In this thread, I asked a couple questions about the RIAA’s algorithm of corrupting MP3 files that people are using on the various filesharing networks. I didn’t ask how to defeat them (because, from what I understand, you can’t – they generally corrupt the entire file). Instead, I asked about reasons people seed them. I also asked about the ways that the RIAA propagates these types of files.
Then, 10 minutes later, I determined that the issue had already been discussed in depth on the board, and decided that my question had been answered, so I suggested the thread be closed.
DrMatrix closed it, but not before deciding to patronize me with
Excuse me, but what the fuck? Where the hell in my post did I mention ANYTHING and wanting to discuss ways to defeat anti-piracy tactics? Oh, right, nowhere.
Jumping the gun and making the assumption that just because I asked about the way these files are propagating themselves means that I want to know how to defeat them is akin to jailing any Arab who enrolls in flight school. The policy of “covering our asses” is, to me, becoming an overextension of theory and turning into an absurd practice. A cordial “because this thread has been discussed before, it is closed” or “at the OP’s request, this thread has been closed” would have been much more appropriate than assuming that I’m out to defeat anti-piracy.
Jesus Christ, what next? I suppose you would file a police report on anyone inquiring about purchasing a gun, if you could? :rolleyes:
Try to keep in mind that the FIRST responsibility (IMHO, but I’d imagine they agree) of the moderators is to protect the boards from criminal or civil liability. Given that the authors of tracts on bomb-making and so forth have been successfully sued, ensuring that the SDMB cannot be accused of disseminating information which might be used to break the law takes priority over your question.
In any case, if you really want to know, call the RIAA. They’re surprisingly forthcoming about this kind of stuff.
Yeah, I gotta agree this was a bit of a kneejerk reaction on Doc’s part. I think a warning for posters to keep to the question and not discuss ways to defeat antipiracy techniques on P2P networks would have sufficed.
I’d even have sympathy for you, if you hadn’t asked for the thread to be locked right beforehand. :rolleyes:
I agree that the first responsibility is to protect the board and its members. However, I think DrMatrix was out of line by assuming that I wanted anti-piracy information. I didn’t ask for anything illegal, so being treated like I did is patronizing, at the least.
Eh, only because I’d seen that what I was asking had been discussed before. I even linked to two of the threads. I didn’t ask that it be closed because I decided that I’d done something wrong, or even because I anticipated that someone was going to post methods of defeating anti-piracy methods – but rather because I didn’t want a barrage of replies along the lines of “this has been discussed ad nauseum”.
I’m not arguing about the actual closing, just the finger-wagging way in which it was done.
Seems to me to be nothing but CYA. Did he accuse you specifically of anything? No. While it’s not a completely unreasonable assumption to say that he was indirectly chiding you, he did not specifically accuse you of anything. My guess is that he was closing a potential floodgate before anything further was disseminated that could enable another party to defeat anti-piracy tactics. Were the SDMB implicated in such a suit, we’d find ourselves without a board. The legal costs would simply be too high.
I agree that this is not the place to discuss anti-piracy defeating tactics. I maintain my opinion that DrMatrix’s knee-jerk reaction was unnecessarily over-the-top.
This tribunal agrees, and we hereby sentence defendant DrMatrix to report for moderator duty at a message board of his choice. In the case of CompuHyperGlobalMegaNet taking things too personally and has a user name even freakin’ longer than mine, he/she/it is hereby ordered to ingest a chill pill.
Then, going from the possibility of a discussion regarding MP3s turning into ‘how to override RIAA’s anti-sharing methods’ and having the message board sued, why aren’t all discussions about MP3s banned? After all, they could easily devolve into discussions regarding where to get them or how to make them avaliable. The same could happen to any discussion that deals with matters that are illegal or could be illegal, the SDMB might be liable.
Granted, they were discussing the RIAA’s anti-sharing methods, which is more likely to devolve into defeating anti-piracy methods, but my point remains.
I see from the thread was closed exactly 1 minute after your post requesting the mods to close it.
My WAG: The good Doc was in the process of closing it, even as you posted your request. His comment was the standard disclaimer, which I assume you normally wouldn’t have had a problem with.
Perhaps that’s true, but even so, my OP didn’t ask for anything illegal. If DrMatrix was closing it as I posted the request to close it, then he most likely didn’t see my request, and thus closed it because he thought I was asking for something illegal.
If he didn’t see my request to close it, and judging from the content IN my OP, I would see something like a blanket warning to anyone who replies to be more fitting.
This is actually a slippery slope. Somewhat akin to “you can only patent the non-obvious”. Well, what’s not obvious depends on who’s judging. It’s possible for a savvy user who’s missing a bit of seemingly harmless concrete information to enact his/her malice aftering obtaining that info. And for some, you could post everything but the explicit instructions before the info helps further criminal activity. Like the “don’t be a jerk” rule, this is a pretty subjective area. Hopefully, once the subscriptions thingy gets going, we’ll have more concrete guidelines in place.
If you’d be so helpful as to point me in the direction of that statement. The only thing I can find is where they ban discussion of circumventing such methods.