Uh huh. And if a talk show host cuts your mic off before you have a chance to respond to him, you can print your response on flyers and hand it out on the street corner. Point is, you can’t respond in the same forum, and someone who only reads that forum will only see one side of the argument.
In this case, the argument didn’t belong there in the first place. The closed thread is in Cafe Society.
This thread is discussing a moderating action. Furthermore it’s not worth starting a pit thread to answer a jab every time either. It’s never happened to me that I can recall. When it happens I’ll consider it but probably wouldn’t bother coming to the pit. It’d nag me for sure though. I never said I was oppressed. If you want to paraphrase me you have to come up with something remotely resembling what I said. Making a statement about values and “cutting the mic” is a good way to put it. That’s bad form. Unprofessional if you will. I’m not trying to counter anything. Merely giving some support to the opinion expressed by the OP.
You seem like you need to take a few deep breaths.
What Mr2001 said too. Any person reading the thread won’t see the answer.
To be fair you were not paraphrasing me so allow me to retract that statement.
You and Pedro seem to be taking it upon yourselves to save the rest of us from the evil that is CKDH. Don’t give me this shit about not knowing about the Pit and that it’s a forum for mod complaints. If a Doper is unaware of the Pit, or doesn’t frequent it from time to time, I hardly see how the mod is doing harm overall by closing a thread. If someone is so insular as to not be aware of other forums where shit like this is taken, what’s the problem.
I mean, if someone is ignorant of the forums on the very site that puports to fight ignorance, where does the fight stand? Of course, it seems that since it’s me saying it, it’s wrong. Be damned the idea that maybe I, too, can grow and change.
I think you’re being disingenuous. I never felt the fight against ignorance, besides lending itself to a clever motto, was concerned with forum descriptions. It’s unlikely that anyone would run a search on the off chance that the OP of the closed thread will feel sufficiently wronged to start a new complaint thread.
Anyway that is not my main gripe. I don’t believe the mods are evil doers or engaging in a conspiracy. I do believe that a justification citing the rules for closing a thread without passing judgment would be much more appropriate where any defense is not possible.
Mr2001, as far as your assertion that the NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (NET) ACT does not equate copyright infringement with theft, you might wish to think about why the act has that name.
More to the point, though, concerning Dex admonishing about theft, you should note that “theft” is not just a criminal offence. “Theft” is a general term used in both criminal and civil matters. In civil matters, it is defined as the wrongful taking of another’s property. In the context of copyright infringement, the person wrongfully taking the intellectual property is civilly liable for theft, even though the person may not necessarily be liable for the criminal offence of theft. When one refers to theft of intellectual property, the reference may be to criminal liability, civil liability, or both.
Dex was correct in his use of the term “theft”, and those that quibble would be better to spend their efforts learning about the law rather than mindlessly nitpicking about that which they are clueless.
In short, Mr2001, you really should go re-set your imbecile button rather than continue to embarrass yourself.
Clearly Dex used an accusatory tone. Even if he is right and the copy was obtained illegally (a likely supposition from what I understood) the point stands. We don’t know, this is not a court of law and the discussion itself was not about anything illegal. A right to dispute or explain such a charge in equal footing is only fair.
The only pertinent reason to close the thread appears to be that it discussed illegal means of obtaining copyrighted content. I agree with that reason.
The closing of the thread was not a punishment that Dex saw fit to give for a perceived crime, as I see it. Any consequences thereof are extraneous to the moderation.
But to reiterate, I consider it bad form and not more than that.
Dude! We talked about this. Don’t say “abortion;” say “gestation infringement.” It’s all about the ethical gray area, after all.
Are you all right? Maybe you should go back and read the OP again. Whatever you’re talking about, it’s not what I wrote. I have no quarrel with Dex other than this particular post of his, and in fact I have no idea whether he’s the “most pitted mod” or why.
Of course I can come here to bitch about a moderator’s actions, but I shouldn’t have to. A mod who closes a thread should not use his final post to get in a political jab, especially in a thread that wasn’t even a debate in the first place in a forum that’s not meant for debates.
To put it another way, the fact that I can stand on the street corner and complain about a talk show host silencing his guests doesn’t mean he isn’t a jerk for silencing them in the first place.
As you are now surely aware, after reading the OP again with your eyes open, I am not objecting to the fact that the thread was closed. I’m objecting to the fact that Dex chose to get in a gratuitous political snipe in his closing message. You’ll note that I am not arguing with Dex’s political opinion, merely saying that it did not belong in the post he made immediately before closing the thread.
For the same reason the PATRIOT Act has that name: to give the bill a meaningless emotional boost, so someone who votes against it can be painted as favoring “theft” or opposing “patriotism”. The title of the bill is just for show; it doesn’t change the classification of the offenses it covers.
Oh? Let’s see a cite. When has anyone ever been found liable for “theft” simply for infringing copyright?
Perhaps you should do the same before you make any more foolish comparisons between laws applying to physical property and laws applying to intangible works.
I wonder how many people actually know what the acronym PATRIOT stands for in “The PATRIOT Act.” It seems to me that the acronym phenomenon has gotten a little out of hand in many areas. I mean, I can see the sense in “MADD,” (“Mothers Against Drunk Driving”) but shouldn’t fathers, heck, everyone, be “mad” about drunk driving? But then they’d have to call it “PADD,” (“People Against Drunk Driving”). And I guess that just wouldn’t do.
Oh, and BTW, IMHO, IAMNAL, and YMMV, AFAIK.
I’m saying the fact that you have a problem with it is a sign of your stupidity. Whether or not you want to spin the word “theft” to mean “political” is your own problem. The SDMB is overseen by a for-profit corporation that doesn’t want legal hassles with copyrights and whatnot. Deal with it. Grow the fuck up.
Look, whether or not you want to recognize it, this is an issue where labels can be divisive, just like calling abortion murder, or calling an invasion liberation, or calling critics traitors (though not to the same extent, of course). As evidence, see what has happened when those terms were mentioned in the many threads in GD, or on other forums like Slashdot, that discussed the ethical issues surrounding copyright.
Referring to downloading as theft is an argument in itself. Don’t you think it’s rude to start an argument when no one who opposes your view will be able to respond?
It sure is. So what? That doesn’t give its moderators license to be jerks when they enforce the (perfectly sensible) policies. The SDMB doesn’t want legal hassles with illicit drug use either, but we don’t see moderators preaching about the evils of recreational drugs as they close those threads.
By “those terms” I mean theft/stealing, not the other examples I listed for other issues.
(I hate to come in here, but I do have a fascination with throwing kerosene on flames…)
In terms of abortion, I would like to point out that there are people who think that killing doctors (and others) at abortion clinics isn’t really murder.
I was not using the term “theft” as a legal term, but as a moral and ethical one. The thread was closed because it was a discussion of illegal activities. My “political” pronouncements were to remind people that artists/creators are entitled to make a profit from their work, and that illegal downloading is depriving them of that profit and is therefore morally the same as stealing.
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?
Well, that’s a funny phrase coming from a telemarketer.
It may not be theft, but it ain’t pure simon honesty, either, Mister. Now, I’ve done the ‘try it, like it, buy it’, but it’s always been a grey area.
The position of the board is that they’re stronger than your average bear on this issue, for various reasons.
We all know this. So lay off it.
I understand the protecting the owners from potential lawsuits. But with reviews for a upcoming show/movie available online already,. wouldn’t the proper action be warning those posters who advocated P2P? Rather then lock down the thread where people who have seen the reviews can discuss the upcoming show thus increasing the “buzz” about the film and in turn helping the artists/creators when the DVD is released?
That was about five years ago, but congratulations for remembering one of my old jobs. I’ll even give you a gold star if you can remember another one.
I won’t argue with that. There’s a time and place to debate the ethics of file sharing, which is exactly what led me to start this thread - to point out one example of a moderator choosing the wrong time and place to do it.
Yup. And I have no problem with that rule being enforced swiftly, consistently, and civilly.
Now you want me to do your homework for you? Start with the following:
You really should get a grasp of what copyright law is about. Here are the fundamentals with regard to tangibility.
Mr2001, your lack of comprehension is monumental. I sincerely hope that you are not involved in the legal profession.