board77

My apologies on the "warn file" this by the way! I was thinking of member warnings not admin warnings.

Alatar

Prim - that phrase in brackets about 15 complaints can come out. It was an advisory note to members of the convention and I forgot to delete it from the ballot.

Alatar - The next step is that an admin will edit a post of mine where I am offering an MP3 to a friend. This is the slippery slope that I'm afraid of.

Yes, if I were an admin I would do that and tell you to take such offers to email. If you're offering to a specific friend you can always do it by email - not on the boards. If it is a general offering on the boards to any and all takers, then you are pandering and I don't want our board used for that.

I will repeat this suggestion when we come to member rights. I don't care if it is a slippery slope because the slope on the other side is even more slippery.

I *want* illegal activity to be kept off the boards. I don't know how to be clearer than that. If you want the board used for illegal stuff, then vote against its prohibition. If all the members agree the the board should be used for illegal stuff then I will never serve in any public office here and probably won't post here either because I won't want to take the risk.

Jn

Ok Jn, I don't want to get this bogged down in here but I do think the larger issue bears discussion. I often feel, as I'm sure many Europeans do, that we must always bow to the definition of what's legal and what's right as defined by the American moral standard. I would hope that that would be far more relaxed on this board, but I feel that we are moving ever closer to that stance.

I'm simply stating my concerns. That is the reason for me being here is it not?

Alatar

Alatar -

I often feel, as I'm sure many Europeans do, that we must always bow to the definition of what's legal and what's right as defined by the American moral standard.

It's not defined by the American moral standard but by the American legal code, to which this board and TORC are subject because they are domiciled in the U.S. (Now it's php, later it will be B77.com, but the same domicile applies to both.)

If you want to move ownership of the board to the Ukraine, fine with me.

Maybe Liddy can take us offshore. Till then, though, we need to take into account our liability.

Jn

I know, but it worries me.

Alatar

Look at the positive side, Alatar.

If we make you take your MP3 trading to email, you're less likely to get caught. Do it in public and you're at greater risk, too.


Just btw, a bunch of my students are receiving indictments in the coming week for illegal downloads. I hope the class isn't empty when I get back. The computer network they use to do this is registered to the university, and I'm wondering how long it will be before we will be punishable for what our students do online. I don't know exactly how the student registration process works - I register for my account with the university, not the ISP, so I suspect it was the university that had to turn over the names.

Just don't want B77 to be in a mess like that.

Jn

p.s. this has nothing to do with right and wrong. I personally would give a lot more 'power' to the marketplace on this issue. But there are things you can be indicted for at the present time and those are the things I'd like to keep off the boards.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Practically, th, I expect people would be worried far more than angry. I was on a board once where this happened--a prominent member, a very articulate and prolific poster and quite a young man, simply vanished. Long after the fact a family member posted that he had died of cancer (had in fact been known he was dying the whole time). It was awful.

Yes, hopefully - that's why I didn't like the clause to sound so punitive.
And it's making me think of Róme again...

Quote:

In the Pattern of Complaints clause--I think "[Note: this means there must be at least 15 separate complaints about the admin.]" should just be removed, because as th points out, getting three warnings is not the only way to get a Formal Complaint.

But my problem wasn't so much with the phrase "15 seperate complaints" - I said warnings/Formal Complaints respectively (for those cases where there are Formal Complaints only) - I'm wondering whether all the things that don't have to do with absence are meant to be included in the point (because it only mentions absence at the beginning).

Bit of a derailment, sorry about that:

Jnyusa wrote:

If we make you take your MP3 trading to email, you're less likely to get caught. Do it in public and you're at greater risk, too.

But what Alatar would be doing would be perfectly legal for him (I don't know about Ireland, but in Germany, for example, (AFAIK) it's ok to give your friend a copy of a CD as a present) - so he's not at any risk, if he's talking about it in public.

I guess it's ok to say 'better safe than sorry', and refrain from talking about things that are illegal somewhere, even if they are legal for you?
(Although, how are we to know what's legal or not all over the world?)

Maybe we need some more info on how this works?

