# "What they're doing is illegal in the US"...and does an overzealous mod have a CITE?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 30, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693 "2005-12-30T05:57:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/41 "2005-12-30T20:39:58Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > This may be false. Allofmp3 does real time encoding of the files you choose into the format you choose at the quality you choose. Thus, on their servers, they create the product for you as you request it. What is the legal significance of that distinction? Under US law, _only_ the copyright owner has the right to **reproduce** the copyrighted work or to distribute copies to the public. The receiving end of that distribution takes place in the United States, which gives the United States courts jurisdiction. Whether [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) creates a copy on the server at their end first and then ships it to you is legally irrelevant: your receipt of it HERE IN THIS COUNTRY violates 17 USC § 106, since the data streams to you and is COPIED to your hard disk after it is received. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/42 "2005-12-30T20:42:10Z")
> [@Nanoda](#): > > I don’t see how that follows from the quoted passage, or from anything else here. When you download a song from iTunes, you’re making a copy of the song too. Presuming you accept that as being legal, it must be the nationality of the source where the problem is. > Are you saying people in the U.S. can only solicit music sites (like iTunes, [mp3.com](http://mp3.com), etc) where the company is based in the U.S? 😕 _sigh_ No. In the case of iTunes, the copyright owner has authorized that activity, which they are permitted to do (and which ONLY they can do): > [@17 USC § 106](#): > > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has \*\*the exclusive rights to do and to authorize \*\*any of the following: > (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;… > (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public > by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;… and > (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly > by means of a digital audio transmission. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/43 "2005-12-30T20:51:52Z")
Rather than continue to defend myself, I’ll leave it to intelligent readers to reread the responses above of **Cliffy, Q.E.D. and Bricker**. If you don’t understand them, then all is lost. I understood this all by reading the sites/cites before I closed the thread. Perhaps I should have explained it better. But I’m on vacation, trying to post on a crap dial-up connection, on a computer that hates me. I don’t know how many times we have to rehash this topic on these boards. As someone else said, take it to another board. We appreciate your patronage, but on this issue, you’re probably better served by discussing it on anther board. (although the legal discussion here has been helpful to me–thanks guys). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/44 "2005-12-30T20:58:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the legal significance of that distinction? Under US law, _only_ the copyright owner has the right to **reproduce** the copyrighted work or to distribute copies to the public. The receiving end of that distribution takes place in the United States, which gives the United States courts jurisdiction. Whether [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) creates a copy on the server at their end first and then ships it to you is legally irrelevant: your receipt of it HERE IN THIS COUNTRY violates 17 USC § 106, since the data streams to you and is COPIED to your hard disk after it is received. Is this settled law or your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/45 "2005-12-30T21:12:34Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Is this settled law or your opinion? Settled law. See _US v. Cross_, 816 F.2d 297, 303 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1987); see also _US v. Wise_, 550 F.2d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 929 (1977). The US Attorney’s Manual, Title 9, Criminal Resource Manual, offers the following analysis: > [@](#): > > Once the validity of the copyright has been established, the government must then prove that the defendant infringed upon that right. Although, the term “infringement” is not defined in the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) provides that: “[a]nyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by [17 U.S.C. §§ 106 to 118] . . . is an infringer of the copyright.” Thus, the concept of infringement is defined by reference to the exclusive rights conferred on a copyright owner by 17 U.S.C. § 106. Those exclusive rights include the right to display or perform the work publicly, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4)-(5), along with the right to reproduce and distribute copies of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1),(3). Therefore, any unauthorized exercise of these rights will constitute an act of infringement and will give rise at least to a civil infringement claim by the copyright holder. > > Generally, infringement is established by evidence of copying. See _Sid & Marty Krofft Television v. McDonald’s Corp._, 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1977). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/46 "2005-12-30T21:30:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Settled law. See _US v. Cross_, 816 F.2d 297, 303 n. 2 (7th Cir. 1987); see also _US v. Wise_, 550 F.2d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 929 (1977). > > The US Attorney’s Manual, Title 9, Criminal Resource Manual, offers the following analysis: I was speaking to the fact that downloading something from the internet constitutes copying. I haven’t been able to find those cases so if they speak to that issue if you could link to the cases that would be great. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/47 "2005-12-30T21:30:37Z")
So, the Mod says, “My ass is my cite, bitch!” and waits on others to provide the needed detailed and corroborated arguments? Let’s NOT make this a precedent, okay? ---
**Author:** ![alterego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@alterego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alterego)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/48 "2005-12-30T21:41:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Under US law, only the copyright owner has the right to reproduce the copyrighted work or to distribute copies to the public. Allofmp3 doesn’t follow US law…they follow Russian law and even if the IFPI want’s to construe a valid interpretation of the law as a loophole, it doesn’t mean it’s not legal. The way I see it, the situation is as follows. You enter an agreement with Allofmp3. You give them money, and they grant you ownership of an electronic album. At this point you own but have not obtained a digital copy of the album, which resides on Allofmp3’s servers, in Russia. At this point the situation can be read in a couple of ways, but either way, you are legally within your rights. 1. Allofmp3 makes the copy, and at a time of your choosing sends it to your computer. They _have_ to be the ones who make the copy, after all, they own the hardware which is doing the low-level read operation and sending you the output. 2. You are making the copy by asking for it. As it is an automated process the read operation effectively happens at your computer. But this is fine. You already own the “original” which resides in Russia, as per your agreement with Allofmp3, and fair use doctrine grants you the right to make a non-distributable personal copy of a work which you have legally obtained. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/49 "2005-12-30T21:50:18Z")
Jesus… My only point in posting here was to contest this point brought up by Cliffy: > [@Cliffy](#): > > Does anyone posting in this thread actually believe that this site is legal? You can’t possibly be that gullible. And that has not been answered. I’m not saying Cliffy is not smart, nor knowledgeable, but that this statement does not seem factual. No one has provided evidence that _[allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) is operating illegally under the laws they are subject to, nor that US Copyright Law applies to a site operating in Russia._ _Maybe_ it isn’t legally operating, but I can find no evidence of that. In fact, all I find are reports that the RIAA tried many times to shut it down but were prevented from doing so. However. Bored now. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/50 "2005-12-30T22:02:52Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > 1. Allofmp3 makes the copy, and at a time of your choosing sends it to your computer. They _have_ to be the ones who make the copy, after all, they own the hardware which is doing the low-level read operation and sending you the output. No. YOU are making the copy, by downloading it onto your hard drive. The purported fact that [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) makes a copy for you to subsequently copy is irrelevant. > [@alterego](#): > > 1. You are making the copy by asking for it. As it is an automated process the read operation effectively happens at your computer. But this is fine. You already own the “original” which resides in Russia, as per your agreement with Allofmp3, and fair use doctrine grants you the right to make a non-distributable personal copy of a work which you have legally obtained. No, you do not own anything here. You have not been granted a license by the copyright holder, and nor has [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com). In the absense of a license, either expressed or implied, there is no ownership and any copying of the work falls outside of Fair Use and constitutes an infringement of the copyright. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/51 "2005-12-30T22:04:14Z")
Wonder Twin powers, UNITE! ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/52 "2005-12-30T22:09:48Z")
Part of the problem is that Russa evidently has different rules concerning public domain than the US does. An early Beatles song like “Love Me Do” can be reproduced in Russia with no problem but here it’s still under copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/53 "2005-12-30T22:10:44Z")
> [@Una Persson](#): > > And that has not been answered. I’m not saying Cliffy is not smart, nor knowledgeable, but that this statement does not seem factual. I don’t deign to speak for **Cliffy** , but I read his statement to mean that _using_ that site is illegal from within the US, not that the existence of the site was illegal under the laws of its home country. I could be mistaken, however. It just doesn’t seem to me that he would make a definitive statement concerning a country whose laws he was unfamiliar with. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/54 "2005-12-30T22:20:09Z")
Interesting article: > [@](#): > > [The Register](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/05/russian_mp3_site/), 5 May 2004 > > The site is clearly targeting English-speaking users as well as Russians with its vast range of British and US repertoire. All the tracks are encoded on the fly at the bit rate of your choice and when you download the Allofmp3 Explorer program, you can set whole albums to download while you wait. All in all, it’s just as convenient as iTunes - plus it’s compatible with Linux, Mac and PC - but obviously rather cheaper and with less gaps in the contemporary catalogue. So the obvious assumption would be that it’s completely illegal. > > The answer is far from clear. The site is not licensed by any labels. However, currently there is an exemption under existing Russian copyright legislation (Article 39 for the aficionados) allowing phonograms to be performed publicly without the authorisation of the copyright owner for broadcasting and cable transmission. The Internet could be deemed to fall under this exemption. A similar argument can be applied to copies in the cache memory of computers. > > So as IFPI Russia’s legal adviser, Vladimir Dragunov, concedes: “Because of these loopholes we don’t have much chance of succeeding if we attack these companies who are using music files on the Internet under current Russian laws.” > > As for the authors/publishers’ rights, matters are more complex. Whilst the current law makes it clear that there is a need for licences to cover the use of musical works on the Internet in Russia, a fallout between the Russian Authors’ Organisation (RAO) and the Russian Organisation for Multimedia and Digital Systems (ROMS), which had been licensing Russian digital music services on its behalf, means that Allofmp3 is no longer licensed despite its claims to the contrary. [Here’s what the Russians have to say](http://net.compulenta.ru/174129/?r1=rss&r2=remote): > [@](#): > > (partial Babelfish translation) > > The checking, carry ouied by the colleagues of procuratorship, showed that owner [AllofMP3.com](http://AllofMP3.com) actually extends through this site the records of musical works; however, it is not authorized by rightholders to extend them on the compensatory basis. Procuratorship also established that the Russian law about the copyrights does not contain the lawful characteristic of the Internet, but is provided for the property right of the author to the propagation of the copies of its work in any manner. However, from a juridical point of view, the propagation of any copies of works in the Internet is impossible, since in this case occurs the digital, but not material method of transfer, while the acting Russian legislation provides for the obligation of the material form of the copies of works. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/55 "2005-12-30T22:21:03Z")
