Can i just say, to all those who are ridiculing people who are criticizing this rule, that you need to lighten up a little.
As i said in my first post on this thread, i’d never even come across this issue on SDMB before, so i decided to give my opinion. I also said, in a later post, that the rule didn’t really worry me that much, and nor did it affect me, because:
a) i haven’t participated in threads on the issue
and
b) i already know how to use my own CD burner.
And i also conceded that my opinion was unlikely to change the SDMB rules.
But the reason i stayed to argue my case is the same reason i stay to argue my case on so many other SDMB threads - because debate is fun. I don’t care if you don’t agree with me, or if my opinions aren’t going to change anything. I still want to argue.
I just had a look at some of the GD threads currently under way. It would be possible, in just about every one of those, to go into the thread and say “Well, your opinion isn’t going to change anything, so why not shut up about it already?” But how much fun would that be? Jeeeeeeeeeez.
See, the Straight Dope used to be kind of cool and countercultural, showing up in magazines like the Austin Chronicle. But now, puckery-assed hysterics over even mentioning the word “mp3”, and perpetually reciting the mantra the-rules-are-the-rules-and-if-you-don’t-like-them-get-out-of-our-house makes the Straight Dope look like it’s transmogrified into Niedermeyer from Animal House.
The issue is not should this or that discussion be allowed because it could be construed as illegal. It is a matter of moderating the board in a timely manner. It is easier to paint in broad strokes. There might not be much detail but the work gets done quicker.
I have issues with an editing of one of my posts. But I realize the SDMB isn’t going to spend time editing for fairness. They’re going to edit for speed.
Sigh. Would you please read me the statute’s fourth factor in light of the changing technology, and get back to me? It’s the main reason the RIAA still has an argument. It’s why they can claim, colorably, that the existing Supreme Court precedent simply doesn’t apply - because no set of facts that the Court has considered has posed anywhere near the financial threat.
** Taint “whims” when they’ve got a colorable claim and virtually limitless cash to fight it with. Yes, in some sort of alternate universe that isn’t a “right” way to behave, but in ours, them’s the breaks. Suck it up, or find another planet.
**
Look, you’ve been around here long enough not only to realize that the Mods can get snippy from time to time, but to recognize that they’re completely entitled to when they’re having to use very small words to explain their policies for the gazillionth time! It’s not like it’s a big secret. And Manny, bless his sootblackened, shrunken heart (still three times the size of mine), was pretty damn nice in his response to this thread.