On the discussion of illegalities...

The BBQ Pit
1

…with a recent example cited.

This isn’t a thread to Pit Frank. I think he was properly enforcing the rules as they stand and I’m sure the GQ mods will sanctify his closure there. I just want to re-open the concept of discussing illegal acts here on the Dope.

**->**My basic idea is that since we are a very above-board forum, with subscriptions required (i.e IRL connections) and a number of military and police force members participating, any discussion of illegal activity could be considered to be informing potential victims and policing efforts, as opposed to encouraging criminal activities. I would exclude software pirating from this description.
Umm, discuss.

2

I think it’s more of a liability issue. If anybody decides to do something stupid they read about here, that opens up the Reader to being sued. Stupid, yes. But it happens. The Reader finds it easier and cheaper to just shut down potential areas of litigation before they blossom into hours and hours of legal fees.

3

Couldn’t they just put a disclaimer? You know, like the ones that exempt truck commercials from the realities of driving up rocky embankments?

4

While I think the PTB are a bit over zealous about closing those types of threads, I don’t understand why you would exclude sw pirating, given the stance the board takes.

I mean, we know how hardcore they they are about p2p music downloading/copyright issues, so what’s a song worth, a buck or two? (going by the price of albums, etc)

Paid for software can run from a few bucks to thousands. FWIW, they are being consistent.
Why, in their view, should software be any different? Software pirating is illegal, and although you rarely hear about individuals being prosecuted, businesses are hit fairly often, and some of these “software alliance” type orgs are pretty litigious.

Not that I think for a moment that a software group would fuck with the Reader over bullshit on the boards, but we both know how it is here.

5

I discounted software piracy because it is so easy to do nowadays, both morally and actually, coupled with the board’s owner’s hardline stance on the topic. It’s such a non-starter I figured I’d leave that to someone else’s thread.

6

CarnalK, you posted while I was composing, so now I am wondering if these website disclaimers carry much legal weight. You see websites saying “not responsible for content posted by users, blah, blah”.

I think I will research this for the hell of it. I have a feeling that these “disclaimers” don’t mean shit if it comes to litigation. Maybe one of the legal types will weigh in.

7

Personally, I bet you don’t find many successful lawsuits against websites. (based on vague recollections of past discussions here)

8

I just don’t see how it’s any different from the music thing. That’s way easy too, I mean all you have to do is…just kidding, mods. :stuck_out_tongue:

9

Or I should say successful litigation against web forums. Websites run to representing a person or organization are a different matter.

10

Agreed, but like I said, it’s the Dope.

11

I mean, agree with your clarification. I’m gonna have a beer, this is too much like realtime. :slight_smile:

12

Personally I thought it was a great question and it can be answered without giving instructions on how to do it.

Considering my position in the biz, I would love nothing more than to discover such people in the biz, so I can call the rat lines of various software mfr’s and watch the pirating hack, nabbing my customers and handing out pirated freebies get sued out of existence.

13

Well, I didn’t actually include a question mark anywhere in my OP so I added the “discuss” so as not to leave you all hanging.

As to the rest of your post I can only assume you mean HAXXORZ are the SUXXORZ. I think most Dopers will stipulate to that…