I don’t really want to get into the discussion of modding, to be honest; I tend to the view that it’s hardly surprising that a discussion of a specific (and linked) questionable music download service has been shut down, and that nothing is really going to be achieved by going over the policy of this board towards such discussions yet again. Personally, I’d be quite surprised if subsequent case law took the view that downloading copies which would be illegal if made in the States is perfectly fine, and as such am quite happy that the SDMB take the view that playing it safe wrt discussions of such are a bit dubious. FWIW, I’m sure an abstract question of the same nature which didn’t mention any specific download service would be allowed to continue unmolested.
But what do I know? I’ve just re-watched Fear and Loathing, and am consequently surrounded by bats. Mescale?
This may be the worst sentence I’ve ever constructed in my life. I blame the bats. Replace “are a bit dubious” with “is a good idea”. A flyswatter will also come in handy.
But can you answer my question? Is it against board rules to ask if something is illegal? Why could this discussion in this thread have not occurred in the GQ thread instead?
A friend at work recommended www.icandownloadmp3sfromrussia.ru for a place to download music. She claims it’s legal - it’s a Russian website, and costs around ten cents or so to download a song once you convert dollars to rubles.
Are the Russian music download sites legal? A friend mentioned one and said it was. Several sites have legal opinions, including this one, but I’d like other opinions.
Which one is better suited to the SDMB? Upon reading the first one, it sounds almost like spam! Let’s exchange a few words and see what happens:
(NOT A QUOTE!) A friend at work recommended www.pornpictures.ru for a place to download porno. She claims it’s legal - it’s a Russian website, and costs around ten cents or so to download a picture once you convert dollars to rubles.
First of all, if my OP sounded like spam, then that is the reason it should have been closed, not with a BS line like what was used.
Second, that is an incredibly weak tactic. There are probably hundreds of GQ or GD OPs where if I changed just a few words, the meaning and/or tone would be completely different and a mod would not be remiss in locking the thread.
Third, my question still has not been answered, though Rico did try a lovely diversion tactic.
The first scenario:
[ul][li]Mentions only one specific site[/li][li]Links directly to it[/li][li]Provides a testimonial from a user[/li][li]Gives an enticement to use the service[/ul][/li]The second scenario does none of those things. Are you always this obtuse, or are you just having a bad day?
Why does that matter? We constantly have threads asking about a specific site, product or service.
Its kind of hard to give an answer without looking at the site. Regardless, guess which site is first on the google search for “russian music download site”. It seems like you are just punishing someone for convinence.
A testimonial? Where do you see that?
I guess so if you consider describing the site you are asking the question about to be enticement. That seems to be a pretty big stretch if you ask me.
The second scenario does none of those things.
Not at all. It is illegal to share those files with other people, though.
According to the Register (see my link above), allofmp3.com acquired their files without securing any licenses from the record labels. That’s the difference between downloading from them and downloading from iTunes or ripping a CD that you bought. Without a license, anyone who pays to download a track from allofmp3.com is paying for bandwidth, not the track itself.
They’re clearly operating in a grey area of Russian law. Assuming the Register is correct, the law here isn’t as grey–downloading a file from someone or something that isn’t licensed to distribute said file is illegal.
Sure, but when the legality is questionable, it’s probably better not to be too specific.
Maybe, but providing a link is making things a bit TOO easy. It’s perfectly possible to describe the situation in enough detail to get an accurate answer without actually showing the site to people.
“A friend at work recommended…”
No, the enticement is “it’s only 10 cents a song!”
They don’t to me.
Look, I think the closing WAS probably a bit hasty, but intellectual property rights ARE a touchy subject around here, and everyone who’s been here any significant length of time is well aware of that fact. The board’s host, The Chicago Reader, depends on the protection of it’s intellectual property to stay in business. I don’t think it’s asking too much for a little consideration in this area.
I’d bet not - the first post would say “I could give you more specific information if you would link to the site…” If I didn’t link to the site, then I’m just asking for general info. And I didn’t need general info, I already have that and can find that easily enough.
So since the Reader is touchy about intellectual property rights, wouldn’t it be in their best interest to help educate people about what is and is not legal use of intellectual property?
Well, yeah. But, you did get an answer: it’s almost certainly not legal for you here in the US to use. If you or anyone else wants to disagree with that because it interferes with your busy music piracy schedule, well, that can’t be helped.
I resent and completely deny your accusation of piracy. If I did pirate music, I would hardly be concerned enough with the legality of a website to start a thread in GQ here and then get involved in a Pit thread contesting it’s closure.
And I didn’t get an answer in the GQ thread, dumbass. That conclusion has only come out in this thread, where the discussion has been allowed to continue.
Any other ignorant, unbased accusations you’d like to hurl?
I never said you were pirating music; “if” and “or” are small, but important words. Nor did I say you got your answer in your GQ thread. Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s in your best interest to get your facts straight before you go accusing another of ignorance.
Go back and reread your last sentence. That “if” you have in there seems to apply only to the first part of the sentence - ie, if I want to disagree, not if I am pirating music. And you still accused me of pirating.
And the “or” excludes you if you are NOT pirating. So, shove it up your ass. If I’d meant to accuse you directly of pirating, I’d have done so in no uncertain terms. The level of willful ignorance and outright bullheadedness being displayed in this thread–and no, I am NOT saying this applies to you, so stuff a sock in it–has made me more grouchy than usual. Yes, I have no doubt that some of the more vociferous defenders of that site are, in fact, pirating music. I am NOT saying it is you or anyone else specifically. If you took it that way, then I will at least apologize for that.
