Am I the only one who wonders why you can’t just wait? So the unpaid, volunteer mods took a long time to get back to you. My heart bleeds for you. Is it going to kill you to wait two weeks (or whatever) to post your thread?
Good gods.
How is it that anyone’s civil liberties trump the rights of artists and performers in protecting their works from pirates?
This thread has already spawned a GQ thread and seems destined to also spawn ones in the Pit and GD. And maybe one in CS to discuss artists’ rights. Would that be a record?
Perhaps we can topic ban some people for** internet bullying. **Or just ban them for their illegal activities.
Que?
Moderator Note
This is starting to veer off-topic. Let’s stick to VPNs and IP hiding and how it relates to SDMB rules, please.
If anyone wants to start another thread on topic banning or bullying on the SDMB, feel free.
Actually, while i respect the right of content creators to protect their works from piracy, i’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, in general terms, fundamental civil liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom from excessive government intrusion and violence are a bit more important than copyright enforcement. If i had to choose between the two, i’d take freedom of expression over the shutting down of torrent sites and proxy servers every day.
After all, without the fundamental protections of their civil liberties, many artists and performers might be prevented from creating their works in the first place. It’s less than 100 years ago that the WWI Sedition Act prohibited criticism of the government, the military, or the war effort. The period immediately after the war saw the confiscation of many types of “subversive” literature in the first Red Scare. California law made it a crime to display a red flag, and a woman named Anita Whitney was convicted under that law, only to have the conviction overturned by the Supreme Court as “repugnant to the guaranty of liberty.” The US Customs Service banned James Joyce’s novel Ulysses until the ban was overturned by a federal court in the early 1930s.
The US Constitution recognizes the need to protect intellectual property in order to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (Article I, Section 8). I’m on board with that. But i’ll take the Bill of Rights over that one clause any day, if forced to make a choice.
Did Charlie mention that he wanted to talk about those topics that the SDMB doesn’t want talked about?
Charlie wanted my opinion as to whether this was a reputable company or not. He also wanted to know if he could discuss the company in the GQ VPN thread. After taking a close look at it, I told him that I personally wouldn’t trust it, and that he was not to discuss the company on the SDMB (which is mentioned in the GQ thread).
If I’m not pirating anybody’s work, how is my desire to secure my communications harming the rights of artists and performers to protect their works? You’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Just yesterday, I happened to read the CRV transcript of the moments before the 1977 Tenerife aircraft disaster (the worst one evah), and this is a perfect description of (part of) what happened.
Just thought you would find that interesting. Carry on.
I meant “CVR” (cockpit voice recorder).
I’m not getting the connection.
One of the flight captains believed he had clearance for take-off when he actually didn’t, causing the collision with the other aircraft on the ground.
O.K.
Right, thanks.
And, that pilot was too impatient to wait for clarification.
The difference being that posting a thread on this message board is unlikely to cause 500+ fatalities.
But you never know.
I find it ironic how much discussion - and ignorance fighing - this thread has spawned about VPNs, proxies and IP spoofing - yet Charlies thread, that broke no rules except maybe he was impatient (yet the thread OP wasn’t his PM content).
So, in an effort to keep people from discussing this very topic - you insured people would discuss this topic - and as far as I know, no one has promoted any illegal activity, except maybe ECG since he definitely acknowledged that there was atleast one shady provider out there.
Maybe next time, the mods will decline from slapping a posters hand when his actual thread is vastly different than his ‘thought about’ thread.
Charlie’s thread broke the rule that we don’t allow discussions of IP hiding. I even linked to a post proving that we have had this rule for a long time and have moderated it as such.
Do you still not understand what rule it is that Charlie’s post broke and why we did not give permission for him to post it?
Our unintentional delay in responding is a separate issue and as I said already, we’ll try to do better. That doesn’t change the fact that the post in question is on a topic that is not permitted here.
Permit me to note that AFAIK the substantive issues of Charlie Wayne’s thread were thoroughly explored in in the newer GQ thread. Excepting the verboten discussion of illegal behavior of course. It was a pretty good thread which cleared some things up for me. I even tightened up some of my cyber-security.