Be Excellent To Each Other

µTorrent, too. "u", indeed.

*hastily edits his own earlier post in an effort to make it look like he type "µTorrent" not "utorrent" back there*

Get Bent Dipshit-FTFY

I'm having a bit of an 80s insults day, it's great fun. Dorkwad!

I wonder if it's ok to link to this or this or even this.

Malc

Well isn't that an excuse that allows us to link to any torrent site?

Or me to post the entire song content of Liberty Rock and Electro Choc?

Seriously - what's wrong with you lot?

I am going to distribute illegal roms -

Here's Excitbike for the NES

We (well I'm) just confused. You specifically posted copyrighted stuff for direct downloaded, then enacted a "Thall shalt not even link to things that might link to things that allow you to get stuff that might be naughty" act, about 3 seconds after doing exactly that yourself.

Given I had some soundtrack to post I'm not utterly bemused as to whether I can.

No. I. Fucking. Didn't.
Seriously - not everything is to do with me. And I struggle to believe it was "about three seconds" and not "about three weeks".

You DID link to torrentz.com less than 30 minutes before telling us we couldn't link to torrent sites however.

edit : 2:12 and 2:33pm on the same day, in this thread to be precise.

Don't be ridiculous.

Grim..., it's just a mite confusing that it has been okay to attach mp3s to files, in that one instance, but not to link to a legal site, because OMG TEH TORRENTZ or something. It's not GRIM... fffs why have YOU decided that OMG etc.

I think we can have the common sense to not suddenly start turning this into a warez site or something; but we need it also to not turn this into the opposite either, through misplaced fear. It really isn't illegal to link to a site like http://www.torrentz.com, I just want to say again. That's http://www.torrentz.com. That name again is Mr. T.

In asking why, in bringing reasoned arguments, the response is 'Shut up, don't be silly, now come along and stop making a scene'. NO! Not without getting sweets first.

Fine. Consider us both officially warned, then.
Carry on.

[edit]And CUS. And you'll notice you can't get at those MP3's any more.

Bah. I can't warn myself. Rubbish software.

What's the warning for Grim...? I don't understand why this forum has newly taken on a completely wrong-headed and incorrect approach to copyright law, now with random omg teh bannings!!! warnings. If this is light-hearted japery, it doesn't come across as such, in response to what IS - for crying out loud - discussion of the legalities of piracy and copyright issues, during which at no point the law has been broken.

It's in the rules that we can do that, you know.

Funny, I must have forgotten how to read then.

Excellently, Mr Chris has reported me, and I could warn myself that way.

It's fucking not though, is it? It's "Grim... did this WAH WAH WAH" like it is every other fucking day.

Well it could be that actually. I mean, given all the complaints and people having enough and leaving here, because of the 'Shut up and do what we say' attitude that has increased over the last week or so now. You might have a point there.

Still, given that you're a smart bloke and all, I'm just confused and actually a bit saddened that attempting to say 'No, really, why this sudden madness?' is being met only with 'Because, now shut it, and anyway it's not my decision or nuffin'.

Hi Sam!

...You're making 70s porn now? Stop changing the issue! And send me some!

Fine. Do what you like with the place. Silly me for trying to enfore the rules, etc.
Have fun!

Dude, you were being facetious with me already. What, am I not going to retort back in kind because it's your birthday or something? Come on man.. open up... let me in, embrace me.

You do a fine job as Mod, and presumably so do the other Mods. Although, I dunno. You're more visible and stuff. However, you're none of you perfect, which is why no one of you is in charge. You've spent loads of time working on the cookies problem, coding in requested features, and other stuff.

I completely appreciate that, you're awesome, and seriously, Pruiit Taylor Vince is SO the lovechild of you and Dimrill.

However, you happen to be 'wrong' on the issue of sites like http://www.torrentz.com - adopting a 'Well, we've made a ruling so shut up' policy WILL make you seem fascistic, and people WILL go WAH WAH WAH. But they also have the right to. I'm trying to remember if I made post yesterday, that I had been considering, suggesting that some kind of 'Forum Announcement' user be created, to 'depersonalize' the Rules posting, and other such official business. Might help, maybe, I dunno.

I added that line to the rules, because someone specifically asked in a thread here what the policy was on linking downloads. It's not bulletproof, because I'm not a copyright lawyer (oh, and it is copyrighted, not copywritten ). The point is that it's to make people aware that this shouldn't become somewhere that is chock full of links to torrents, because whether it's technically illegal or not, we're covering our arses.

People here aren't stupid. You can say "Go download X, it's great" and people can in most cases be expected to have the capability to go find what they need. If it's something that someone wants and it's hard to find, stick it in a PM.

Common sense is all that's wanted. The other option is a zero-tolerance policy. We very much don't want that, and you don't want that, I'm guessing.

Regarding the 'shut up and do what we say attitude', there hasn't been ANY moderating, except for fixing the odd broken link in well over a week - since the topic icons brouhaha. I think we all learnt then that keeping more hands off is desirable.

That rule was added weeks ago, and I posted in that thread to make sure it showed as unread so people would see it.

Coo, so it is copyrighted. Eww.


That implies that I want to be able to secretly do some special secret piracy on the quiet. I don't, I just want to be able to say http://www.torrentz.com is a website which we can link to with impunity. I might say this whilst also saying that I very much enjoyed this week's House. The idea being that I'm hoping that people aren't stupid and people can in most cases be expected to have the capability to find what they need. At http://www.torrentz.com for example.


Indeed. Everybody is learning stuff. Yep yep. 'Copyrighted' is horrible, though.

All I am asking, is that if a person says 'Hang on, I don't think you're right there, let's examine this further...', it doesn't mean 'OMG STFU YOU TWAT I WANNA 1DAY D/L BRITNEY!!!!!'

It's simply that linking to a site such as http://www.torrentz.com is not illegal. In the cases of other sites, such as for example, Mininova or The Pirate Bay, it however is a rather less grey area. Yes, isn't that odd? Why don't we have a conversation about it mayhap?

Which is where we came in.

They give you the option to record copy written material illegally. I don't see how it's that far removed from linking to a torrent site.

Malc

Fair enough. This, though:



Reads as a complaint/criticism, not as a request to open dialogue. If that's not how it was meant, then OK. In the interest of sorting this, what do you think would be sensible wording? If it includes 'copywritten', you get banned.

Malc does have a point, as far as the discussion of such things go. Same also with VCRs, taping off the radio etc.

Isn't there a special law as regards taping things off the telly, and such?


Ah, no. That's erm, just how I talk and stuff

Sensible wording? Dunno. Do we have any lawyers in the house? Alternatively, can we think of any sites that contain user-supplied content which may be of a questionable nature? I would add something about how the moderators cannot be held responsible for the actions of other users here; offer a 'If you DO have concerns' clause; be aware in case The Lady Doth Protest Too Much. Two pages of 'We don't HAVE piracy, but if we DID' fools nobody. And obviously, this forum has no piracy, I was speaking generally.

I wonder what YouTube use.

You can do it to timeshift, you can't do it to archive.

Of course it's probably legal to download dr who from say ("Torrenz.com" - not that bright ed) to watch once too.

Wel, I'd imagine that 99.9% of usage of voice tape recorders are not illegal, whereas 99.9% of usage of http://www.torrentz.com is illegal [citation needed].

On mostly all forums I have been on, the general ground rules have been that whilst you could mention sites like the one being heavily mentioned, giving specific links to copyrighted material is a big no-no.

I'm sure that we can all be sensible about it.

Curio's talking some sense, for once.

Yes, and I suspect Grim.. could afford me, too.

from an outside viewer, this argument is strange. the rule was not hurting anybody. if i were to be like CUS and start breaking the next rule because i disagree with it and put pictures of naked women on the forum just to make my point i would not have such a happy crowd, i believe.

-e- i am aware that sentence could be made better - sorry for the english

C'est tres better ca mon Francais, duder.

thankyou - my spoken english is very good, but writing is much harder. i shall phone in my comments, and then you can type them!

Oui, oui. C'est vrai. Ich habe eine schwester merci?

Q'est ce c'est le francais pour 'gauteux'?

As well you know.

Dans le sac.

I think the answer to every question should be 'dans le sac'.

Because the rule was being used in relation to something that isn't illegal, at which point the rule is being abused. I haven't broken anything, and haven't linked to anywhere illegal - that's my point.


Yes? Er, okay, slightly weird comment there.

vs scroobius pip?

pictures of naked ladies would break no law.

No, but they would break the forum rule about not posting pornography. Now, if I posted a link to the http://www.thesun.co.uk where British topless 'page 3' models can be found*, I'm doing much the same thing as posting a link to http://www.torrentz.com

* Well, they are in the papers, I'm assuming they go on the website too.

so how do you know which rule to ignore?

Because I'm better than everyone else.

Also - none of them. Stating that an application of a rule is not an appropriate use of it, is not ignorance.

Er, why?

Conversation ran as follows:

CUS (run through translatomatic) "do we have any lawyers in the house who could advise on sensible wording re: this whole thing?"

Me: "Yes, me, and Grim.. could afford to pay for me to advise on this"

Or was that too subtle even for Corner Unit Subtle, eh?

i.. er... okay (cheers for babelfish), but you break the rule all over to make your point without checking that it is not making life hard for other people.

I thought you were saying "And if Grim... got into legal difficulty, he could afford me", for some reason, which seemed odd/unpleasant.

Anyway, tch, paying! Grim... has kindly provided his professional expertise in setting up this place, you could at least knock out a few official sounding words about law and dat.


I don't understand the first part of that, sorry.

That's crazy, I am listening to him right this very second

Anyway, I just wanted to have some clarification as to what was acceptable. I know "Common sense" is generally considered the best option, but for grey areas it's useful to have clarification.

The example I cited (Soundtrack To A Vacant Life, by The Flashbulb) was released as a free torrent by Benn Jordan (both the artist behind "The Flashbulb" and the Managing Director of the record label the album was put out under).

So, he choose to put it on these sites which are sometimes considered to be 'illegal" in some regard or other, and often it would be considered against 'common sense' to link to them, but I think in this instance it would not cause any problems.

I, seemingly like some others, think that "don't like to any sites which allow you to infringe copyright" is not a strong enough rule without any qualifiers. I mean, google links to a lot of copyrighted material, and basically any web site has copyrighted images on it, and just linking to them could technically be considered copyright infringement were we to read the rule completely obtusely.

Obviously this wouldn't work.

I think a better rule would simply be "don't post direct links for the purpose of piracy"

That would mean that linking to a blog that has an image on it without copyright permission (hint - like mine) would be fine, but posting a megaupload link for an album wouldn't be ok. The grey area of "A site which hosts torrents that can be used for piracy, even if you are linking to a public domain torrent" would be alleviated, since linked to the specific torrent would be fine.

I think this is the spirit of the current rule, even if not the letter.

I agreee with LewieP. I just want to note however that http://www.torrentz.com does not host any torrents itself. It's a trawling site, a bit like http://www.dogpile.com back-in-the-day. It has absolutely zero control over the contents of the sites which it trawls, looking for their torrents, the page for which it then links to. It's a grey area, sure, but that doesn't make it scary and evil, just grey. Now, if you were to to post a link to a search on that site, for e.g. 'House episode', then THAT is different.

I'll just start adding the tag to help you out, I think.

Chris: if you have to explain it, it's no longer funny.