in reply to Re^2: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
in thread Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes

Also, if editorial intervention is used to remove such a link, then this sets a precedence that makes it more likely that PerlMonks can be held legally liable if there is ever a link that doesn't get editorially removed. I don't think it is wise to take actions that increase the risk of legal liability to the site and its owners / operators.
Except doesn't reaping the node because of the link to illegal copies already set PerlMonks up for that?

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
  • Comment on Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by tye (Sage) on Sep 08, 2008 at 19:10 UTC

    If an unruly mob of 5 anonymous people from Columbus pick up some trash off the street, does it set a precedent for the city of Columbus? After all, the trash can was put out there by the city.

    - tye        

[reply]
      Interesting point. The most obvious weak spot is that someone has to nominate the node for Consideration. So I guess to minimize legal risk no one directly affiliated with PerlMonks should be allowed to nominate a node for Consideration (or should avoid nominating these types of nodes at least).

      Of course, the other answer is that it's up to the courts to decide that one.

      Update: And the users have to have accounts to moderate, so they're not really anonymous.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]
        Update: And the users have to have accounts to moderate, so they're not really anonymous.

        And all 5 of the people had Ohio driver's licenses... but that doesn't make them not anonymous. That is, unless you are aware of some place that voting on reaping of nodes is persistently tracked that I'm not aware of.

        - tye        

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion