Should downloadlinks for Ippo/Robbo be allowed again?

[bnemias]

Of course, there's the charter to consider:

Graham, that's what got us here. Please catch up! :)

Just pointing out that the charter prevents the allowing of posting download links to pirated material, so it's a no-brainer for the mods.

Except that's not what it says, and is precisely what I pointed out that led to this tangent. So by going back to item 5 in the charter to argue this issue makes it circular.

[bob]

Of course, there's the charter to consider:

Graham, that's what got us here. Please catch up!

Just pointing out that the charter prevents the allowing of posting download links to pirated material, so it's a no-brainer for the mods.

Except that's not what it says, and is precisely what I pointed out that led to this tangent. So by going back to item 5 in the charter to argue this issue makes it circular.

I am not sure what the debate is about.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

Seems pretty clear. Links to download pirated software, an illegal copy of software, etc would seem to be "of questionable legal status"...

That term (questionable) does not mean "proven". It means that there is a question about whether the stuff is legal or not. And that certainly seems to apply here. At least in the moderator's opinions.

[bnemias]

I am not sure what the debate is about.

This:

It's not clear to me from the charter why links should be removed. I gather the mods think it falls under item 5, "Are not of questionable legal status"

Yet the charter makes no provisions for linking. And I guess my personal opinion is what harm can it do to the forum? Links are not, in themselves illegal. The content they link to might be, but links are not content.
..

Realize that I don't expect any argument here I haven't already heard. This subject has appeared on more forums than you can shake a stick at. I wasn't really trying to change opinion either-- merely pointing out there is no provision in the charter for linking.

However, when I read that posts must not be of questionable legal nature, that's how I interpret it. Links are not illegal, so I don't generally assume item 5 applies without such a provision.

[Steve B]

I am not sure what the debate is about.

This:

It's not clear to me from the charter why links should be removed. I gather the mods think it falls under item 5, "Are not of questionable legal status"

Yet the charter makes no provisions for linking.

It is not possible to list every possible situation that might be a post of questionable legal status
prior mods teams and this one consider links to download engines where a question exists as to its legality as a violation of the charter
that is the philosophy of the team.that is the teams interpretation


there is also a prohibition against posts that are "abusive" in nature
it would not be possible to list every possible abusive post and this is also open to moderator interpretation
this clause has generally been used to remove posts of an extreme graphical nature such as pornography or gratuitous violence or posts with abusive language although the charter does not mention pornography or graphical violence or cursing (used more commonly in the CTF but a few times here as well)

mod elections are due up in about six weeks
it would be a good idea for moderator candidates to mention their opinions on the cloning/linking issue in their candidate statements and let the membership vote for the candidates according to their philosophy


another issue to consider is that this board is hosted by a sponsor that is a private business
the sponsor might not be so interested in hosting a site that opens itself up to possible legal challenges
so you can have a situation where the sponsor simply drops the board and you are welcome to host your own site and post whatever you want on it with links to kingdom come

from what i know of the sponsor this site at times is more of a burden to it for the very small amount of revenue it produces
Steve

[Graham Banks]

It is not possible to list every possible situation that might be a post of questionable legal status
prior mods teams and this one consider links to download engines where a question exists as to its legality as a violation of the charter
that is the philosophy of the team.that is the teams interpretation

there is also a prohibition against posts that are "abusive" in nature
it would not be possible to list every possible abusive post and this is also open to moderator interpretation
this clause has generally been used to remove posts of an extreme graphical nature such as pornography or gratuitous violence or posts with abusive language although the charter does not mention pornography or graphical violence or cursing (used more commonly in the CTF but a few times here as well)

mod elections are due up in about six weeks
it would be a good idea for moderator candidates to mention their opinions on the cloning/linking issue in their candidate statements and let the membership vote for the candidates according to their philosophy


another issue to consider is that this board is hosted by a sponsor that is a private business
the sponsor might not be so interested in hosting a site that opens itself up to possible legal challenges
so you can have a situation where the sponsor simply drops the board and you are welcome to host your own site and post whatever you want on it with links to kingdom come

from what i know of the sponsor this site at times is more of a burden to it for the very small amount of revenue it produces
Steve

Good post and members should take note.

Cheers,
Graham.

[rhollay]

Same as Dann if you cant use google to search these engines, then what the heck do you need a poll to approve the link here? Only reason is to massage your ego. Stop wasting your time posting here and spend your time searching for these clones then. Get off your lazy butt and Google it. Or do you like to be spoonfed like a baby?

Stop talking about impeachment did you get your law degree from a online course?

Google?
Isn't it also prohibited to provide a link that itself provides (many) links to the engine mentioned?

Think about this: my friend wants to kill his wife. He asks me to provide him with a professional killer's name and phone number.
But I don't want to give him the killer's name myself, so I send him to another guy who has a long list of professional killer's contacts. Hmm...

Things are very muddled

[bnemias]

another issue to consider is that this board is hosted by a sponsor that is a private business
the sponsor might not be so interested in hosting a site that opens itself up to possible legal challenges

That is why in my original query on this subject, I asked what harm there is to the forum. Perhaps there's something I haven't though of, but it seems to me the worst possible thing that could happen legally is a takedown request.

[Dann Corbit]

another issue to consider is that this board is hosted by a sponsor that is a private business
the sponsor might not be so interested in hosting a site that opens itself up to possible legal challenges

That is why in my original query on this subject, I asked what harm there is to the forum. Perhaps there's something I haven't though of, but it seems to me the worst possible thing that could happen legally is a takedown request.

From : http://www.clickz.com/3564466
"•Don't link to third-party content if there's reason to believe it may infringe on another party's copyright."

From : http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/legallink.html

"Linking from one website to another in a normal way, so that the other page replaces the current page in the browser, like this:
<a href="http://www.othersite.com/">Interesting Other Site</a>

Is always legal; however, if you knowingly link to a site which infringes on the copyright of a third party, such as a site that sells knockoffs of DVDs, you may be held legally responsible as well. Especially, of course, if you profit from it."

It's not at all clear that linking is always legal, even in the U.S.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... y+of+links
will turn up plenty more.

It's not clear to me whether Ippo/Robbo is a clone, though it is crystal clear that it is *claimed* to be a clone. It is not clear to me whether linking to the Ippo/Robbo site is legal or not, but it is clear to me that it is of "questionable" legality.

[slobo]

Hi Steve,

I really hope the moderation team will stand bold to its decision despite the outcome of the poll.

Though the can of worms is already open, CCC imho should not support those 'guys' by allowing direct links.

Regards,
Joerg.

Agreed.

So far you both are a minority

Perhaps, but I notice that those supporting it are in a minority when it comes to posting their support.
Allowing the hackers, crackers and cloners plus their supporters to take over CCC should not be permitted under any circumstances. Their is already a forum elsewhere set up for them, and don't forget, you're their hero at present.

You probably know that social exclusion is not good for anyone. It only stimulates misbehaviour, criminality etc.

[slobo]

So far you both are a minority

Based on what? Surely not the "poll results" where it is an almost certainty that the ones replying to the poll are a small minority of CCC members.

Yes, based on the poll.

I guess the people who are much interested in the question will answer. Many will not. It is likely that they don't care.

Of course I don't take that poll too serious.

So a majority of a small minority should cause us to change our minds on this issue???

So far, the same happened in almost all American elections for president.

Do you think the CCC is so much better place than the USA?