i have found a ebook web site

[Taylor514ce]

Or, one could realize that MobileRead is not obligated to endorse any particular viewpoint regarding illegal books or sites, except that of the owners/operators, and require no evidence whatsoever before deleting links, posts, or entire threads, and aren't obligated to debate the issue with anyone.

[JeffElkins]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Or, one could realize that MobileRead is not obligated to endorse any particular viewpoint regarding illegal books or sites, except that of the owners/operators, and require no evidence whatsoever before deleting links, posts, or entire threads, and aren't obligated to debate the issue with anyone.

Absolutely correct. Of course, too draconian a policy would make MR (or any forum) an unpleasant place to inhabit...there's a balance to be achieved. Communication hardly ever hurts.

[Taylor514ce]

Yes, I know, and the Admin/Moderation team here is one of the best I've yet encountered, and they DO explain, debate, and participate. But they aren't OBLIGATED to do so, nor to repeat the reasons each time someone complains.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

Yes, I know, and the Admin/Moderation team here is one of the best I've yet encountered, and they DO explain, debate, and participate. But they aren't OBLIGATED to do so, nor to repeat the reasons each time someone complains.

But I personally feel that if the reason for doing something is not something I feel needs be kept between the staff only, then it's ok to explain why something was done.

[Nate the great]

A point in Harry's favor: the original poster hasn't come back to defend the site.

[peterbbb]

As I wrote, I am totally happy that illegal websites are not supported by this forum. But I would like to know what HarryT used to identify the fact that the website link lead to a site that was distributing illegal material.

I don't want to challenge - I just want to know. Please...

[askyn]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

A point in Harry's favor: the original poster hasn't come back to defend the site.

Just a note that, like many, the person might have posted before they left for work or during a break / lunch at work and might not have had a chance to come back and check.

That said I have no idea on the legal / illegal status of the link, and have no consern with the link being pulled ( other then human curiosity ).

Id rather the mods be pre-emtive and then restore the link latter on.

[koland]

I did happen to see the site before the link was removed -- it had links to recent copyright books, all on hacking. It's hard to get too upset to see books about how to steal being stolen, but no doubt was a copyright violation all the same.

[slayda]

Another point in Harry's favor (really in MR's favor) is that they could have just removed the thread with no explanation at all. Then there would be none of this discussion/debate because we wouldn't even no about it.

So (IMO) MR is being very considerate in 1) allowing us to know there is something to debate and 2) allowing us to debate the issue.

[Nate the great]

Well, no.

We left this thread open so when the revolution comes, we'll know who goes up against the wall.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Well, no.

We left this thread open so when the revolution comes, we'll know who goes up against the wall.

i'm pretty sure we don't need a thread to know it's the RIAA.

i guess we could use it to figure out who *else*, although i can think of a couple of threads which would be more effective than this one for that.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by haridasi

Just stating: "illegal, link deleted" gives me a police state feeling (and it's the second time i've seen it done today). When I also couple that with HarryT's opinions regarding copyright infringement in the discussion "Book piracy, is ebook piracy on the rise", I get the shivers.

I believe that Haradiri may be referring to this thread:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27295

Please let me explain my reasoning. I do not interfere with member’s posts lightly.

I was the mod who removed the link. It was to a 1972 book. I did a web search and found the book was in copyright:

"This electronic file is Copyright © 1972-2006 Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International Inc., 3764 Watseka Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90034, USA. All rights reserved.”

Moreover, the search threw up the notice that:

“You may not excerpt or reproduce more than five percent (5%) of this file in any other medium without the express written permission from the copyright owners."

Now, when I clicked on the link I was taken directly to a copy of the book. There was no way of telling whether it was the original, or whether the member who posted it had uploaded a copy (--which would have been a violation of the 5% rule). And the member had not explained that he had got permission to distribute copies.

Under these circumstances, what is a mod to do? I removed the link (--politely, I hope) and invited the member to re-post if I had made a mistake.

“We can't allow links that risk violating copyright, so I'm afraid that I'm going to delete it.
But if you have the author's permission, Pankaja, then repost it.”

I am very sorry that Haradiri has been worried by this episode. I actually feel rather upset at worrying both him and the original poster in the other thread. The last thing I want to do is upset our members. But we also want to stay legal and comply with Canadian copyright law. (Our servers are in Canada.)

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by haridasi

But is it a fellony?

I do understand why MR doesn't want to "recommend" (I don't remember the correct english term) copyright infringement, but why not state "This link seems to be a website containing illegal material, so therefore we will not condone its content and use.

Just stating: "illegal, link deleted" gives me a police state feeling (and it's the second time i've seen it done today). When I also couple that with HarryT's opinions regarding copyright infringement in the discussion "Book piracy, is ebook piracy on the rise", I get the shivers.

If the moderators here are people without any understanding of the different sides of the copyright/piracy debate, then well, I don't want to condone those opinions, peoples or websites.

Though, too their defence, it's an important (and in many aspects) good work their doing here.

but, wouldn't allowing a illegal website link to remain on the board, condone its use by not removing it?

"Police State"? Take a look at the very bottom of this page.

MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.

That tells me they have a right to judge what will or will not be posted here. There are many other places to find content and opinions. If I were unhappy with the way the moderators ruled, I'd definitely find somewhere else to go. I'm just saying...........

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

but, wouldn't allowing a illegal website link to remain on the board, condone its use by not removing it?

Yes, if we left illegal links then it would be a free advertisement. We can't consistently deprecate illegal activities and simultaneously point them out to people.

[DrMoze]

Originally Posted by JeffElkins

In the US it's called contributory infringement. IIRC, it's settled Federal case law; see the 2600 Magazine article on Wikipedia. Personally, I fall more into the "abolish or radically change copyright side of things," but I don't represent this forum. The moderators OTOH do, and they are perfectly correct to protect the forum and its owners from legal harassment.

Actually, it should fall under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) if there's a notification and takedown policy for posted links to copyrighted content. This provides a safe harbor for the ISP/site owners.

Note: After a bit of searching, I did NOT find a takedown policy on the site (if it exists, it is not evident on the main page), nor identification of a designated agent to receive reports of potential violations. Not conforming to the DMCA Liability Limitation Act is CRAZY for this kind of website. Merely stating that "the site owners are not responsible for posted content" is NOT sufficient. Without conforming, the moderators are simply not protecting the site nor themselves.