Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Node 541

by mikfire (Deacon)
on Mar 08, 2001 at 22:31 UTC ( #63052=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Node 541

For what little this may be worth, I feel Corion acted with good intentions and did what Corion felt was necessary. I also understand merlyn's motivation and, to an extent, agree with the stove analogy.

I think, however, this may set bad precedence and maybe there needs to be a new rule for the janitors about not messing with content. Not that I expect the janitor's would do this under anything less thean extreme duress, but merely for the legal pose it allows.

In this case, I think the reaction was a little over the top. My understanding is that the evil lawyers must first give a cease & desist order. These things usually have a time limit (ie, comply within 72 hours or we take you down ) and it would have given vroom plenty of time to react as he saw fit.

I would also argue, although this gets very close to court battles and vroom ending up in places he would rather not be, that the code so posted had no keys and was therefore useless in circumventing their encryption scheme. I would also argue the intent of the posting was not "Let's upset the MPAA/RIAA", but a discussion of the code itself and how it worked. Unfortunately, both of these points would likely require lawyers and judges.

My very limitted 0.02 USD worth,
mikfire


Comment on Re: Node 541
Re: Re: Node 541
by Corion (Pope) on Mar 08, 2001 at 23:35 UTC

    This is exactly why I posted the root node - I felt that I set a precedent which I in retrospect (that is, the 4 hours between editing the other node and posting this root node) felt needed much more discussion. I'd like the editors to be janitors, but a case like mine would come up sooner or later anyway and thus I felt some public discussion of the matter was in place.

    There seems to be much consent here that such content-editing should not take place here - I welcome that. What the future will bring for controversial nodes is still a bit unclear for me, since I have not yet heard back from vroom about any of this. Personally, I'd feel better with the permission to possibly take a node offline until vroom has had his word over it, but on the other side the voices favoring a "they have to come here first" strategy, would make my life much easier, as I wouldn't have to worry about whether a node was even that borderline.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://63052]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-10-22 00:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (112 votes), past polls