Say, the board is under the laws of the US - does that mean anything that's said here must correspond to the laws of the US?

Because, if so, that would be comparatively easy, as we'd "only" have to know the laws of the US.

Quote:

Say, the board is under the laws of the US - does that mean anything that's said here must correspond to the laws of the US?

I believe it means that the owners and operators of the board must follow US law, along with any US residents who are posters. Non-US posters are (I believe) only subject to the laws of their own countries and international treaties.

However, if someone started posting things that were legal where they were and illegal in the US, it could cause the board to be under more scrutiny, depending on the activity.

If we become a member-owned board, then it depends on where the corporation is chartered and where the server is physically located, if memory serves.

Th - perhaps I misunderstood Alatar, because it's not really illegal in the US to give your friend a copy of a CD as a gift ... technically I suppose it is because we're only legally permitted to make copies for our own use ... but this is an unenforceable law until someone does it in such large numbers that it becomes noticeable.

What I was referring to is downloading or bottlegging without pay and then distributing the product ... and I'm fairly certain that this is illegal everwhere because the WTO enforces it everywhere, or tries to.

Some things are illegal in the US but not in other countries - like marijauna. But what admin doesn't know that it would be illegal to ship grass to friends in the US, even if it was purchased legally? What person doesn't know that it would be illegal here to use the boards to solicit prostitution (except in Nevada), plot the overthrow of a country, or sneak people across borders? Is there anyone who is unaware that illegal downloads are a big debate in the US, and that doing it here can get you indicted?

There will always be petty circumstances where we might not be aware that it is risky for those in another country to be planning certain activities, but that's what hearings are for. If someone does it inadvertently once but stops doing it when they're made aware of the problem, we're not going to remove them from office, right?

This is why I said that the slope is more slippery in the other direction. If we don't make a statement that illegal stuff is disallowed, we'll have no way of stopping it, and then people who want to sell kiddie porn and meth on B77 will have a free ride until we amend the by-laws. As an open board, how else could we protect ourselves short-term against predation of this sort?

Jn

Alatar's example was:

Quote:

If I offer to send Iavas an MP3 of a song he likes am I encouraging criminal activites?

So, I didn't read that as making money out of breaches of copyright, but rather sending a copy to a friend, which would be allowed in Germany, but which I thought was forbidden in the US (I thought it was forbidden to make any copies, even for your own use, in the US).

I agree though that admins should be able to differentiate between undoubtably illegal things, like you mention, and minor things - if they aren't sure they could always ask the poster. Or if they make an edit, the poster will be notified, so they can still object if they think the edit was unjustified because what was being said was not illegal.

As I said, better safe than sorry.

But I'd still appreciate it if my question above could be answered, because I couldn't decide on whether I'm fine with the ballot as it stands, as long as I don't know if I'm reading it right.

If people want to trade illegal bootlegs (which are illegal under international law, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic, not just U.S law), that's their business. But not here.

I agree, but who's talking of bootlegs? (Assuming that by "bootlegs" is meant an illegally gained copy.)

I fail to understand why anyone would feel the need to make an issue of this here when there are literally thousands of sites where people can go to download legal and illegal content. Surely on a site like this where the occasional MP3 might be shared is hardly likely to even make a blip on the FBIs radar. They have bigger fish to fry.

Besides, this is a very hazy area. Let's take for example the situation regarding my copy of the first episode of Doctor Who 2005. It was broadcast on my TV. I forgot to tape it, so I downloaded a copy. Now where have I broken a law? I have paid my license fee which included the broadcast of that episode and I would be completely entitled to make a copy on VHS. The fact that my copy is digital rather than physical does not alter that fact. Now extend the comparison. If I lent my VHS copy of Doctor Who to Prim (who is not in the UK and has not recieved the program on her TV) am I breaking US Law? If I send her a digital copy am I breaking US law?

I don't know the answers to these questions because in many cases there is a "fair use" argument which is not enshrined in law but is accepted by the law.

But I do have a huge objection to being told that I cannot offer said TV program to Prim on this board.

Alatar

I just wonder about something: maybe this is a false debate. All examples you give, Alatar deal with situations in which you are not sure weather something is illegal or not. Why can it not be added that encouraging behaviour which is knowledgable (does that word exist) criminal or prohibited is forbidden?

But then I am tired, and I never downloaded a single MP3 in my life.


Edited to add: It is a cute avatar, Griffy.

Alatar, again this is only how I read it, but I think under the provisions we have so far, all it says is that an admin can't encourage anyone to do anything illegal or "boast" that they are doing anything illegal themselves.

So, IMO, as a poster you could very well offer that TV program to Prim (unless we are thinking of making a provision against it in "member rights" - but that's not what we are talking about here).

The case you mention is indeed difficult, I can't imagine it's illegal, so I would hope that no admin would interfere unless they were pretty sure themselves that there is something illegal there.

If, as Jny suggested, you were offering the program to all and sundry, an admin might interfere - but I think that would be up to the admin, how certain they are that it's illegal, I don't think it says an admin would have to interfere.

I think the only thing we are saying here is that an admin could not say "cool, everybody go and get a copy from Alatar" - because that would be "encouraging" the copyright breach.

But basically, I think, this provision is only for clearer breaches of laws anyway.

If you posted that you've got a copy of a new movie and would send a copy to anyone who'd send you five quid, for example.
That would be using the board for illegal activities, and I really think that shouldn't happen here.

Alatar wrote:

But I do have a huge objection to being told that I cannot offer said TV program to Prim on this board.

Why couldn't you do that via PM or Email? You are able to contact every member here in that manner.

All right, I really don't care about the questions I asked before anymore --- I probably shouldn't have asked them, and I wasn't angling to throw in a lot more detail to the charter.

But there is one baffling thing I just have to mention.


Jn: I know the answers to your questions as I understood what was written, but my answer in this thread is not going to become precedent.

Well, no answer anyone gives in this thread is going to become precedent. Since when is our discussion precedent? The votes and the written charter is what matters. I have no idea what you were worried about here.

So, back to real business.

_______________________________________________

I think, for legal reasons, we have to have the criminal clauses. It can't be avoided, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

TH - But I'd still appreciate it if my question above could be answered

I think Axordil gave the answer, TH. I don't know more than what he posted (I actually knew less). Voronwe mentioned the international conventions that cover bootleg in the other thread. It is locked, or soon will be, but you can still read his answer on the last page.

Nin -Why can it not be added that encouraging behaviour which is knowledgable (does that word exist) criminal or prohibited is forbidden?

That would be a nice solution but it would not protect us legally, Nin. One is not allowed to operate a business in ignorance of the law. But that solution is undoubtedly the one that would be applied in a hearing - I can't imagine a jury here removing someone for an innocent mistake.

Faramond - Well, no answer anyone gives in this thread is going to become precedent. Since when is our discussion precedent? ... I have no idea what you were worried about here.

What I was worried about was the possibility that the charter language really was so unclear that those questions could not be answered. It doesn't serve our purose for me to explain my view of it in the thread because I wrote too much of it and I know what my intention was. I can't stand outside of myself and see what another person sees when they read it. And my explanation here is not a document to which people can refer in the future. (That's what I meant by precedent)

I wanted you guys to go back to the charter, read it again, and see if the answers truly were not already there because that's what future admins will have to do. To me it seems that the answers were there, but I don't count, so to speak, because I'm too well-informed about my own intentions.

Alatar - Besides, this is a very hazy area.

Morally much of it is hazy. But it's not the job of B77 to decide the morality of this issue. As a .. business entity, I guess you could say, because we are one whether we think of ourselves that way or not ... as a business entity we have to abide by the law.

Let me put that differently ... I can't think of a compelling reason why we should risk breaking the law and losing the board in order to slightly increase the convenience of a few members.

Jn

I get what you were going for now, Jn.

Your little hints were fine.

I overlooked the existence of the admin email account, and some of my other questions were far-fetched, perhaps. At some point we just have to trust the people of this community of this community who will be admins and not overload them with details. I agree with that, and I think what you've written is clear enough.