> [@alterego](#): > > Allofmp3 doesn’t follow US law…they follow Russian law and even if the IFPI want’s to construe a valid interpretation of the law as a loophole, it doesn’t mean it’s not legal. > > The way I see it, the situation is as follows. You enter an agreement with Allofmp3. You give them money, and they grant you ownership of an electronic album. At this point you own but have not obtained a digital copy of the album, which resides on Allofmp3’s servers, in Russia. > > At this point the situation can be read in a couple of ways, but either way, you are legally within your rights. > > 1. Allofmp3 makes the copy, and at a time of your choosing sends it to your computer. They _have_ to be the ones who make the copy, after all, they own the hardware which is doing the low-level read operation and sending you the output. Allofmp3 may make eighteen copies at your behest. Who knows, and who cares. The only copy that matters is the copy YOU make on your hard drive by downloading the file. > [@](#): > > 1. You are making the copy by asking for it. As it is an automated process the read operation effectively happens at your computer. But this is fine. You already own the “original” which resides in Russia, as per your agreement with Allofmp3, and fair use doctrine grants you the right to make a non-distributable personal copy of a work which you have legally obtained. Interesting take on it. But no court has ever held the fair use doctrine to work in that fashion. While it’s true that you have a right to copy music from a CD, that’s not a written law from which there can be no variance. It’s the RESULT of weighing the fair use factors: [ul] [li]The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes [/li][li]The nature of the copyrighted work [/li][li]The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole [/li][li]The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work[/li][/ul] Now, when a court considered the effects of a legitimate user copying a CD he owns, once, and applied those factors, the result was the decision that it was fair use. But in these circumstances, where the application of this process would effectively viscerate the copyright owner’s rights to control copies, I have no doubt that it would be found NOT to be fair use. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/56 "2005-12-30T22:35:24Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I was speaking to the fact that downloading something from the internet constitutes copying. I haven’t been able to find those cases so if they speak to that issue if you could link to the cases that would be great. That’s kind of a “grabbing at straws” objection, **treis**. And no, those cases are too old to address the specific issue of whether downloading a file constitutes “copying”. However, see generally _A&M Records v. Napster, Inc._, 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001), which clearly characterizes the act of downloading mp3 files to a computer as “copying.” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/57 "2005-12-30T23:04:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s kind of a “grabbing at straws” objection, **treis**. And no, those cases are too old to address the specific issue of whether downloading a file constitutes “copying”. Grabbing at straws? You are telling me that by downloading something I am making a copy. I object to that contention mainly on the basis that it is impossible for me to copy something that I do not possess. By downloading a song I go from having 0 copies to 1. That is acquiring a song not making a copy. On the other hand the person I am downloading from, in this case [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com), has 1 copy of the music, makes another copy and sends it to me. It is them making the copy of the song not me. That is not merely grabbing at straws it is the heart of the issue. > [@Bricker](#): > > However, see generally _A&M Records v. Napster, Inc._, 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001), which clearly characterizes the act of downloading mp3 files to a computer as “copying.” Downloading from Napster generally constitutes downloading a song from someone illegally making copies. That is a different scenario than this case and I read through the case but I didn’t see anything that said that downloading a mp3 constitutes making a copy. Can you poiiint it out for me? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/58 "2005-12-30T23:14:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Can you poiiint [sic] it out for me? I’m not **Bricker** , but knowing he’s a busy guy, I’ll be [happy to](http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/Web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument): > [@](#): > > We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders’ exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, § 106(1); and distribution, § 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs’ reproduction rights. Clear enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/59 "2005-12-30T23:21:41Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > I’m not **Bricker** , but knowing he’s a busy guy, I’ll be [happy to](http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/Web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/c4f204f69c2538f6882569f100616b06?OpenDocument): > > Clear enough for you? First off, how does that show downloading constitutes making a copy? Regardless, Napster users are downloading songs that have been copied illegally. Those that download from [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) are not. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693/60 "2005-12-30T23:34:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > First off, how does that show downloading constitutes making a copy? It very clearly says that Napster users were **infringing on the copyright holders’ rights of reproduction**. If that’s not “making a copy”, would you care to tell me what exactly it is? > [@treis](#): > > Regardless, Napster users are downloading songs that have been copied illegally. Those that download from [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) are not. First of all, we do not know that the copies being supplied by [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com) ARE legally produced. We have only the word of [allofmp3.com](http://allofmp3.com), at this point. I am not conversant in Russian law, so I cannot address this issue. Nevertheless, it is immaterial whether the files supplied are legally-produced or not. The fact remains that you are making a copy of them, and you have no license from the copyright holder to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-theyre-doing-is-illegal-in-the-us-and-does-an-overzealous-mod-have-a-cite/337693.md?page=4)