# Re: Closed Post About filesharing software...



## alexrd (Mar 4, 2003)

What exactly is the rationale for banning any discussion of the "illegal aspects" of p2p file swapping? Editing posts that actually contain links to pirated material? Sure, I can understand that, but there is a wide gulf of difference between speech about prohibited activity and the activity itself.
At best, that kind of action amounts to sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the problem will pass by, at worst, it amounts to a DMCA-style sledgehammer ("if you even wonder how to go about it, you'll be banned, banned I say!!").

Where do you draw the line here? Can I ask why ******** is crashing on startup (it's not, but just an example)? In all likelihood, I'm using ******** to get WaReZ. Does that make the question unsuitable for discussion? Perhaps you should also black out any posts that discuss pre-release software ("Safari with tabs? Not  until you show me proof of your Apple Developer status")

What about another example? I've seen more than one post refer to smoking pot. Uh-oh, illiegal activity alert, call the censors! Now what if I started a post asking about how to recognize high quality smoke? What if I started a thread about the merits of legalizing drugs/prostitution/p2p file swapping? Censorship is a slippery slope, and a right, once abdicated, is rarely regained without a fight.

Even speech concerning instructions on how to go about engaging in illegal activity deserves special consideration. The US Congress recently (2000) tried to pass a bill banning the discussion or dissemination of information pertaining to the manufacture or acquistion of controlled substances. Thanks to pressure from the ACLU and a bit of wisdom on the part of the House Judiciary Commitee, this anti first amendment language was removed from the bill. The fact remains however, that until and unless this kind of speech is prohibited, it remains protected (and when it is prohibited, it's the Bill of Rights that takes it on the chin).

Of course, any constitutional argument is, at its heart, spurious. This is a private forum, with private rules. If the moderators wish to censor my posts or ban me outright, they need no further reason than their own desire to do so. However, I suspect that a large part of the motivation of banning posts about p2p rests in a fear of liability, and with the ambiguous wording of the DMCA, this fear may not be unfounded. But do we really want to relinquish our right to open discussion of whatever topics we see fit because of a heavy handed and likely unconstitutional law whose clear purpose is to extend and expand the hegemony of plutocratic copyright holders?

Anyway, I don't want to go out (any further) on a tangent here, but it's vitally important that we realize the difference between proscribed activity and speech about said activity. If someone is posting wArEz in the forum, by all means, regulate. If someone is smoking weed out behind the fora (not sure how that would work, exactly, but...) sure, call the cops. But speech? Discussion? Surely that's what these fora are here for: the open debate and discussion of whatever issues the community sees fit to bring up.

Just some thoughts...
-alex.


----------



## bobw (Mar 4, 2003)

Alex
We discourage talk about any of the P2P software because the main use for it is Warez. illegal software. I know some folks do use it legitimately, but leaving the discussions like this open, has in the past, led to Warez talk, which is against Board Rules. We don't want to inhibit anyone's free speech, we just won't provide a forum for this type of activity.

As far as protected speech, you're right, but that doesn't apply everywhere. When you post to a forum like this, you must follow the Boards Rules. All Boards have their own set of rules, and a lot do allow this type of discussion. This Board doesn't. Like you said, it is a private forum, for anyone to use that wishes to.

Safari with tabs, this has been posted here and the links to the download sites in those posts were removed.

We're not trying to stop anyone from doing anything or posting anything. But anything posted on this board must follow board rules.

Some people may not like all the rules, but they're there for a purpose, to protect the site from any liability. To make it a good place for everyone.

This forum isn't here to discuss Warez, or anything illegal, it's here to help people with computer problems discuss computer events, new things, etc.

Hopefully I haven't offended you in any way, or anyone else wondering why these types of posts aren't allowed.


----------



## alexrd (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bobw _
> *Alex
> We discourage talk about any of the P2P software because the main use for it is Warez. illegal software. I know some folks do use it legitimately, but leaving the discussions like this open, has in the past, led to Warez talk, which is against Board Rules. We don't want to inhibit anyone's free speech, we just won't provide a forum for this type of activity.
> *



This is exactly what concerns me. Warez trading? Ban it. Warez talk? Well....
Like I said, doing something and talking about it are not the same thing.

*



			As far as protected speech, you're right, but that doesn't apply everywhere. When you post to a forum like this, you must follow the Boards Rules. All Boards have their own set of rules, and a lot do allow this type of discussion. This Board doesn't. Like you said, it is a private forum, for anyone to use that wishes to.
		
Click to expand...

*
Absolutely. I feel I went out of my way to make that point. Heck, the board can ban all discussion of Photoshop (or any other random topic) and be within its rights. Private forum, private rules. Discussion of those rules is, however, fair game.

*



			Safari with tabs, this has been posted here and the links to the download sites in those posts were removed.
		
Click to expand...

*
Exactly. But by the rationale behind closing off the ******** post, the entire Safari post should be removed. I mean, after all, it is discussing illegal software (or at least illegal for a majority  of users here) so clearly the discussion of said software is detrimental to the site.

*



			We're not trying to stop anyone from doing anything or posting anything. But anything posted on this board must follow board rules.
		
Click to expand...

*
Well, this is a  bit disingenuous. In fact you are trying to stop people from posting about something; hence the rule.

*



			Some people may not like all the rules, but they're there for a purpose, to protect the site from any liability. To make it a good place for everyone.

This forum isn't here to discuss Warez, or anything illegal, it's here to discuss computer events, new things, etc.

Hopefully I haven't offended you in any way, or anyone else wondering why these types of posts aren't allowed.
		
Click to expand...

*
Certainly I'm not offended, and I hope the same is true from the other side  However I think there is value in questioning the rules, examining their boundries, and perhaps even challenging them.

To reiterate: this site absolutely should not become a warez outpost (how long would it last before a cease-and-dissist anyway?). But actually prohibiting even the discussion of (perhaps unsavory) topics just makes me a bit uncomfortable, and I think ultimately works to the detriment of the quality of speech and community. The question of where to draw the line between liability and freedom is always tricky.

I'm not even sure why I'm worked up about this. It's not like I've ever felt this forum censored or stifled anyone. But that ******** post was about "help[ing] people with computer problems" (specifically a problem with ********). It was not about where to find the latest Britney Spears album for free. At least not explicitly. One could argue that that sort of activity is the most likely reason someone is asking about ********, but I could ask a quesiton about Project Builder because I'm working on the next email trojan scourge, should we ban all posts about software developement?

Sigh. What can I say, I'm just argumentative.

No animosity here...
-alex.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2003)

> ...I suspect that a large part of the motivation of banning posts about p2p rests in a fear of liability, and with the ambiguous wording of the DMCA, this fear may not be unfounded. But do we really want to relinquish our right to open discussion of whatever topics we see fit because of a heavy handed and likely unconstitutional law whose clear purpose is to extend and expand the hegemony of plutocratic copyright holders?



This is a large part of it. as someone beginning a career in a profession where any link with criminal activity could ruin that career, i'm simply not going to be assoiciated with it in any way shape or form. Tightening warez enforcement was a condition of my becoming an admin of the site. 

on top of that, i've yet to see anywhere that stealing from others is anyone's 'right'. We have a lot of developers and musicians who are among our membership. They work hard to provide the mac community with quality products. for the most part, what they ask in return is reasonable. When it comes to choosing who we're going to help out, our developers or our thieves, the choice is easy.

i'm sure you won't appreciate that i've edited your posts. but the reasons behind it are the root of the issue. At the present time we allow disscusion of of file sharing apps. We allow discussion of the rights and wrongs of pirating. just not in the same context. put the 2 together and we edit or close the thread. the problem is that, almost always, somebody has to connect them. with that in mind, i recently asked my mods how they felt about just banning all discussion of these apps. they talked me out it and said they would rather continue policing the offenders. I may still change my mind. Your post continues to point out to me how difficult it is to seperate the issues, even if one means no harm.

i realize this is perhaps a thin line. but in that context, whenever in doubt, i will plant my feet on the safe and ethical side of it.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2003)

as for discussions of private betas - this is again a tricky subject but the guidlelines are a little more clear. We feel it is important that our members be able to discuss the coming features and shortfalls of coming attractions. many of our members have legal access to them. but the minute anyone makes reference to how or where to illegally obtain copies of those betas, we edit them.


----------



## gigi (Mar 4, 2003)

alexrd ..... you've got my vote


----------



## alexrd (Mar 4, 2003)

Whoa ed.

You're darn right I don't appreciate that you edited my posts.

Now I can't even write:

{sour citrus fruit that's not a lemon}{thin piece of conductive material}?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I was making a theoretical point before, playing devil's advocate, but this is really beyond the pale. What possible purpose can editing out the name of that piece of software serve? What possible liability have you avoided?(especially in the context of these posts).



> on top of that, i've yet to see anywhere that stealing from others is anyone's 'right'. We have a lot of developers and musicians who are among our membership. They work hard to provide the mac community with quality products. for the most part, what they ask in return is reasonable. When it comes to choosing who we're going to help out, our developers or our thieves, the choice is easy.



I have never claimed that theft is a right. However, theft, and speech about theft are not equivalent (to belabor an already tired point). Now, as both Bobw and I pointed out, within the confines of this site, even speech is not a right, but rather a privilege conferred by the maintainers (the moderators being the police agency of same). I'm decidedly not claiming that anyone is taking away my rights. I am questioning whether the form of enforcement is actually forwarding the goals you just stated. How does a  complete blackout of fileswapping topics benefit the developers and musicians (two hats that I wear from time to time BTW)? The open exchange of ideas is pivotal to the intellectual health of any community, and I wonder how ignorance of file swapping issues and software helps content producers protect their assests.



> i realize this is perhaps a thin line. but in that context, whenever in doubt, i will plant my feet on the safe and ethical side of it.



Sir, I fail to see how that is what you have done. 
Ethics are tricky in the simplest of discussions. Perhaps the best you can say here is that you will place the ethic of protection of intellectual property above the ethic of free speech. That is your choice. I disagree with it, but in this venue I have no recourse (having already contributed, and not yet being willing to abandon an otherwise  excellent site over this matter).

The problem with censorship is not that the goals are bad, but that it is all too easy for the censors to become arbitrary and heavy-handed (if not outright autarchical).

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point with nothing more than a few asterisks.

-alex.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by alexrd _
> The open exchange of ideas is pivotal to the intellectual health of any community, and I wonder how ignorance of file swapping issues and software helps content producers protect their assests.


the exchange of this info is available other places. this is hardly the only place to get help. as someone recently pointed out, most of these apps have their own forums and support outlets. you would be better served by visiting them if you wish to engage in this type of acitivity.



> Sir, I fail to see how that is what you have done.
> Ethics are tricky in the simplest of discussions. Perhaps the best you can say here is that you will place the ethic of protection of intellectual property above the ethic of free speech. That is your choice. I disagree with it, but in this venue I have no recourse (having already contributed, and not yet being willing to abandon an otherwise  excellent site over this matter).
> 
> The problem with censorship is not that the goals are bad, but that it is all too easy for the censors to become arbitrary and heavy-handed (if not outright autarchical).



ok, maybe that is what i'm doing, but in this context i find that to be the policy that leaves me and my real career feeling safe at night. as a therapist, i sometimes keep confidential files on my computer and on disks. i am not in a position to go thru having my computer siezed and examined nor having any criminal accusations brought against me. i am working towards completing a phd and entering a field with very strict licensing requirements. if you expect me to jepordize that for the sake of your freedom to talk about how to steal, you are sorely misguided. 

you may find the methods to be "arbitrary", but i assure you they are not. any info that aids in participation in illegal acts will be removed. anytime you link a particular app with it's illegal uses, you are providing such info. these apps can be talked about in terms of their legal uses, but most people don't even have a clue what those may be, they are so caught up in the illegal ones. so it's simple, talk about the app, or discuss the ethics of pirating, but don't discuss them both in the same thread or anyway that links them.

and i have no problem with agreeing to disagree on this issue. 

one last thought - this site is intended as a discussion platform for os x and issues around it. while we try to provide space for a variety of other related topics, i cannot see where the issue of piracy has anything to do with os x specifically. you could just as easily discuss this at a pc site if you feel the need to.


----------



## alexrd (Mar 4, 2003)

> the exchange of this info is available other places. this is hardly the only place to get help. as someone recently pointed out, most of these apps have their own forums and support outlets. you would be better served by visiting them if you wish to engage in this type of acitivity.



Well, this amounts to "if you don't like the discourse here, feel free to take it up in Russia/Cuba/Iraq." It's dismissive and avoids the issue.
Furthermore, I have not now, nor ever, used this forum as a place to discuss piracy (that is to say, asked for or given advice on how or where to aquire pirated software). I have discussed it only on a meta-meta-level, and even that is deemed unacceptable.



> you may find the methods to be "arbitrary", but i assure you they are not. any info that aids in participation in illegal acts will be removed. anytime you link a particular app with it's illegal uses, you are providing such info. these apps can be talked about in terms of their legal uses, but most people don't even have a clue what those may be, they are so caught up in the illegal ones. so it's simple, talk about the app, or discuss the ethics of pirating, but don't discuss them both in the same thread or anyway that links them.


Yet, when I discuss the ethics of speech about pirating, I am subject to censorship. This goes against both the letter and the spirit of what you just wrote. 



> i am working towards completing a phd and entering a field with very strict licensing requirements. if you expect me to jepordize that for the sake of your freedom to talk about how to steal, you are sorely misguided.


A common sentiment, really. I will defend your rights within the limits of my convenience. Very well. No one said you have an obligation to do more.
However, the supposed jeopordy in which such discussion places you (or the site for that matter) is far from evident. Is it really that, or is it your strong bias against piracy?



> and i have no problem with agreeing to disagree on this issue.


And why would you? You hold all the cards in this case.



> One last thought - this site is intended as a discussion platform for os x and issues around it. while we try to provide space for a variety of other related topics, i cannot see where the issue of piracy has anything to do with os x specifically. you could just as easily discuss this at a pc site if you feel the need to.


This argument is spurious on two counts. First, the original post that prompted this discussion was about Li****re (<- that's just silly) *on OSX* and hence nothing but germane to this board. Second, there are plenty of non OSX topics floating around on this board. That's part of its vibrancy. To echo a previous example, perhaps we shouldn't discuss Photoshop either, after all that's not strictly an OSX issue, so what place does it have here? Go discuss it at a PC site.

When I started this thread, I wasn't really that invested... I just like to argue, and the termination of that thread seemed a bit extreme and your tone a bit moralistic. I thought I'd just stir the pot a bit.
But your censorship of my posts in this thread really caught me by surprise. I haven't seen anything that can justify that. What I thought was a minor quibble is ballooning into a real issue, and frankly, I don't see where else this discussion can go.
You suggest that if I don't like it I can vote with my feet, well that truly is my only option, and though it would pain me to do so, I have to consider doing just that.

-alex.


----------



## toast (Mar 4, 2003)

P2P software is dedicated to file sharing.

Discussion that goes beyond evoking their names and/or specifity (eg: C is client/server, L is P2P, and so on) is obviously filesharing-orientated, _idea est_ aiming at sharing illegal files.

Discussion about filesharing can only ruin this site's reputation, as well as ruin some of the Macintosh reputation. Hence, limiting discussion to "Get info on L" and editing all extra info on the topic is a good way to make sure warez are absent of this place.

's added by precaution


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 4, 2003)

i agree with toast (this time)


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2003)

if you'd like to discuss issues with a particular file sharing app in terms of being a scientist or researcher and needing to find specific papers or getting info from a colleague half way around the world, then go ahead. but discussing piracy and these specific apps is not going to be allowed here, regardless of other sites policies, your opinions, or the laws in Norway. 

in short, this policy has been in effect since i first became a moderator last june of 2002. it has been debated to death already. how you have been a member of this site since june of 2001, and just now noticed or decided to take exception to it, is beyond my understanding.

and while you claim i have needlesly censored you, all i have done is enforce site policy as i have done all along. the changes in your post are nothing new or an exception. they weren't even the only ones made on this site today. i also have allowed you freely discuss your views of this issue as long you stay within those bounds despite having a couple of requests to close this thread. that is not my style nor is it my intention to squelch the ablity of people to discuss this from a meta level. but a meta level doesn't require specifics, does it? once you start in on specifics, you are no longer on the meta level.


----------



## alexrd (Mar 4, 2003)

> in short, this policy has been in effect since i first became a moderator last june of 2002. it has been debated to death already. how you have been a member of this site since june of 2001, and just now noticed or decided to take exception to it, is beyond my understanding.


Well, as I said already, p2p file sharing isn't really a big interest of mine. It doesn't seem too difficult to understand that I haven't really checked out too many of the p2p threads before, but if that's beyond your understanding, there's not a heck of a lot I can do to enlighten you. Certainly I've seen "get SoftwareX here" posts edited to remove the links, and approved completely. 




> and while you claim i have needlesly censored you, all i have done is enforce site policy as i have done all along. the changes in your post are nothing new or an exception. they weren't even the only ones made on this site today. i also have allowed you freely discuss your views of this issue as long you stay within those bounds despite having a couple of requests to close this thread. that is not my style


Well that was very much your style regarding the original thread.

Needless the censorship may be, but that's not my point of contention (at least at this late stage). The point is, I haven't made a single post about how to swap files; I haven't even hinted that I approve of doing so. I have only mentioned file sharing software in the context of speech about same. How is this different from the scientific discussion mentioned by toast. How can this be construed to be against site rules? More importanty (and this is a question I have yet to see answered) what possible good can be served by censorship in this context?

Good Lord! Requests to close this thread? To what end? Because I've somehow implicated myself in pirating warez? Because I had the audacity to mention (perfectly legal) software packages by name? You certainly were magnanimous in allowing me to air my errant views, however.




> nor is it my intention to squelch the ablity of people to discuss this from a meta level. but a meta level doesn't require specifics, does it? once you start in on specifics, you are no longer on the meta level.


Come now, one can't discuss metaphysics without some reference to physics, one can't discuss metadata without some reference to data. Chalk it up to limitations of languange if you want. I drew theoretical examples to illustrate the meta-level, but I hardly think that I provided anyone with useful information on filesharing in any example that I drew.

To reiterate: Filesharing bad. Instructions on warezing bad. But this thread has been about neither of those things, and midlessly ****-ing out words is needless, heavy-handed and juvenile.

As I said before, furthering this discussion is fruitless. I, from a position of no power, cannot make any effective argument or overture to the person on the other end of the sword.

Please do close this thread. It will make a fitting epitaph.

-alex.


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

And yet, the thread remains open...

Am I not allowed to say words like "********" (green citrus fruit + electric conductor), "*******" (automobile + a sneeze), "*******" (warm state + neverending sequence of points), or any others?
******** is a perfectly legitimate, _shareware_ application, despite its (varied) uses.  Just because it is connected with illegal activities, does not mean it should be censored.  Just because a camera can take a picture that may be considered porn, does not mean it should be revoked.  Just because guns are connected with criminals, does not mean they should be outlawed.
Do you censor me because of my filesharing app of choice?
Or because I am black?
Or because I am Japanese?
Or because I am Muslim?
Or because I am Mexican?
Or because I am Jewish?
Or because I am white?
Or do you compare words like Limewire and Hotline to swear words, and you would insert "L*******" as easily as "f***"?

The board rules specifically states: "*No w@r3z* - No asking for serialz, hackz, or warez, linking to them, discussing or anything related, including MP3z, Pr0n and related piracy items."  Nowhere does it say "No mentioning legitimate applications that might be used for any of these activities."  I think, edX, your censorship of Alex's posts is unwarranted.


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2003)

that's right, you aren't allowed to mention them by name and mention illegal activities being connected to them. if you want to talk about them without any mention of their illegal uses, then fine. this interpretation is straightforward and simple to understand. i'm not changing my stand on it from any amount complaining about it. the rule might change when i'm no longer in a position of responsiblity here, but not before. except that i might just decide all mention of it is not going to be allowed since people like yourself seem to want to keep pushing the issue.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

Why did I click this thread in the New Posts window ? Damn...

*Hits Prev button in Safari*


----------



## mr. k (Mar 23, 2003)

( command-[ )
ditto toast


----------

