Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)

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!

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 blazar (Canon) on Sep 13, 2008 at 12:18 UTC

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.~~

[reply]
[d/l]

Re^5: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)

by Jenda (Abbot) on Sep 13, 2008 at 16:25 UTC

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!

Jenda
Support Denmark!
Defend the free world!

[reply]


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks