Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:25:

weedeewee wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:23:

The report button has four options... - The post contains, or links to pirated software - The post is spam - The post violates […]
Show full quote

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 11:56:

This is why I think the rules aren't actually rules because I can't get a straight answer.

The report button has four options...
- The post contains, or links to pirated software
- The post is spam
- The post violates community standards
- The post violates a different rule.

That should make it clear and be as easy to understand as a straight answer. (aside from that last one... )

Then there are the community guidelines ucp.php?mode=terms

Is software on archive.org "pirated"?

some is, some isn't.

Please keep the discussion honest.
Snover already replied you with the answer how athe IA is problematic.
And you already discussed it, so why discuss it again?

Edit: but that’s where I‘m going to stop. You got your answers, you didn’t like them. You‘ve been told what not to do. Everything else is just feeding a discussion held in bad faith.

I am keeping it honest. I had a post edited for simply naming a website that contained S'more Land Sea Plus Plus. Not even linking.

I asked for clarification on the rules. What followed is two pages of ridiculousness. The conclusion I have come to is that the rules are actually guidelines, and you are salty because I made you look silly.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:37:

I am keeping it honest. I had a post edited for simply naming a website that contained S'more Land Sea Plus Plus. Not even linking.

I asked for clarification on the rules. What followed is two pages of ridiculousness. The conclusion I have come to is that the rules are actually guidelines, and you are salty because I made you look silly.

I think, You really should've read the terms of use and community guidelines before posting that.

Snover wrote on 2022-07-14, 04:15:

To answer your question directly: Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright (by posting links to copyrighted content, or by responding to a solicitation by telling someone where they can go to violate copyright) is.

Not to engage in further jailhouse lawyering here, but "inducing" people to violate copyright is not something the site can get in trouble for AFAIK. If someone come up to me and asks where to buy crack and I tell him to hit up the corner of 4th and O St. I'm not guilty of any crime.

Posting a direct link to content is different since then you are in essence "distributing"

Read it correctly:

„Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright is.“
It’s not about the law but the rules here. And the laws are different in countries. Posting links is not always guilt free ;(
And the owner doesn’t want to test laws 🤷‍♂️

The issue I have is with mods claiming something is not allowed while simultaneously admitting that it is allowed. Sometimes, if they feel like it, on Tuesdays after lunch.

Just say it's a gray area and up to your discretion instead of pretending otherwise.

Plasma wrote:

Is software on archive.org "pirated"?

Sometimes yes. There are certain pages which have games ISOs with conveniently included crack. That does not apply to examples of games and software which are in legal limbo though. Nobody can claim rights to them or it's a copyright deadlock between multiple companies.

in other news...

https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/07/14/0034 … ibrary-of-books

Now this is about the books they have on the IA. It could easily happen to the software archive. Do you want that to happen?

also
In belgium

Computer programs are protected by copyright until 70 years after the death of the author. When copyright on computer programs expires, they enter the public domain.

Upon the death of the author, the rights are passed on to his heirs. However, the rights that the author transferred during his lifetime remain in the hands of the persons to whom the author transferred them.
However, the rights that the author transferred during his lifetime remain in the hands of the persons to whom the author transferred them.

source : https://economie.fgov.be/en/themes/intellectu … oftware-covered

(annoying long links)

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 14:32:

The issue I have is with mods claiming something is not allowed while simultaneously admitting that it is allowed. Sometimes, if they feel like it, on Tuesdays after lunch.

Just say it's a gray area and up to your discretion instead of pretending otherwise.

They did at like the first page?

That said, posting copyrighted material is never explicitly allowed. But you don't seem like the person to understand nuance.

Easier if you just don't post copyrighted material, report it when you see it and let moderation do its work.

ZellSF wrote on 2022-07-14, 15:16:

They did at like the first page? […]
Show full quote

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 14:32:

The issue I have is with mods claiming something is not allowed while simultaneously admitting that it is allowed. Sometimes, if they feel like it, on Tuesdays after lunch.

Just say it's a gray area and up to your discretion instead of pretending otherwise.

They did at like the first page?

That said, posting copyrighted material is never explicitly allowed. But you don't seem like the person to understand nuance.

Easier if you just don't post copyrighted material, report it when you see it and let moderation do its work.

And then they contradicted themselves several times afterwards.

And to be clear, I did not post copyrighted material. I did not even link copyrighted material.

I obviously meant posting about how to infringe on copyright. Also things that are obvious: no one wants to re-write the rules to fit someone who's that pedantic.

ZellSF wrote on 2022-07-14, 15:37:

I obviously meant posting about how to infringe on copyright. Also things that are obvious: no one wants to re-write the rules to fit someone who's that pedantic.

I obviously can't read your mind. That's not what you wrote.

This forum is filled with ebay links, software links, and posts with "X software is available on Y site". Excuse me for wanting clarification on whether that is actually allowed. I don't have your telepathic nuance detector.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 15:48:

This forum is filled with ebay links, software links, and posts with "X software is available on Y site". Excuse me for wanting clarification on whether that is actually allowed. I don't have your telepathic nuance detector.

no one said that the moderators are tracking each new post - it "can" happen that a moderator gets you while doing something that is obviously not ok - for example: posting links to warez - nothing more to know

as the law rules are so wide-spread and unclear around the world the posters here need to have some sort of common sense what is bad and not wanted - just don't post if that is way too much burden for you

Please try to understand the distinction between not getting an answer and getting an answer that you don’t like. Multiple moderators and community members have shared with you what behaviour that is acceptable here and the reasons why things are the way they are. I can tell that this is intensely frustrating for you, but I promise that ‘telepathy’ is not required, just some willingness to act in good faith. To that point, I may be misinterpreting your replies here, but it at the moment it looks a lot to me like your plan is to act in bad faith and link to warez whenever you feel like because we can’t meet your personal criteria for what’s prescriptive enough to be a ‘valid’ rule. More than anything else, this sort of intentionally malicious behaviour is what causes accounts to be banned, so I would strongly discourage you from doing that, no matter how righteous you feel.

Moderators understand that everyone make mistakes from time to time—including the moderators!—and that is a big reason why actions are biased toward correction instead of punishment. In the thread that led you to create this topic, multiple posts—not just yours—were edited to remove inducements. You were given specific, actionable feedback on what you could do instead. For the six years you’ve been a member here, I only see three posts that were edited by moderators to remove this kind of stuff, and you’ve now spent about three days feeling aggrieved and arguing about it. This feels to me like a wildly disproportionate response given the facts at hand, so I am curious what it is that you are actually afraid is going to happen to you where this sort of response feels appropriate?

llm wrote on 2022-07-14, 16:47:

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 15:48:

This forum is filled with ebay links, software links, and posts with "X software is available on Y site". Excuse me for wanting clarification on whether that is actually allowed. I don't have your telepathic nuance detector.

no one said that the moderators are tracking each new post - it "can" happen that a moderator gets you while doing something that is obviously not ok - for example: posting links to warez - nothing more to know

as the law rules are so wide-spread and unclear around the world the posters here need to have some sort of common sense what is bad and not wanted - just don't post if that is way too much burden for you

The question is not about things that are "obviously not ok." It's about things that are allowed one day and not allowed the next, for seemingly no reason.

I have been told by a moderator, point blank, "direct ebay links are not allowed." But that's not actually the case. So when are they allowed? Whenever the mods feel like they are allowed. Ok then...

If somebody asks "Where can i get Obsolete-DOS-Program?", am I allowed to reply with the name of a website? A link to archive.org? An ebay link? I don't consider any of those things bad and not wanted. There are literally hundreds of posts/replies like that here. But suddenly one of them will be "not allowed!" and gets the edit hammer.

It's not a burden for me at all. I will just continue to post as I normally do, and mods can keep randomly editing them. This occurs on no other forum I visit, because the rules are clearly defined.

Snover wrote on 2022-07-14, 17:54:

Please try to understand the distinction between not getting an answer and getting an answer that you don’t like. Multiple moderators and community members have shared with you what behaviour that is acceptable here and the reasons why things are the way they are. I can tell that this is intensely frustrating for you, but I promise that ‘telepathy’ is not required, just some willingness to act in good faith. To that point, I may be misinterpreting your replies here, but it at the moment it looks a lot to me like your plan is to act in bad faith and link to warez whenever you feel like because we can’t meet your personal criteria for what’s prescriptive enough to be a ‘valid’ rule. More than anything else, this sort of intentionally malicious behaviour is what causes accounts to be banned, so I would strongly discourage you from doing that, no matter how righteous you feel.

Moderators understand that everyone make mistakes from time to time—including the moderators!—and that is a big reason why actions are biased toward correction instead of punishment. In the thread that led you to create this topic, multiple posts—not just yours—were edited to remove inducements. You were given specific, actionable feedback on what you could do instead. For the six years you’ve been a member here, you’ve had three posts edited by moderators for this stuff, and you’ve now spent almost three days feeling aggrieved and arguing with people over it. This seems to me like a wildly disproportionate response given the truth of what’s happened, so I wonder what it is that you are actually afraid is going to happen to you?

My plan is to post what seems to be acceptable based on the existing content here. That is not "warez", nor is it bad faith.

It takes multiple people to have an argument. I created this thread looking for answers, but apparently there are none.

Plasma wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:22:

Dominus wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:11:

You‘ve been given the answer of how we are trying to handle these links.
Rest assured I will make sure the links you post from now on will be dealt with according to the rules. And if you knowingly break the rules again and again… who knows…

So you are targeting me then?

Yeah I don't really see any contradiction going on in this thread. I think Snover and the mods explained very nicely the tight spot they have often found themselves in during past times. At this point it seems to me like you're looking to provoke rather than get some meaningful answer because either what you got does not satisfy you and/or you seem to be taking some edits to your posts personally. After many years here, I can certainly say this could not be further from the truth.

This last page has been reading a lot like "fuck around and find out".

I don't see any point now. The answer has been said clearly. Mods can't check each and every post and some violations can get unnoticed. The user can avoid it as much as possible, and for a mistake the mod may remove a link or such.

There was probably no need to make such a scene out of this small inconvenience.

Dominus wrote on 2022-07-14, 12:56:

Read it correctly: […]
Show full quote

Read it correctly:

„Mentioning the existence of these sites is not a violation of VOGONS rules, but inducing people to violate copyright is.“
It’s not about the law but the rules here. And the laws are different in countries. Posting links is not always guilt free ;(
And the owner doesn’t want to test laws 🤷‍♂️

I did read it correctly. Snover specifically justified the rules by protection from legal action against the site. My response was that banning direct links is probably prudent, but "inducing people to violate copyright" is not a legitimate concern.

My point boils down to this:
Is the rule actually:
1) don't post things that could get the site in legal trouble
or
2) don't post things that violate the admins' sense of morality, because "we" believe warez is immoral?

These two things are quite different, and in order to act in good faith one needs to know what the real intent is