Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

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

by tye (Sage)
on Sep 05, 2008 at 14:47 UTC ( [id://709292]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes
in thread Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes

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        

  • Comment on Re^2: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by tinita (Parson) on Sep 05, 2008 at 19:25 UTC
    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 =)

      FYI, this was fixed on 2007-04-24. I apologize that it wasn't noted in Tidings.

      - tye        

Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by Jenda (Abbot) on Sep 07, 2008 at 01:40 UTC
    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.)

      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!)

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

        It's not diamonds. More like an ad for stolen diamonds. So if you like ... there's a wall in the town where people post ads. A pram/baby-coach they do not need anymore, some kids cloths, a car they want to sell, the puppies of their beloved dog (to good people only) etc. And we've found an ad for some stolen diamonds there. But we can't remove it because it would make us legally obliged to remove all ads for anything stolen on all walls in the town. Does it make sense? I think not!

Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by koolgirl (Hermit) on Sep 05, 2008 at 14:59 UTC
    ++, 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 :)
Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by Argel (Prior) on Sep 08, 2008 at 19:05 UTC
    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

      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        

        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

Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by blazar (Canon) on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:08 UTC
    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.

      That sounds a bit like the worst of both worlds. A policy of manual intervention by appointed representatives while not removing the links might create legal jeopardy for that action alone, not just for failure to take that action at some point in future.

      - tye        

        I personally believe that one cannot say but D'Oh! I had hoped that stressing the point on suspicion (of piracy) as opposed to certainty would have made things quite different. However I stand corrected, and I will shut up forever! ;)

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

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://709292]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others having a coffee break in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-29 15:59 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found