Nonetheless orders from above are orders from above. I don’t perceive these curbs to be particularly burdensome. Personally I don’t think this is worth appealing to the our corporate overlords, even if the old rules don’t reflect new concerns about net neutrality.
News articles receive attention from editors. I suspect a post with similar content, with similarly filtered phrasing, wouldn’t bother the moderators too much. The problem is they’re setting rules for a message board, not guidelines for a news writer. To be direct, the article studiously avoided even indirect references to using VPN for file sharing - in a message board discussion oblique allusions to such activities are pretty much inevitable.
What was being discussed was E_C_G’s claim that a specific VPN provider was “aimed towards file sharing.” Ramira’s post shows some evidence that that’s not true, along with other evidence given in this thread.
What mention of lawyers were there? What orders from above? If there were orders from above and out of the mods hands, I doubt as many would bother debating. Were orders from above mentioned and I missed it?
Even aside from likelihood to be sued, the Dope’s parent company runs newspapers, and newspapers depend for their existence on copyright laws, and so it’s in their interest to support copyright laws. So, yes, we take a stronger stance on copyright here than we do on some other issues.
Except these aren’t orders from above. TPTB laid down a rule of no p2p discussion, but it’s the mods themselves have decided that that includes VPN’s as well.
As engineer_comp_geek has already said, it was discussed amongst the mods and implemented. Nothing to do with any lawyers.
I must admit I didn’t even notice that post when I read the thread before. I fully agree and support the moderation of that post, including removing the links. I find it hard to believe that was your main issue in that thread however, considering you didn’t mention it until your third post, and even then only briefly.
Your first post was to tell us (incorrectly) that the main use for VPN’s was illegal filesharing, and claim (again incorrectly) that breaking your Netflix user agreement was illegal, then your second was to claim it was against the rules to mention providers that allowed different destination IP’s or that didn’t keep logs.
If you’d stuck to just moderating that one post I doubt anyone would have had problem.
The issue is that engineer_comp_geek, for some reason, doesn’t like VPN’s and he’s therefore grasping at anything he can to tie them to p2p and stop discussion of them. He’s admitted that other mods would be happy for them to be discussed and he’s admitted that it was a decision made by the mod team when he raised the issue, nothing to do with the lawyers.
On preview:
VPN’s are no more of a copyright issue than which ISP you use. Both can be used for filesharing, but neither have it as their primary purpose.
Alos, as people have repeated shown in this thread, newspaper & media companies have no problems with VPN’s. All three of the ones mentioned in the previous thread have been featured, or even reccomended, on/in mainstream newspapers & tech blogs.
I’ve just done a quick bit of googling and found the following articles from US news sites reccomending the same services mentioned in the previous thread.
CBS News
CNN
New York Times
Huffington Post
I’m sure if I looked further (and was more familiar with US news/media organisations) I could find more examples. There is no evidence that VPN’s are concern to media organisations.
The CNBC, owned by **Universal Studios, **apparently they are some kind of industrial machines company, yes? Not worried or concerned about the copyright or the other issues waived like the cape of the torero to distract
The CBS, it is some kind of textiles company it seems. It could not be concerned with the videos and copy right.
The New York times, it works in the paper processing it appears, not a serious news entity like the owner of this message board.
These silly entities, the CBS, the New York times, they all evidentally have not the serious study and the serious interest in the copy right unlike this place owner…
Of course the Universal or the CBS or the CNN, they could not be thought to be any standard of what the actual media companies have in policy in taling about the VPN, with the actual economic interests in the actual films and not the illegal or not sharing of them…
To be honest, what is the irritation here is the sheer mountain of the illogic and incoherence.
why out some kind of superstitious pious fear the perfectly legal and useful conversation should be driven away from this board, it is completely illogical.
Just realised I never commented on the proposed rule itself.
Most of it I have no problem with, however I still object to the bolded section. There still hasn’t been any good reason given for banning discussion of service providers.
I’m also concerned about the italicised bit, does that include mentioning services that, in your opinion (and no-one else’s apparently) “advertise p2p”, i.e. that allow p2p, legal or otherwise? If it’s is just referring to actual discussion of p2p over VPN then I have no objection.
The italicized part only refers to actual discussion of file sharing (including P2P) over VPN. That section has nothing to do with the naming of VPN service providers.
The bolded part (which you object to) is the only part that deals with the naming of VPN service providers.
I’ve used P2P for completely legal purposes, and I don’t think it’s uncommon to do so. Most everyone has shared files in completely legal ways. Every time you view a web page some server somewhere is sharing a file with you. We hired a photographer to take photos of a wedding, and hey, now she has shared the files we paid for with us, and we are sharing them with other family members. Yes, she sold us the copyright on those photos as part of the deal.
Is there current guidance from the site owner that they are worried about any discussion of file sharing? If not, I seriously think it is time to reconsider that rule.
As for VPN, doesn’t every major employer use it to allow employees to safely access files away from the office? Isn’t it something that we are admonished to use if we want to partake of free wifi at places like starbucks, so the guy sitting over there doesn’t steal our stuff? Yes, of course it’s still used for stealing files. And pizza shops are still used for laundering money, too. But that doesn’t make either VPN or pizza shops inherently bad things.
“Peer-to-peer” technically refers to a type of networking or computing architecture and is a topic vastly more general than “file sharing”. For example, Skype used to use such an architecture.
Back to public VPNs, any such which specifically mentions P2P applications, or Bittorrent, or IRC or anything specific as services you are (or are not) allowed to use on their network is simply waving a giant flag for you to stay the hell away from them, as it is tantamount to an advertisement that they read all your data.
Maybe it would make more sense to moderate based on content/use and not on tools. For instance, if someone asks how to get all the Beatles music without paying for it, or how to shoot their neighbor, you’d want to moderate them. But if they just ask about setting up a VPN or buying a gun, I don’t see why moderation should be needed.
So to clarify, if someone has a question about setting up a VPC on Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, because it mentions a “VPN Provider” it is not allowed?
How about just general questions on safe practices with cloud providers?
How about someone asking about how to safely set up remote file sharing or access from their phone to their home NAS?
While I have the greatest respect for you guys running a large vBulletin board, budget and needs haven’t really allowed you to support best practices in the past. Heck until the industry basically forced it plain text passwords were being pushed across the wire until https support arrived recently.
I am not being overly critical but if you use public wifi and don’t use a VPN of some sort you are putting yourself at great risk.
While there are a ton of iffy vpn providers and companies I have avoided helping people with this subject at all, which would allow fight the ignorance surrounding basic best practices because of this rule in the past.
But the reality is that any script kiddie in a coffee shop could have stolen the credentials of any straight dope user for years. While still not solved by a private Remote-Access VPN at least it wouldn’t depend on a coffee shop having good security or heck even patched their access points ever.
Yes or why not allow any VPN that is recommended by a major media company source, like that owned by the Universal to be mentioned by name…
It is truly non sensical for there to be the pretension that a small and declining message board has more interest and more insight to the sensitivity to video based media (the very media own of it owner has zero economic interest in) than the medias owned by the very media creating companies that have the huge economic interest in such things…