|
Re^2: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by tye (Sage) on Sep 05, 2008 at 14:47 UTC
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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 =)
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
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.)
| [reply] |
|
|
Except it's not exactly poo! They're diamonds instead, except they're just robbed. Except that unlike "real" diamonds, their owners are not deprived of them when they get robbed: which I hope won't be interpreted as of me inciting to piracy, just wanting to duly pinpoint a difference.
(Sorry for replying so late!)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
++, 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 :)
| [reply] |
|
|
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
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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!)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Re^2: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes
by koolgirl (Hermit) on Sep 05, 2008 at 14:55 UTC
|
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 :) ++
| [reply] |
