Re: Node 541

I guess of all the voices that are being heard on this, mine will seem the least significant and most unrecognized. But that may be a good thing.

I believe the censorship of the node was wrong. Some of the proponents of the censorship have posted arguments that make me believe this even more.

Arguments that all nodes should be monitored and censored when necessary for fear of legal action from multi-billion dollar industries, is exactly the kind of attitude that those industries what organizations like PerlMonks to have. They bully their way into "legal" rightness with their "deep pockets". The second we start thinking in such a way that we do their dirty work for them we start losing major ground in the battle do away with laws like the DMCA. I refuse to live a lifestyle that is governed by the fear of what consequences will befall me for doing the right thing, when that "right thing" is conflict with what the "powers that be" would like to see.

If censorship of the node is necessary however, then I think the question should be one of INtent, not CONtent. Had the posting party written something like, "Hey, check out this link. Let's all pirate DVD's!!!", then censorship would've been prudent. After all, that is not the kind of "ethic" that is promoted here. But that was not the intent. The poster asked a simple question about how what is probably a complicated program to some, works. That IS the kind of ethic that is promoted around here. The attitude of ask a question get an explanation pervades this place. But as soon as the fear of litigation sets in, that's all thrown away in the face of a "potential" legal battle. And hey, the initial contact in each instance of DMCA lawsuits has been a letter urging the defendant to "cease and desist" and all that. So, there probably would have been ample opportunity to make a political statement.

Ultimately the decision should have been left up to vroom. A simple /msg to him to make him aware of it would have solved everything. People seem to be so into looking out for his interests, yet no one contacted him BEFORE action was taken. What if his interests is to take that stand against the DMCA?

That's all I have to say about that.

Amel - f.k.a. - kel

Comment on Re: Node 541

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Node 541 by azatoth (Curate) on Mar 08, 2001 at 22:00 UTC
I could not disagree more. For the monastery's sake, listen to Merlyn, and let's not turn this into a discussion of "Them and Us"... Corion was right to take the child's hand off the hot stove immediately. Let Vroom review it when he gets in, and make a decision whether it should be posted or not. I think a situation like this is best left to those who will be most at risk : Vroom et al. I love this place. It has helped me every step of the way on my journey through Perl. I see no reason why we should jeopardise this great resource for ourselves and those who have not yet found it! Update : dammit, I'm not whoring for xp here. These are my thoughts on a genuinely controversial matter and I really don't want to see Perlmonks negatively affected. Azatoth a.k.a Captain Whiplash Make Your Die Messages Full of Wisdom! Get YOUR PerlMonks Stagename here! Want to speak like a Londoner?	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Node 541 by BatGnat (Scribe) on Mar 09, 2001 at 07:03 UTC
But the stove wasn't turned on! There is no current threat from this code. The people that wrote DeCSS did wrong, they reverse engineered code to find some "secret" key. This is nothing like that. BatGnat We demand rigdedly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!	[reply]
Re: Re: Node 541 by strredwolf (Chaplain) on Mar 09, 2001 at 06:45 UTC
I could not agree with you more. The question as to censor should of been intent, and not content. From my understanding, the MPAA and the RIAA, in their respective claims, are arguing content. However, since the node in question wanted to know how it worked, not "cool, time to rip DVD's...", censorship would be ill advised (unless under legal threat -- to which vroom had said it would be taken down). As to clearly illegal items, such as warez (copying w/o licence aproval) -- items tested though the courts and found to be illegal -- a clear censoring would be in order. But then, we would of downvoted it by the hundreds, and the janitors would have to pry it out of the Node Reaper's hands. `:D` -- $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";	[reply] [d/l]


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks