very basic homework, and then demand cites from others without bothering to produce cites for your own statements, you are behaving as a fool. I do not suffer fools. > [@Mr2001](#): > > Feel free, though, to cram those judgments about my employment history up your ass. I’m not proud of it, but call centers are among the most reliable sources of income in this area, and I’m hardly the only person with embarrassing moments in his past. Embarrassing moments in both your past employment and present posts. Be a good thing, and try not to drivel on into the future about that which you know nought. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/48 "2005-08-01T15:01:11Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Both of which are straightforward policies, not political or moral stances. > Agreed. Now, what exactly does that have to do with your claim that “copyright infringement = stealing” is an official policy of the Reader? **Muffin** has supplied you with cites indicating that according to written opinions on copyright laws, copyright infringment = stealing. Therefore, such a comment is founded securely in the laws, although it can **also** be seen as both a moral and political stance. you may disagree w/the law, wish that it didn’t say what it says, etc, but to continue to claim that it is ‘only’ a personal political or moral stance that would hold copyright infringement = stealing, does not seem to be supportable. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/49 "2005-08-01T15:06:38Z")
I posted the leading USSC copyright cases that confirm that copyright infringement is theft of intellectual property. Wring posted the section of the SDMB user agreement that specifically prohibits copyright infringement. But now Mr2001 wishes to quibble some more: > [@Mr2001](#): > > Now, what exactly does that have to do with your claim that “copyright infringement = stealing” is an official policy of the Reader? This reminds me of a delightful ongoing skit by SCTV that spoofed Jeopardy. The contestants were so profoundly stupid that the host could not elucidate correct answers from them even when he gave them the correct answers. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/50 "2005-08-01T15:10:29Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > This reminds me of a delightful ongoing skit by SCTV that spoofed Jeopardy. The contestants were so profoundly stupid that the host could not elucidate correct answers from them even when he gave them the correct answers. Sure that wasn’t SNL? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/51 "2005-08-01T15:23:40Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Feel free, though, to cram those judgments about my employment history up your ass. I’m not proud of it, but call centers are among the most reliable sources of income in this area, and I’m hardly the only person with embarrassing moments in his past. One should not be embarrassed for taking on legal employment. People who take on menial boring employment to support themselves and avoid depending on others should be lauded, not ridiculed. I should also add that any ad hominem argument based on a person’s occupation in society, particularly by a person in an occupation of high esteem is classist and disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/52 "2005-08-01T15:34:53Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Sure that wasn’t SNL? The skit was performed by both – SCTV pre-dated SNL, and many of the SCTV troupe moved on to SNL. I’m a Kanukistani who watched a lot of SCTV and patronized the Old Firehall regularly, so the SCTV skits are what I recall most clearly. [http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/entertainment/sctv.php](http://www.millionaireplayboy.com/entertainment/sctv.php) > [@Millionaire Playboy reviewer tuxxer re. SCTV](#): > > Other sketches, though, are timeless. Take for instance, High-Q, where a frustrated Alex Trebek is forced to suffer through the question-and-answer game with a half dozen moronic contestants. Sound familiar? This was two decades before Celebrity Jeopardy hit the SNL stage. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/53 "2005-08-01T15:48:37Z")
Are telemarkets scum, or are telemarketers downtrodden? This isn’t the thread for such a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/54 "2005-08-01T15:50:30Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Don’t you think it’s rude to start an argument when no one who opposes your view will be able to respond? Oh, so this is just about your perceived right to get the last word. Take two years of emotional maturing and call me in the morning. ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/55 "2005-08-01T20:19:00Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > 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. They are only controversial in the sense that something that has been clearly proven time and time again is ignored by a bunch of whiney asshole Napsterheads who feel that theft is OK if you call it some other name. That’s like claiming that Santa Claus’ existence or lack thereof is controversial because some kids don’t know yet, or that 2 + 2 being 4 is controversial because some lumpheads get the bright idea of denying it just to deny it. There’s no real controversy here just some delusional idiots who won’t shut up about their extreme ignorance of reality. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/56 "2005-08-01T22:17:18Z")
I think the whole “is copyright infringement theft?” thing is better suited for GD (since it is, in a sense, only a side issue in this thread). However, I will say I’m of two minds about it. I definitely don’t think it’s as harmless as many of the Slashdot folks say, but I think they have a point when they point out that copyright infringement doesn’t deprive anyone of any actual property or potential to make a profit. Sure, one could argue that someone who pirates is “stealing a sale” from the maker, but isn’t that condemning someone based on a decision that has not yet been made (if that makes sense)? After all, many of those who DL from P2P claim they have made purchases they wouldn’t have otherwise due to the downloading. And this doesn’t even cover many of the fair use stifling that’s resulted from media’s efforts to stop pirating (though one could argue that those are the pirates’ fault). ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/57 "2005-08-01T22:39:05Z")
This almost, but not quite, as good as [Can Manhatten Swear When Closing a Thread in GQ?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=156526) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/58 "2005-08-01T23:49:55Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Muffin has supplied you with cites indicating that according to written opinions on copyright laws, copyright infringment = stealing. Therefore, such a comment is founded securely in the laws, although it can also be seen as both a moral and political stance. In other words, those excerpts from the user agreement were irrelevant and I should pay attention to **Muffin** instead? Gotcha. > [@Muffin](#): > > wring has had to point out the SDMB user agrement which you have no excuse for not having read. You again failed to do your homework. Oh, bullshit. I’m familiar with those parts of the agreement, and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The first part essentially says that we agree not to violate copyrights in our posts, and the second says everything we post belongs to the Reader. Those are pretty standard terms for signing up with a message board. Note that neither part addresses morality. It’s no surprise that the user agreement pays special attention to the issue of copyrights - the whole point of a message board is to read other posters’ written material and submit your own, and that could lead to a lot of legal disputes if it weren’t clear up front who holds the copyright to the posts and who’s allowed to reproduce them. Now, about those cites of yours. I’ve found the full text of _Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc._ (in which it seems no one was found to have broken the law at all), and the word “theft” only appears that one time. In the other example you gave, it also only appears once, in an excerpt from another case, _Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc._, in which it yet again only appears once. None of those instances are in any of the conclusions of the cases, they’re simply part of a long chain of reasoning, and AFAICT the word is being used in its informal sense of “getting something for free without authorization”. As a lawyer, perhaps you can explain to me how you get from that to claiming that a court has actually found a copyright infringer liable for theft. > [@grienspace](#): > > I should also add that any ad hominem argument based on a person’s occupation in society, particularly by a person in an occupation of high esteem is classist and disgusting. Thank you. > [@Dan Norder](#): > > They are only controversial in the sense that something that has been clearly proven time and time again is ignored by a bunch of whiney asshole Napsterheads who feel that theft is OK if you call it some other name. > […] > There’s no real controversy here just some delusional idiots who won’t shut up about their extreme ignorance of reality. Even if you want to dismiss one side as “delusional idiots” without taking the time to understand their position, the fact that use of those terms has sparked controversy in the past is undeniable. Whether those people really are delusional idiots is beside the point, and I suggest you take such discussion to another thread. **Leaper** , while I commend your level-headedness, that goes for you too. If there’s any chance of a reasonable discussion about copyright, it’ll be in GD, not here. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Oh, so this is just about your perceived right to get the last word. Nonsense. It’s about open and honest debate on a message board known for such things. I don’t have a right to respond, just like Bill O’Reilly’s guests don’t have a right to respond on his show. It’s the Reader’s board, and their appointed moderators can start and stop discussions however they like. That said, though, it’s still rude to make a jab when no one will be able to respond to it, even if it isn’t violating anyone’s rights. > [@JeffB](#): > > This almost, but not quite, as good as Can Manhatten Swear When Closing a Thread in GQ? Thank you for putting it in perspective. I certainly don’t think this is an important enough issue to warrant all the hostility. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/59 "2005-08-02T00:14:56Z")
“Copying and downloading Star Wars video games and movies is not okay—it’s breaking the law because it is stealing someone else’s property.” - Jon Dudas, Under Secratary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, 24 May 2005 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045/60 "2005-08-02T00:30:11Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Nonsense. It’s about open and honest debate on a message board known for such things. Well, your proposed debate is a self-indulgent piece of crap and we will openly and honestly tell you so. Let freedom ring. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a right to respond, just like Bill O’Reilly’s guests don’t have a right to respond on his show. It’s the Reader’s board, and their appointed moderators can start and stop discussions however they like. That said, though, it’s still rude to make a jab when no one will be able to respond to it, even if it isn’t violating anyone’s rights. Well…[ul][li]You don’t have the right, and you never did, to overrule a moderator decision to close a thread.[/li][li]That said, you _do_ have a venue for complaint, namely the Pit, but even then a moderator could close or delete the thread and you have no right to stop them.[/li][li]You have no right to be protected against moderator rudeness.[/li][li]You have no right to be protected against member rudeness when you dare complain about moderator rudeness in the Pit and receive scorn and ridicule and accusations of being a whiny bitch for your trouble.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > I certainly don’t think this is an important enough issue to warrant all the hostility. You’re just the latest yarn-ball, fella. The current crotch-kick practice dummy, the dartboard du jour, the winner of this week’s dogpile raffle. Enjoy it while it lasts because as soon as this thread dies, so does interest in you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dex-you-are-not-bill-oreilly/315045.md?page=4)