edit: as tye mentions here, this has been fixed last year already.

The content of reaped nodes can't be viewed by anonymous visitors. And the default settings for anonymous visitors even hides reaped nodes in most cases. This is easy to test rather than wonder about, of course. For example, most people don't log in via perlmonks.net so http://perlmonks.net/index.pl?node_id=709148 will show you the reaped node as an anonymous visitor and you can see that trying to view the content is prevented and that clicking on the parent node doesn't show the reaped reply.

The subject of the root node is why I voted "keep" on that consideration.

Trying to hide the link to the presumed-unauthorized copy of some material does nothing to make that copy go away. You can bury nodes in the sand along with your head but that really doesn't help any author earn more for the book that they wrote.

A much better goal is to educate the person who put the link in. In every case of non-anonymous nodes linking to such material where the author was given a chance to correct their mistake, that happened. By far, the best result for all concerned is for the author of the node to learn about why adding a link to such material is very inappropriate and to update their node with their sincere expression of why they won't be doing that again.

Reaping prevents any but gods from removing that link (and I think you're more likely to get one of the gods to unreap the node than to edit the reaped content, especially since modifying the reaped content must be done via SQL).

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.

So I think the worst possible action is for a janitor to modify such a link. The best action is to teach the node author the error in their ways and have them demonstrate what they have learned by removing the link and adding an appropriate apology. In the case of anonymous nodes with such links, reaping is the best route since that hides the link from anonymous visitors including search engine spiders.

And I think it is time to just make this official site policy, documented it a sitefaqlet.

- tye        

The content of reaped nodes can't be viewed by anonymous visitors.

ok, this is great.

This is easy to test rather than wonder about, of course.

I did not make this up. I'm very, very sure, that it has been working some time ago, i copied the link to a reaped node to a different browser without a login cookie and I could click the "the original node and the consideration vote tally" link and see the content. So this has been fixed obviously. thanks =)

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.

Lovely. "We know there's a poo on the pavement, we might easily remove it, but we will not because we might be legaly obliged to always remove any poo on the pavement in the whole town." Now this is either BS or it's true and then it's doubly BS. But a legal one. Something's rotten in this legal world.

(-Do you know what's a hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea? -What? -A good start.)

Jenda


Support Denmark! Defend the free world!

++, like the idea of the author being responsible for handling the problem, very nice approach. Also, good of you to explain the technical difficulties and points of the idea :)

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

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

How 'bout not removing the link but editing the node to include a visually distinctive warning in point of the link being say something like "suspect of linking to pirated material?" IAFFBAL ("far from being") but shouldn't that

• clearly warn (by definition) those (most) that do want to avoid such material anyway and;
• decrease the risk of legal liability to the site?

(Sorry for replying so late!)

--
If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.

I think it would be a very good idea to "disable" pirate links. We just had a discussion about that in the cb. Now that I really think about it, as a site dedicated to Perl and it's advancement, I do believe we have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent links to pirated materials from being distributed through our community, especially and specifically on Perl Monks. The point was also made in the earlier discussion, that some of these authors, such as the all powerful merlyn, for one, are monks, themselves, so, seeing as how these people dedicate their time to our monastery for the good of the advancement of knowledge, we certainly should do our part to keep their hard work protected.

I recently found out that I unintentionally downloaded a pirated copy of a Perl book (I deleted it, of course, and felt terribly ignorant for not even realizing that I had done it). I was quite surprised to find out how easily these are distributed, and how well they are disguised as sponsored and/or permitted copies, which is why I might seem a bit...passionate, lol.

Don't get me wrong, I love, respect and appreciate the monastery and all it's monks :) (honestly, I do). I just thought grep brought up a really good point, or rather, idea that we as a community, should consider :)

++ grep Good lookin' out ;)

Oh, and good point tinita, I've wondered that as well :) ++

In fact, I think one can argue that leaving the links may put PerlMonks at greater legal risk than removing them. Think about it this way -- if this was a gaming site and someone posted a link to a warez copy of a game do you really think that post would be left untouched? Or any other software for that matter. I know on modmymoto.com links to RSD Lite get removed all the time.

So why is it that removing links to illegal copies of books is a problem for us when removing links to warez on just about any other site is not a problem for them? What if someone posted a link to say an internal beta of Windows 7? Do you think it would be riskier to leave it or remove it?

Similar topic Software piracy- what would you do?

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Since I triggered this thread, let me weigh in.

I'm very clear that every instance of any of the books I wrote for O'Reilly, or anything from any of the Perl CDs, being present on the web for public consumption, is piracy.

I'm also of the opinion (which I know isn't shared by everyone) that the presence of electronic copies of these O'Reilly books does indeed damage the marketability of the books, because there are people who would not buy the book if they didn't have to, and would have otherwise, and the books do not need any more publicity than they've already gotten.

Therefore, as a courtesy to me, as an author with something at stake, I kindly request that my requests for takedown be acted upon with haste, and not waiting for a formal sequence of events involving the publisher and lawyers and served papers. It seems common sense.

The Monastery has no "common carrier" protection, nor would fit the safe harboring provisions of the DMCA. I'm pretty sure that based on past actions taken here, it would be silly to assume that the operators of the Monastery would be held harmless if continued copyright violations show up.

Given that, swift action, and editing to minimize damage, seem the only logical course.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

The Monastery has no "common carrier" protection, nor would fit the safe harboring provisions of the DMCA.

Can you cite a single instance of US caselaw where the operator of a site which merely linked to infringing material has been found liable under the DMCA, except for where the site:

• exists primarily to link to infringing materials,
• links to devices primarily intended to circumvent DRM, or
• links to externally-hosted infringing material in an attempt to circumvent an injunction against hosting infringing material itself?

As an author and copyright holder myself, I find it exceedingly rude to see my copyrights infringed as well, but the idea of issuing takedown notices to places such as PerlMonks for merely linking to infringing work (and that, often, unintentionally) is more unpalatable than the linguistic trick of equating copyright infringement to violent, extranational thievery.

Therefore, as a courtesy to me, as an author with something at stake, I kindly request that my requests for takedown be acted upon with haste, and not waiting for a formal sequence of events involving the publisher and lawyers and served papers. It seems common sense.

Perlmonks aren't hosting your books, so huh?

So you want to be pirate police?

No, I wanted to ask a question to the community. Thank you for your input, but please try and keep weasel words out of what IMO is a good discussion.

...and there is liability becoming pirate police (ask a lawyer).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

I agree you are not a lawyer, but you are trying to give legal advice. So please follow your own advice and ask a lawyer. There are several Pro Bono resources you could ask (I would advise getting permission from the gods), why don't you? You can establish what I suggested is/is not a liability and that leaving links is/is not. Then leave weasel words and conjecture elsewhere.

grep
One dead unjugged rabbit fish later...

Except doesn't the act of reaping the node already set PerlMonks up for legal issues?

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks