AskMe deletion December 26, 2005 11:47 PM   Subscribe

My Askme question, about a DVD that was burned on a PC that wouldn't work on my Mac, was deleted for no other seeming reason than that it mentioned P2P. [More inside]
posted by God to Etiquette/Policy at 11:47 PM (132 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

This confuses me given that this thread about sneaking into movies was one of six links that appeared on MetaFilter on Christmas Day. I also don't seem to recall this classic thread enjoining everyone to steal expensive (and oh so tangible) cameras being deleted. In fact I seem to recall the numero uno jumping on in, and seeing as how I'm unemployed, I'd wager he could have even afforded it! Why the hypocrisy? And why couldn't it just have been modified as to not mention the (to me, surprisingly) "controversial" P2P stuff?

I considered that question an emergency, as I said up front.
posted by God at 11:48 PM on December 26, 2005


Couldn't you just borrow a couple of bucks off the Pope?
posted by Wolof at 12:11 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Wow. Matt pissed off God. That's awesome.

This is going to go well. I really should bite my tongue, but it's already been bitten three times today alone.

To be more serious:

Is there any way we can work on a more updated and more concrete set of guidelines for avoiding deletion?

God seemingly brings up a valid argument and set of points that deserve an answer.
posted by loquacious at 12:16 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


I believe that the controversy was not over the means through which the goods were acquired, but rather the nature of the goods themselves.

God specifically asked for help installing a pirated version of Mac OS X 10.4. This is, without doubt, illegal within the United States. The intention of AxMe is not to serve as a resource for illegal action, and harboring such content places Mathowie on questionable legal footing.

Regarding hypocracy: Some posts slip through the cracks, some deal with plausibly legal actions. This was neither.
posted by SemiSophos at 12:21 AM on December 27, 2005


This is, without doubt, illegal within the United States.

Is it, without a doubt, illegal to discuss? You can find plans on the net about how to build a nuke, but it would only be illegal if you, as a U.S. citizen, acted on those plans. If someone asked MeFi how to build one, or where could you go about finding plans for one, would you delete the question?

It sets a very sad precedent if, through fear, MeFi is self-censoring posts.

What if the question was about democracy and was illegal say in China? Would you delete it for fear of upsetting the Chinese authorities? Would you go further and handover all account records of the user if requested?

It's correct that many things are illegal in the U.S., and I bet a lawyer or government official could, if they really wanted to, find fault in almost any MeFi thread.
posted by Meridian at 12:38 AM on December 27, 2005


Is it, without a doubt, illegal to discuss? You can find plans on the net about how to build a nuke, but it would only be illegal if you, as a U.S. citizen, acted on those plans. If someone asked MeFi how to build one, or where could you go about finding plans for one, would you delete the question?

Talking about copyright circumvention is a violation of the DMCA, so yeah, it's illegal. Apple, specifically, is know to have some pretty vicious lawyers, and sends out cease and desist letters all the time over this.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:46 AM on December 27, 2005


The sneaking into movies post was 1 of only 6 links yesterday, so somehow I doubt it "slipped through the cracks". And didn't Matt's little attempt to loot a $350 camera (he could no doubt afford) along with 100 other MeFites, put him "on questionable legal footing"??

While I did say I would appreciate some alternative options available for me on how to get the operating system, the main part of the question was clearly how I could get the info already on computer 1 to computer 2, and why my burned DVD can only be read by the PC and not my Mac.

Honestly, I thought the ethical ramifications of P2P was pretty much understood to be an ambiguous and unresolved "open issue" among the "Internet community" and would never imagine that it would it be deleted as if I was asking how to . . . well steal fricking cameras [!!]. Honestly i wouldn't have even brought that detail up if i would have known it would have gotten my question deleted, because the question is again part of an emergency of getting my computer updated enough where I can do the thing for making Christmas presents that I need to do.

This community seriously needs a consistent set of rules for deletion. If mentioning P2P is wrong than please start deleting sneaking into movies and stealing camera threads too, and please make this rule available in print where it can be readily viewed by members.

I don't want to be part of a community where I know my comments will frequently be snuffed out based only on the tempestuous whims of prickly and unseen moderators.

(And yes God realizes the deep irony of this existential crisis)
posted by God at 12:48 AM on December 27, 2005


Free OS upgrades for the unemployed!
posted by Wolof at 12:54 AM on December 27, 2005


Your Ask post was way out of line and your drawing parallells to the other posts is ridiculous.

AskMe is not a "where are the warez?!" resource.

Who stole cameras? People purchased the cameras for the advertised price on Amazon. It's not their fault that Amazon's coders fucked up the price.

A web site that posts the times that movies play (information available AT THE THEATRE) is not illegal--either is a link to such a site.

Grow the fuck up, God. If you want software, BUY IT! Or, if you want to steal it don't do so in a way that is gonna put someone else on the line.
posted by dobbs at 12:55 AM on December 27, 2005


I don't want to be part of a community where I know my comments will frequently be snuffed out based only on the tempestuous whims of prickly and unseen moderators.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Dude, you're laying it on a little thick. There are zero above-ground sites that I know of where you can ask for installation help for pirated software, at least in the United States. It's completely illegal to ask anywhere about how to circumvent copy protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's illegal to even try. It's illegal to use a valid serial number that you paid for and own on a copy you've downloaded off the internet. Suffice to say, it's illegal and you can't do it here.

Nothing to do with censorship, so get down off your high horse. Matt's covering his own ass so he doesn't get sued because you don't want to drop 100 bucks on OS X, and rightfully so.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:57 AM on December 27, 2005


*Notes humor in SweetJesus calling out God*
posted by SemiSophos at 12:59 AM on December 27, 2005 [6 favorites]


Of course, I had no idea that the AskMe thread in question specifically was asking about how to install a pirated OS.

Nevermind. We don't need to update the guidelines or make more rules.
posted by loquacious at 1:12 AM on December 27, 2005


Technically, that post had nothing to do with sneaking into movies. But nevermind that, I hope to find this thread has devolved into more ironic call outs and overblown anger from God tomorrow when I wake up. Don't disappoint me God.
posted by panoptican at 1:15 AM on December 27, 2005


There are zero above-ground sites that I know of where you can ask for installation help for pirated software

This had nothing to do with my question. Again, let's just say the DVD is full of pictures of horses. It's the same exact problem.

Of course, I had no idea that the AskMe thread in question specifically was asking about how to install a pirated OS.

That was a total lie.

Dobbs, i find your interpretations of the Amazon thread and the movie thread dubious, certainly very debateable, as I do your interpretation of intellectual property. If my computer could make cameras if it was given non-tangible camera making instructions, there is just as much ethical ambiguity as there is with giving people "instructions" how to sneak into movies or with trying to use an obviously accidental glitch to rip-off Amazon to get very expensive equipment. No one has actually demonstrated that me simply asking methods for getting software as a tertiary question was getting anybody in trouble, and honestly that question doesn't include anything inherently illegal as it could have lots of hypothetically legal answers such as: "you can get a very cheap used version at website x" and "Apple is offering a free Beta version of OS V at their website", etc.
posted by God at 1:17 AM on December 27, 2005


There are zero above-ground sites that I know of where you can ask for installation help for pirated software

As another request, if Askme deletions still existed in linkable limbo like MeFi threads, I could go to sleep now, comfortable in the fact that people couldn't easily derail this thread with misinformation such as this.
posted by God at 1:26 AM on December 27, 2005


Post the questions from your cache here, and we'll tell you why it was deleted. If it was in any way about how to install a pirated version of any software, see the explanation above and get over it.

Also, in the future, if you had an email address in your profile, I'm pretty sure you would have gotten an email explaining why it was deleted.

Double also, you might want to stop being such a dick about this. Some people on this site have a long memory, and take stupid threads like this to heart. You'll become another retarded in-joke for those members of the Cult of Personality. You may not care (I wouldn't), but I'm just letting you know.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:26 AM on December 27, 2005


Post the questions from your cache here, and we'll tell you why it was deleted. If it was in any way about how to install a pirated version of any software, see the explanation above and get over it.

I install it by actually transporting it from the PC in the next room over to my mac and clicking on it, there isn't anything to wonder about that.

There is no cache. This summary from above is square:

While I did say I would appreciate some alternative options available for me on how to get the operating system, the main part of the question was clearly how I could get the info already on computer 1 to computer 2, and why my burned DVD can only be read by the PC and not my Mac.

Obviously the reason it was deleted is because a) i mentioned the info on the disk + computer in question is *gasp!* "stolen" (and we all know whoever deleted my post purchased every mp3 in their ipod!) and b) i asked for other methods of getting the operating system if no one could answer the the transport questions, noting that i had no money (even though, as I noted above, that question isn't inherently asking for illegal methods).
posted by God at 1:50 AM on December 27, 2005


I install it by actually transporting it from the PC in the next room over to my mac and clicking on it, there isn't anything to wonder about that.

There is no cache. This summary from above is square:


Dude, check your web browser cache. Post the question here, and we'll try and tell you why it may have been deleted it.

Otherwise, fuck this, I'm done trying to help your ass out. I predict good things for this thread if it's still here in the morning.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:55 AM on December 27, 2005


I hear Steve Jobs will send you a free iPod if you pass this email on to your ten closest unemployed friends.
posted by Wolof at 2:03 AM on December 27, 2005


Sweet fire-pogoing Christ in a titty bar! God, take a step away from the computer for a few hours and come back with an objective eye for how insanely self-entitled your response is and how misplaced your outrage is.

You made a mistake. Learn from it. It is most certainly not the MetaFilter collective's mistake to learn from.

Wait a week and if your problem still isn't solved, post it again with less specific information on what is on the disk and more specific information about the what the actual problem is.

Yes, that specific bit about the "backup copy" matters. No, you pointing out every other potential quasi-legality doesn't make it matter less.

I can't believe I'm going to have to do this but...

*Mom voice activated*

"If all of your shiftless, no good friends jumped off a bridge does that mean you would, too?"
posted by loquacious at 2:04 AM on December 27, 2005


There is no cache. I wish the text still existed somewhere but it doesn't.

The install bit was from SemiSophos above, it is 100% not true.

How is not listening to me and repeatedly swearing at me trying to help me?
posted by God at 2:07 AM on December 27, 2005


loquacious, what exactly has changed since this:

Is there any way we can work on a more updated and more concrete set of guidelines for avoiding deletion?

God seemingly brings up a valid argument and set of points that deserve an answer.


Except all the derailing misinformation about me asking for installation help?
posted by God at 2:12 AM on December 27, 2005


Dude, give it up. You lose.
posted by Tacodog at 2:32 AM on December 27, 2005


Plus, this thread is total chatfilter.

Talking about copyright circumvention is a violation of the DMCA, so yeah, it's illegal. Apple, specifically, is know to have some pretty vicious lawyers, and sends out cease and desist letters all the time over this.

Have you even read the DMCA? I have. And you don't know what the fuck your talking about. Why is it that people who have no idea what the law says seem to want to make grand pronouncements about what is and is not legal? I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the law.

talking about circumventing DRM is not only not banned it's explicitly allowed. In other words, not only would it be a violation of the constitution to prevent you from discussing copyright circumvention, the DMCA specifically says you can do it. Case law dictates that you can use English text, but not source code in discussing DRM circumvention.
posted by delmoi at 2:49 AM on December 27, 2005


Who stole cameras? People purchased the cameras for the advertised price on Amazon. It's not their fault that Amazon's coders fucked up the price.

It might not be illegal, but if you know the price is wrong from an ethical standpoint, I don't see how you could argue that it's not equivalent to stealing.
posted by delmoi at 2:51 AM on December 27, 2005


It's completely illegal to ask anywhere about how to circumvent copy protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's illegal to even try. It's illegal to use a valid serial number that you paid for and own on a copy you've downloaded off the internet. Suffice to say, it's illegal and you can't do it here.

Oh my god. You are such a moron it's almost unbelievable. What you are saying is like, the exact opposite of the truth. Where in the hell did you hear this and why do you believe it's true? I'm honestly curious how someone could have such a bizarre belief.
posted by delmoi at 2:53 AM on December 27, 2005


God, for starters I was mapping my own frustration with a few specific types of recurring deletion upon your own before becoming aware of more of the facts.

Secondly, I'm simply going on what was said by someone I feel is a credible eyewitness. If your post mentioned nothing about using an unofficial, unlicensed copy of an operating system, apologies.

If it did, well, your bed is made. Sorry.

In either case, your responses and reactions here have been less than calm, sincere, or rational. Attacking people or instances that have had nothing to do with your thread isn't exactly the best way to open up a dialog.

Granted, we did start out by poking fun at your username. But that's happened plenty of times before where the user jokes simply jokes back. If this is the main source of your annoyance as displayed in this thread, apologies again. But considering lightening up and/or growing a hide.

Outside of any of all that, there's not much anyone can do without an accurate cache of the post.

Putting my own personal annoyance aside over said post deletions and types of deletions, and going by the historical record, generally when shit gets deleted from AskMe it's for a good reason. I'm willing to trust that historical record, for now and the forseeable future.

Perhaps you should be willing to trust it, too.

And remember, this isn't a democracy. There isn't a bill of rights. Try to think of it as Matt's noisy, crowded living room - on private property, in a private house.

While many people have brought food and drink to share, there's really only two folks making it all go - in the kitchen handing out glasses and plates, doing dishes, all over the house cleaning up spills and passed out drunks. And more and more people keep pouring in, with more and more food and drinks. Some leave. Many stay. Some of them never leave, and some stay even when uninvited.

And somehow I doubt that Matt and Jessamyn really ever have as much fun as all the folks in the living room are.
posted by loquacious at 2:55 AM on December 27, 2005


See, I thought talking about drugs was okay, too. After all, High Times still gets itself published, right? Alas, many posts asking questions about drugs have dissapeared too, either that or the poster has had to use codewords that would have resulted in dangerous misinformation being presented had the question been taken literally. Not good.
posted by Jimbob at 2:57 AM on December 27, 2005


See, I thought talking about drugs was okay, too. After all, High Times still gets itself published, right? Alas, many posts asking questions about drugs have disappeared too,

Talking about drugs is fine, and so is talking about DRM circumvention. Sweet Jesus doesn’t know what he's talking about. In fact, what he's saying is completely counter to reality. No basis in fact at all. It's like he's delusional.
posted by delmoi at 3:00 AM on December 27, 2005


I think that the issue here may be that talking about DRM circumvention or drugs may indeed be legal, but that there's a threshold to how much legal risk Matt's willing to assume.

This is pretty much standard operations in many online/collaborative endeavors.

All the more reason for something like a managed legal defense fund for MeFi or whatever. Legal insurance is also available for purchase, but I'm not sure how that would work in this case. It's cheap for most individuals. For the operator of an often controversial website, probably not so much.
posted by loquacious at 3:12 AM on December 27, 2005


Attacking people or instances that have had nothing to do with your thread isn't exactly the best way to open up a dialog.

I didn't do this, in fact I'm the one who has been sworn at in this thread repeatedly. The examples I brought of Matt and the cameras and the threads promoting theft are directly relevant to the rules here and my expectations that I wasn't doing something "wrong" for this community. And the deletion rules here which are frustratingly mysterious.

Secondly, I'm simply going on what was said by someone I feel is a credible eyewitness. If your post mentioned nothing about using an unofficial, unlicensed copy of an operating system, apologies

No, it did, I said I downloaded the OS 10.4. on bitorrent. That was a detail though, the main question had nothing to do with that. My end question *was* to ask that, if it was impossible to transport the downloaded files from computer A to computer B, if anyone knew how I get the OS on my Mac ASAP - but as I've pointed out that isn't directly or necessarily asking how to "steal" it (though the one I already have downloaded on the PC is "stolen").

I'll just reask my question so people can know:

The problem, I'm having, is this one. The PC that I burned the disc on sees and reads all the folders and burned documents fine (I also have pictures of friends, word documents, etc., on there in addition to the OS), but the Mac just tells me it can't read the disc, asking me if I want to Eject and Initialize.

I only have 1 more DVD so I can't make a test dummy with empty folders or something.

The problem though, is very unlikely to do with anything on the disk, since the PC can see everything quite fine. The DVDs I'm using are also the ones that came with my Mac G4.
posted by God at 3:22 AM on December 27, 2005


I think that the issue here may be that talking about DRM circumvention or drugs may indeed be legal, but that there's a threshold to how much legal risk Matt's willing to assume.

In today's Orwellian paradise that is America, that threshold is in freefall. How soon till people fear to criticise the president, fear to talk about government opposition, or fear to protest?
posted by Meridian at 3:30 AM on December 27, 2005


A good way to paraphrase the question I posted might be:

"I need to deliver some pot to my friend who lives in the next state but my car won't start. It revs but won't start - any ideas about what's wrong/what I can do to make my delivery?

If you can't help me get there, any ideas about how my friend can get his buzz?"

Inappropriate? Maybe for a very strict community, but MeFi has many examples to show this example of strictness was aberrant and unprecedented.
posted by God at 3:52 AM on December 27, 2005


Grow the fuck up, God.

I just think that would solve so many of our problems. I'll pray for it to happen.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:55 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Your question was:

DemoralizedFilter. I own a Mac G4 with OS 9.2. installed. I’ve been trying to get Mac OS 10.4. for two weeks so I could make Xmas presents using software only available for the later version. I know nothing about P2P, but it looked like Bit-torrent was not available (at least in an easy to understand way) for OS 9.2, so I had a friend come over and download it on my roommates new PC with Windows XP. It took 4 days to download, but when I burned it to DVD, my Mac could not read the DVD (asking me to Eject or Initialize), despite the fact that I prepared the disc so it could be read by other computers in the manner the PC instructed me. It is now almost two days after Christmas, and it is going to take me probably two or three days even to make the presents, so I can’t wait another 4 days unless I’m going to make these Valentine’s Day presents! Any ideas about how to get my Mac to read the burned disc, or how I can get this program as quickly as possible?


So, it was, how can I make it work or how can I steal it?

What I don't get: You don't have friends? Get 5 together and buy the OS for $20 each.

What I also don't get. Even at minimum wage, you'd have gotten the DVD with 2-3 days worth of work.

Last: Did you ask for OSX from anyone for xmas?

This sort of question was really appropriate for a pirating community, not Ask.Mefi. Just do a little bit of searching for a pirate community.
posted by filmgeek at 4:06 AM on December 27, 2005


filmgeek, wow, thanks! How did you get that?

So, it was, how can I make it work or how can I steal it?

No, this is false. As I've already pointed out there are hypothetical answers that are both legal and not legal to how do I get a program + I'm broke. One person, for instance, suggested that some earlier versions were available for about 30 bucks. That was a "legal" answer (though I need the latest version, or at least the next to latest one. And 30 bucks is pushing it for me right now).

This sort of question was really appropriate for a pirating community, not Ask.Mefi.

BS. Look I clearly say in the question that I've already pirated the software. What I need to know is why isn't my Mac reading the disc and how can I get the files from computer A to computer B. That is not a question about pirating. Again, if I would have known the pro-movie sneaking, pro-camera stealing authorities of MeFi had such a bug up their took-us over P2P I would have hid that irrelevant detail of the first question, and/or qualified the second one. But my found comment definitely vindicates the fact that I've been telling the absolute complete truth about what my post said and what I asked.
posted by God at 4:26 AM on December 27, 2005


The question you asked was explicitly about help with pirating. If you hadn't mentioned what was on the disk, it wouldn't have been deleted. But you did, so it was. What's complicated about this?
posted by cillit bang at 4:42 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "Again, if I would have known the pro-movie sneaking, pro-camera stealing authorities of MeFi had such a bug up their took-us over P2P I would have hid that irrelevant detail of the first question, and/or qualified the second one."

Yeah, well, you live and learn. So, that about wraps up this discussion, then, right?
posted by Bugbread at 4:44 AM on December 27, 2005


The question you asked was explicitly about help with pirating

No, I had already completed the pirating, and it is the exact same problem and exact same question even if I had bought and downloaded the files. The question simply mentions pirating.
posted by God at 4:52 AM on December 27, 2005


What I don't understand is how someone with a user name as low as 7586 just plain doesn't get it.
posted by HuronBob at 4:56 AM on December 27, 2005


If you hadn't mentioned what was on the disk, it wouldn't have been deleted. But you did, so it was. What's complicated about this?

The ridiculousness? The randomness? The inconsistency? The callousness?
posted by God at 4:57 AM on December 27, 2005


Get a life God. Why should Matt put himself at risk so that you can complete your theft of an operating system?
posted by caddis at 4:59 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "The ridiculousness? The randomness? The inconsistency? The callousness?"

Man, for someone who gets so much credit for omniscience...

Look, God, if the ridiculousness, randomness, inconsistency, and callousness seem complicated to you, I don't think there are many of us who can help you understand them. Coming to grips with human ridiculousness, randomness, inconsistency, and callousness are the realm of behavioural scientists and spiritual gurus. There aren't a whole ton of either here. You may want to go to a specialist forum if you need help with them. But railing here is unlikely to bring about a serendipitous meeting with a spiritual advisor, and I don't think many behavioural scientists would be willing to post up an explanation here in the grey.
posted by Bugbread at 5:04 AM on December 27, 2005


Caddis, if you look at delmoi's comments you'll see that Matt was at zero risk.

Why am I one of the very few here who maybe doesn't like the idea that we "have to be very careful what we say" based on false rumors about the law? No wonder that Wendy's girl let her manager rape her because the "police officer" on the other end told her to.
posted by God at 5:06 AM on December 27, 2005


I would be content with:

a) a moderator maybe explaining themselves, and agreeing the rules about what we "can't say" needed to be cleaned up, clarified and made available to posters.

b) maybe not an apology but the opportunity to repost my question, revised of all P2P refs, to Askme, ASAP.

or, if not that, c) people in this thread simply answering my question, which I still define as an emergency (and surely the question is one that many here probably have good experience with). Let's just pretend there are only pictures on the DVD (and, there are pictures on the DVD).
posted by God at 5:14 AM on December 27, 2005


Does that make your actions OK? Jeez. If this were my site I wouldn't want that kind of crap on here either. Being poor does not entitle you to steal, and this is not food we are talking about, but a luxury. (Even if delmoi is correct, that won't stop cease and desist letters from rolling in. Cutting off that alone would be sufficient justification, especially when the action in question is as noble as yours.)
posted by caddis at 5:14 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "Why am I one of the very few here who maybe doesn't like the idea that we 'have to be very careful what we say' based on false rumors about the law?"

Who says you're the only one who doesn't like the idea? Most of us don't like the idea. Hell, if the basis is "false rumors", then I'd venture to say "All of us don't like the idea". I don't know where you get the impression that people think this idea is a great, wonderful idea.

Now, if the idea is that we 'have to be very careful what we say' based on the law being levied unfairly against us, I'd say that we still don't like that idea, but not liking an idea doesn't blink it out of existence. I don't like the idea that I'm going to die, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go skydiving without an instructor, or scuba diving without proper instruction. I don't like the idea that people might steal my stuff, but that doesn't mean I leave my front door unlocked.

Dealing with reality doesn't mean liking reality. Disliking reality doesn't invalidate reality.

Regardless of whether you meant "based on the law being levied unfairly" or if you really meant what you wrote, "based on false rumours", I'd be amazed if you are correct when you say you're one of the few who doesn't like the idea.
posted by Bugbread at 5:18 AM on December 27, 2005


This thread is Comedy Frankincense. If I could only get a Mac vs. PC vs. Linux fight going, somehow involving fat people in SUVs who voted for Bush, I suspect a singularity would open, and we'd all be wearing refrigerated codpieces.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:19 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Caddis, you aren't being logical or paying attention, "if it were your site" you would be Matt, which means you would have fully approved of a thread where people were told how to steal $350 cameras from Amazon - and that you yourself attempted to steal a $350 camera.

So please stop acting as if this site is simply "above" lawlessness and riffraff such as me, because all evidence indicates that is a lie.
posted by God at 5:20 AM on December 27, 2005


whatever
posted by caddis at 5:22 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "I would be content with:

"a) a moderator maybe explaining themselves, and agreeing the rules about what we 'can't say' needed to be cleaned up, clarified and made available to posters.

"b) maybe not an apology but the opportunity to repost my question, revised of all P2P refs, to Askme, ASAP.

"or, if not that, c) people in this thread simply answering my question"


From past experience here, I can say that matt very seldom gives agreed rules, but instead goes with basic guidelines, so I don't think you'll be contented via option A. Option B, I dunno, maybe it would happen, but since you end with "ASAP", I'm going to say that the odds, again, are very very low, so I would hold out for option C, if any. And even then, I suspect your attitude in this thread (whether justified or not) has probably turned away most of the folks who would answer the question, so the odds are low. I'm guessing you're just not going to be contented, but if you charted them out, I'd say:

Odds of discontent > Odds of C > Odds of B > Odds of A.

Of course, those are just odds, so you might be lucky.
posted by Bugbread at 5:22 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "Caddis, you aren't being logical or paying attention, 'if it were your site' you would be Matt, which means you would have fully approved of a thread where people were told how to steal $350 cameras from Amazon - and that you yourself attempted to steal a $350 camera."

Yeah, which also means if this were my site, I would be Matt, which means I would have deleted a thread discussing, perhaps marginally, the pirating of an OS, and that I wouldn't want that kind of stuff on here. Because, apparently, matt doesn't, and if I were matt, that would mean I wouldn't either. Kind of a tautology.
posted by Bugbread at 5:25 AM on December 27, 2005


I'm lucky I'm already wearing my refrigerated codpiece.
posted by loquacious at 5:26 AM on December 27, 2005


The point is that the idea that the thread was deleted because Matt could "get in trouble" for it (repeated here a number of times) has been debunked. And the idea that the thread was deleted because it was unethical and left a bad taste in Matt's pristine, morally unambiguated mouth (Caddis point) has also been debunked.
posted by God at 5:30 AM on December 27, 2005


No it hasn't.
posted by cillit bang at 5:31 AM on December 27, 2005


Or at least, if true, the deletion was based on major untruths/inconsistencies.
posted by God at 5:31 AM on December 27, 2005


It was presumably deleted because you were asking for instructions on how to install a pirated OS. That's it. No other reason needed. No ethical parallels need to be drawn.
posted by fred_ashmore at 5:35 AM on December 27, 2005


How long before Mefi becomes Godless again?
posted by yeoz at 5:36 AM on December 27, 2005


I meant it was debunked that the post was justifiably or fairly deleted for those reasons.
posted by God at 5:36 AM on December 27, 2005


As another request, if Askme deletions still existed in linkable limbo like MeFi threads, I could go to sleep now, comfortable in the fact that people couldn't easily derail this thread with misinformation such as this.

This is in the works. At this point removed AskMe posts have a reason for deletion but mathowie's gotta write the code that makes deleted threads visible. God, you're being unreasonable and possibly disingenuous. The last sentence of this question

"Any ideas about how to get my Mac to read the burned disc, or how I can get this program as quickly as possible?"

pretty specifically asks a question that's not allowed in AskMe, especially because through context it was clear that "buy one!" was not going to answer your question. Getting a DVD with an OS on it to work is different than getting a DVD with photos of horses on it to work and people would have had to take the pirated nature of your copy of OSX into account and then, yeah, we're in pirate software territory.

The AskMe wiki pretty specifically says that asking where to get something that costs money for free (like fonts, or subscription databases) is a post likely to be removed, so I'm not sure what other confirmation you're looking for. I'm sorry this has been a technologically frustrating holiday season for you, but MetaFilter isn't all things to all people, and it's not going to solve this problem for you.
posted by jessamyn at 5:36 AM on December 27, 2005


It was presumably deleted because you were asking for instructions on how to install a pirated OS.

Dammit, I've debunked this numerous times, my question is reposted in this thread for me sakes!
posted by God at 5:37 AM on December 27, 2005


*spanks God with his refrigerated codpiece*
posted by loquacious at 5:41 AM on December 27, 2005


[OS X] took 4 days to download, but when I burned it to DVD, my Mac could not read the DVD ... Any ideas about how to get my Mac to read the burned disc?

You were not asking on how to read a DVD full of pictures of equines. You were asking how to read a DVD with a pirated OS on it.
posted by fred_ashmore at 5:44 AM on December 27, 2005


pretty specifically asks a question that's not allowed in AskMe, especially because through context it was clear that "buy one!" was not going to answer your question.

Jessamyn this is false. The truth is that there are many hypothetical answers that aren't illegal. The reality is I didn't care - legal, illegal, i just wanted answers, and I didn't know what to expect. Mostly though I already "stole" the program and just wanted to know how to get data from one computer to the next.

Getting a DVD with an OS on it to work is different than getting a DVD with photos of horses on it to work and people would have had to take the pirated nature of your copy of OSX into account and then, yeah, we're in pirate software territory.

Nope. The File is a run file, clickable to execute just like Mp3s and Photoshop files (which are also on the DVD). I know this because the DVD runs fine on the PC. I can open the Mp3s on the DVD directly off the DVD on the PC. The nature of the file has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.

Jessamyn, can I repost my question to AskMe, or can you post it there for me? I will remove all P2P references?
posted by God at 5:47 AM on December 27, 2005


You should be able to ask another question in five days.
posted by caddis at 5:48 AM on December 27, 2005


Look God, if you're too dumb to steal, you gotta assume you're too dumb to make a coherent argument too, right? It's not like pirating software is hard for even someone of average intelligence, while making logical arguments has been the purview of some of history's greatest thinkers.

So, instead of going on about how you've debunked this and that, maybe you should take the fact you're a complete idiot into account, and realize that you've failed to do that as completely as you've failed to pirate OSX.
posted by boaz at 5:49 AM on December 27, 2005


Which is too long.
posted by God at 5:49 AM on December 27, 2005


Oh, in answer to your original question - "buy one."
posted by caddis at 5:50 AM on December 27, 2005


Which is too long.

Poor baby. You will have to wait to complete your theft.
posted by caddis at 5:52 AM on December 27, 2005


Anticipating the lack-of-funds argument: Donate plasma, and buy one.
posted by Bugbread at 6:01 AM on December 27, 2005


To the poster: You are an ignoramus and a jerk. You've been here too long to be babbling about "moderators," and if you're older than twelve you should know that ranting about "the pro-movie sneaking, pro-camera stealing authorities of MeFi" having "a bug up their took-us" (!) is an idiotic way to get what you want. Personally, I hope your attempts to get your illegal disk to work wind up reducing your Mac to a smoking ruin. Now go out and play in traffic, kid. You're wasting our time.
posted by languagehat at 6:01 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


...and get me stogy and a paper, sonny. And a seltzer, damn it! A nice seltzer is all I'm asking.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Damn kids with their interschnakens and Macinhausers...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 AM on December 27, 2005


God, you're being unreasonable and possibly disingenuous.

As many others through the ages have pointed out.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:21 AM on December 27, 2005 [3 favorites]


The point is that the idea that the thread was deleted because Matt could "get in trouble" for it (repeated here a number of times) has been debunked. And the idea that the thread was deleted because it was unethical and left a bad taste in Matt's pristine, morally unambiguated mouth (Caddis point) has also been debunked.

For the record, saying "nuh-uh!" repeatedly is not the same thing as debunking.

As for the five-day timeout being too long to wait for an AskMe repost, you could drop five bucks on a new account. You said $30 is a stretch right now (and $100 is clearly right out) but five clams to cover an emergency seems manageable in that framework.

And as a bonus people wouldn't be so taken aback when they mouse over your username.
posted by cortex at 6:45 AM on December 27, 2005


God, your idea of "emergency" needs immediate reconsideration. I suggest taking a walk outside. Seriously - get up, grab your coat, and go for a walk. No, I'm not kidding at all, really... go for a walk somewhere. Now.

Get up. Now.
posted by odinsdream at 6:53 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "The point is that the idea that the thread was deleted because Matt could 'get in trouble' for it (repeated here a number of times) has been debunked. And the idea that the thread was deleted because it was unethical and left a bad taste in Matt's pristine, morally unambiguated mouth (Caddis point) has also been debunked."

cortex : "For the record, saying 'nuh-uh!' repeatedly is not the same thing as debunking."

True. It has been denied that a valid legal foundation exists based on which Matt could get in trouble. Personally, I believe delmoi in his denial, but until someone starts quoting law or other trusted sources, right now we're still at the "denial" stage, not "debunking". Second, what's being debunked/denied is whether or not Matt has valid fears based on valid legal foundations. However, the law does not always act the way it should (neither courts, nor lawyers, nor police), so even if there is no valid legal basis on which Matt could be made to suffer, it doesn't logically follow that there is no basis whatsoever (large companies with lots of lawyers are never above a little barratry to fill their spare time).

And I don't remember anyone saying that Matt's mouth was pristine and morally unambiguated (including Caddis), so I don't see how anyone could debunk that which was never bunked in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 6:59 AM on December 27, 2005


You do know that putting something in bold still doesn't automatically make it true, right?
posted by hugsnkisses at 7:00 AM on December 27, 2005


God freaks out, another tsunami on way.
posted by Joeforking at 7:04 AM on December 27, 2005 [2 favorites]


Look God, if you're too dumb to steal, you gotta assume you're too dumb to make a coherent argument too, right?

Please quote and debunk the faulty argument.

For the record, saying "nuh-uh!" repeatedly is not the same thing as debunking.

Cortex, that Matt was put at legal risk by my question was debunked via the DMCA.

That the thread was simply outside of MeFi's followed ethical guidelines was debunked via the thread where everyone tried to steal cameras from Amazon, including Matt himself.

How exactly is this just "saying nuh-uh"?

You do know that putting something in bold still doesn't automatically make it true, right?

It is false that i was necessarily asking for an illegal solution, and my central question had nothing relevantly to do with piracy whatsoever.

All three of you have accused me of faulty argumentation without demonstrating anything illogical or contradictory.

Languagehat, if you believe I am not entitled to question my treatment or the rules and leadership at MetaFilter that is your opinion.

As a side note, a quick glance at MeFi and MeTa reveals there appears to be a lot more personal insults at MetaFilter this time of year. I suppose that disgruntled unloved males lashing out quite personally and viciously at strangers on the Internet is the way they blow off the steam. I know of few other ways to interpret the strikingly disproportionate rage of some of these comments.
posted by God at 7:19 AM on December 27, 2005


And I don't remember anyone saying that Matt's mouth was pristine and morally unambiguated (including Caddis), so I don't see how anyone could debunk that which was never bunked in the first place.

Yes, Caddis suggested my thread was deleted (justifiably) for reasons related to MeFi ethical policies or traditions.
posted by God at 7:25 AM on December 27, 2005


Just out of curiousity, God, what program is it that only runs on OS X?
posted by mzurer at 7:32 AM on December 27, 2005


Cortex, that Matt was put at legal risk by my question was debunked via the DMCA.

No, God. That Matt was put at legal risk by the DMCA according the circumstances presented by SweetJesus was denied by delmoi. That does not remove the specter of legal threat from the equation by any stretch of the imagination. Your self-assuredness does not make you correct.

I suppose that disgruntled unloved males lashing out quite personally and viciously at strangers on the Internet is the way they blow off the steam.

But you're above lashing out at strangers on the Internet, of course.
posted by cortex at 7:35 AM on December 27, 2005 [2 favorites]


God : "Cortex, that Matt was put at legal risk by my question was debunked via the DMCA."

No, unless someone has 1) Quoted the DMCA, or 2) Quoted relevant reliable sources in place of the source material.

If I say I have a cat, and Delmoi says I don't, he hasn't "debunked" me. He happens to be 100% right: I don't have a cat! And he may have had good reasons for saying I don't have a cat. And there's nothing wrong with him not offering video footage of my house and forensic dust tests. That's not his job. But while he may be 100% right, he hasn't "debunked" anything unless he provides evidence.

(Delmoi, just in case it's not coming across: I'm in no way saying anything negative about you or what you've said. It's just annoying that God keeps attributing your statements as being something they aren't and weren't trying to be)

God : "That the thread was simply outside of MeFi's followed ethical guidelines was debunked via the thread where everyone tried to steal cameras from Amazon, including Matt himself."

Er, no. Just because Matt didn't delete the Amazon post doesn't mean that this deletion wasn't because of ethical reasons. For example, if I were running a bulletin board, and didn't delete a post about killing Hitler, but later did delete a post about killing toddlers, it wouldn't follow that my second deletion was not due to ethical reasons. It could be that my ethical foundation does not see the two as equivalent.

So, likewise, in this case, all that's been indicated by this Amazon vs. Software deletion issue is that Matt's ethical standards may not see these two cases as equivalent. Until you provide some evidence that Matt does see these two cases as ethically equivalent, I don't see how you can assume that they're equivalent to Matt, therefore his actions in conflict, and therefore this rationale "debunked".

God : "I suppose that disgruntled unloved males lashing out quite personally and viciously at strangers on the Internet is the way they blow off the steam. I know of few other ways to interpret the strikingly disproportionate rage of some of these comments."

I know of one that you may have overlooked: You're not being very pleasant, and people are responding in kind. Perhaps you are being unpleasant because you are a disgruntled unloved male lashing out quite personally and viciously at strangers on the internet as a way to blow off steam. However, I can imagine quite a few other reasons that you are acting like the world owes you an explanation about how to do that which you want to do. People are complicated. They've got all kinds of different reasons for doing things. I hope you use the time you've saved by not being able to do the project you had planned to do to instead try to imagine all the other varied reasons that people may not be treating you kindly.
posted by Bugbread at 7:38 AM on December 27, 2005


God : "Yes, Caddis suggested my thread was deleted (justifiably) for reasons related to MeFi ethical policies or traditions."

And what part of the phrase "ethical policies or traditions" implies "pristine and morally unambiguated"?
posted by Bugbread at 7:39 AM on December 27, 2005


mzurer, I'm just excited that at least one person was curious about my problem! This program requires 10.3.5. There is at least one other audio program and some graphic and design software too, but that's a good start for now.
posted by God at 7:39 AM on December 27, 2005


Here's a solution: Boot your old OS X box. Put it next to your PC box. Patch one to the other with a male-to-male 3.5mm audio cable. Play audio on one, record on the other. Then kiss my refrigerated codpiece, you gormless, unimaginative twit.

You like Apples? How'd you like them Apples?
posted by loquacious at 7:50 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


if God gets banned from MetaFilter, will Matt end up on Fox News?
posted by matteo at 7:52 AM on December 27, 2005 [2 favorites]


God, email me, it's in my profile.
posted by mzurer at 7:54 AM on December 27, 2005


Wow. I can't believe your question wasn't "What's an XP alternative to Wiretap for OS X?" though perhaps again I'm misunderstanding you.

Hi, matteo!
posted by dobbs at 7:55 AM on December 27, 2005


OMG, so you want to pirate a new operating system so that you can pirate songs off of internet radio to give as gifts? hee hee. I can't believe I am saying this, but G, here is a hint, Burn Image To Disc. I hope it is within your powers God to pardon me for that sin.
posted by caddis at 7:58 AM on December 27, 2005


My access to the PC is limited to my roommate's brother's good will, it's his, he's visiting for Christmas holiday, and it will be gone in two days when he leaves. Really the reasons are more complex than audio recording (I'm an artist, hence the poorness and craft-y presents).

But there has to be only a few well-known reasons why a DVD burned on a PC can't be read by a Mac? I'm worried that if i try it again it'll be the same and I'll loose my only other DVD.
posted by God at 7:58 AM on December 27, 2005


so that you can pirate songs off of internet radio to give as gifts?

NO!
posted by God at 7:59 AM on December 27, 2005


I hate to throw this in another direction so late in the game, but would you consider laying out what, exactly, you're trying to accomplish? People here might just be able to paint you alternative you hadn't considered.

Assuming they're still at all inclined to be helpful, of course.
posted by cortex at 8:02 AM on December 27, 2005


God: You're going to have to accept that many people cannot disassociate content from context. Sure the DVD would work on a PC but not a Mac, but it contained ones and zeros in a configuration that many people are uncomfortable with. (for most people, Child pornography would fit in this category, Mp3s would not) It seems that the silent majority here consider pirated software wrong, but you also have to realize that human beings are often inconsistant, and rules can't always be made to cover every situation. If Matt feels the need to post more rules about what is allowed, and what isn't, he will, but if he choses not to, it will never happen here. He is, ineffect, the God of this place. You need to find someway to accept the fact that we are at the mercy of a benevolent dictator who occassionally gives out ponies, and occassionally sound thrashings. Matt giveth, and Matt taketh away, blessed be the name of Matt.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:02 AM on December 27, 2005


"God" has posted 28 times on this thread, at least as of now. At what point do we call this a flameout?
posted by mcwetboy at 8:05 AM on December 27, 2005


You need to find someway to accept the fact that we are at the mercy of a benevolent dictator who occassionally gives out ponies, and occassionally sound thrashings. Matt giveth, and Matt taketh away, blessed be the name of Matt.

You know, someone needs to flesh this mythology out into, say, a 16-page full-color children's book.
posted by cortex at 8:06 AM on December 27, 2005 [3 favorites]


caddis : "OMG, so you want to pirate a new operating system so that you can pirate songs off of internet radio to give as gifts?"

That's a bit of an unfair assumption.

For example, I use Traktor DJ to make mixes (er, well, at least, I used to). One of the things I wanted to do for a while was to run Traktor to play a track, while also running Reason with my keyboard (black and white piano-style, not QWERTY) to play music on top of the music that was playing (adding an additional melody line, drums, sound effects, or the like). It worked, but there's no way to record the produced audio unless you have a "grep all audio output to a single wav file" type program, because the two audio streams were being produced by different software. So that's a possible use of this program besides pirating internet songs.

And, in case you think that it must be internet radio pirating, because, hey, after all, God pirated the OS, then keep in mind that my copy of Reason is pirated, my copy of Traktor was not, and my goal (playing Reason and Traktor at the same time) was not about pirating anything.
posted by Bugbread at 8:07 AM on December 27, 2005


Look, God, the logical mistake you're making is simply assuming that some kind of consistency, purity, sainthood, etc. is required to delete your crap post. The only real requirements are a) deleter is a moderator and b) your post is crap. Since both of these prerequisites were met, it really doesn't make one ounce of sense to rage against the moderator's supposed hypocrisy. Hitler could have risen from the dead, become a MeFi moderator, and deleted your crap post, ... and it still would have been doing us a favor.

Now if Zombie Hitler would just do something about your crap Metatalk post...
posted by boaz at 8:07 AM on December 27, 2005


And by the way, God, if you the technology is so unfamiliar to you, you shouldn't be trying to make last-minute Christmas gifts with it.

Just to demonstrate how a well-framed question could be useful, one answer to the (valid) question "How do I make a Mac read a DVD burned in Windows?" is "Connect the machines with a network cable, copy the content over and burn the DVD in the Mac". There are tons of sites out there that teach you how to connect a PC to a Mac.
posted by nkyad at 8:13 AM on December 27, 2005


So, what's next now?
posted by yeoz at 8:16 AM on December 27, 2005


God: You're being an asshole; and while you're throwing your tantrum and trying to fight off half of MetaFilter, bugbread has been remarkably patient and polite in trying to help you. If you've got a lick of sense about you, read his posts again. Then go take a walk.
posted by cribcage at 8:18 AM on December 27, 2005


No, unless someone has 1) Quoted the DMCA, or 2) Quoted relevant reliable sources in place of the source material.

Why don't you read it yourself rather then just making baseless assumptions?

Anyway, The DMCA section 1201 (which deals with copyright circumvention) Subsection (C) (rights not affected) says
`(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.
That's pretty clear. The paragraph was added to clarify the fact that the DMCA would not supersede the first amendment.
posted by delmoi at 8:22 AM on December 27, 2005


You see, nkyad, God's PowerMac G4 w/ OS9 almost certainly does not have a DVD burner, since they were introduced fairly late in the Powermac G4 product cycle. I'm 99% certain I know exactly what God's problem is, but you know what, I don't really feel like being an accessory to the crimes of an ass. Maybe he'll get lucky and find someone who does.
posted by boaz at 8:23 AM on December 27, 2005


Metafilter: Sweet Jesus doesn’t know what he's talking about; God, take a step away from the computer for a few hours.
posted by lodurr at 8:26 AM on December 27, 2005


Er, no. Just because Matt didn't delete the Amazon post doesn't mean that this deletion wasn't because of ethical reasons. For example, if I were running a bulletin board, and didn't delete a post about killing Hitler, but later did delete a post about killing toddlers, it wouldn't follow that my second deletion was not due to ethical reasons. It could be that my ethical foundation does not see the two as equivalent.

LOL. Sorry, that just made me laugh. But are you saying that Amazon is like Hitler, and Apple is like a hoard of toddlers?
posted by delmoi at 8:27 AM on December 27, 2005


You see, nkyad, God's PowerMac G4 w/ OS9 almost certainly does not have a DVD burner, since they were introduced fairly late in the Powermac G4 product cycle. I'm 99% certain I know exactly what God's problem is, but you know what, I don't really feel like being an accessory to the crimes of an ass. Maybe he'll get lucky and find someone who does.

Actualy, you'd only be an accessory to his torts, as he is a tortfeasor, not a criminal.
posted by delmoi at 8:28 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


I just like saying 'tortfeasor'.
posted by delmoi at 8:28 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


You're such a tortfeasor.
posted by lodurr at 8:30 AM on December 27, 2005


But are you saying that Amazon is like Hitler, and Apple is like a hoard of toddlers?

You haven't been to the board meetings, I take it. I don't know what was worse, listening to Hitler go on and on and on about long-tail distribution, or watching those little bastards rubbing peanut butter all over the new prototype Cinema Display (scoop: titanium is back, and now it's brushed TWICE!)
posted by cortex at 8:30 AM on December 27, 2005


It's not as much fun as saying "smock." Smock, smock, smock.
posted by Gator at 8:32 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Sweet fire-pogoing Christ in a titty bar!

Damn straight! I don't even know what this Thread is about, but I am on whichever Side Loquacious is on! That made my Morning!
posted by freebird at 8:32 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Delmoi, thanks.

Ok, now the threat of the DMCA being used validly (as opposed to as a tool of barratry) has been debunked.

You're right, I assumed you were correct, and my assumption was mostly baseless (only to the extent that you usually provide good info, so I assumed this was the case this time), and if it were an issue I was concerned about, I would have looked the law up. Unfortunately (fortunately?), the validity of the DMCA wasn't a big pressing issue for me (largely because I'm of the "realistically, it doesn't matter if you're legally right or wrong, because even if you're right, a lawsuit will likely destroy you" camp), as it was for God, so I didn't feel like assisting in the debunking. But now you've not only denied the validity of SweetJesus's claims, but provided evidence to back up your assertion.

Which is one of the reasons I generally assume your information is correct :) Vicious cycle, innit?
posted by Bugbread at 8:32 AM on December 27, 2005


boaz : "I'm 99% certain I know exactly what God's problem is"

I am 99% certain I can have the same answer you have in less than 10 minutes (for historical reasons irrelevant to this context, I am one of the sole non-Mac users in the most technical Brazilian Mac closed list). But somehow I also don't feel like spending my time with someone that fail to understand so many basic facts.
posted by nkyad at 8:34 AM on December 27, 2005


delmoi : "LOL. Sorry, that just made me laugh. But are you saying that Amazon is like Hitler, and Apple is like a hoard of toddlers?"

Not at all. I have an (unfortunate) habit of picking really extreme examples in order to make my analogies more clear (witness my use of "lusting after women":"homosexuals"::"using correct grammar":"trolls" argument in the PP MeTa discussion). I just wanted a clear analogy of "Not doing A but doing similar B doesn't mean that cause C is not a reason, because the person doing it may not see A and B as analogous". Because, god knows, that previous sentence, on rereading, needed a clear analogy.

(er, "god knows" as in "boy howdy", not as in "user 7586 is aware")
posted by Bugbread at 8:38 AM on December 27, 2005


Actualy, you'd only be an accessory to his torts, as he is a tortfeasor, not a criminal.

Well, in that case, I'll help .... The shiny colored side of the DVD-R goes down, while the silver (or labeled or printable) side goes up in the DVD drive.[/just kidding]
posted by boaz at 8:40 AM on December 27, 2005


Anyway, I agree it was a crap post. It just bugs me to see people making all sorts of wild claims about the DMCA.

Also, it's perfictly acceptable to circumvent DRM for 'research' as long as it's done in good faith:

`(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--

`(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and

`(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.

`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--

`(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;

`(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;

`(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and

`(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
posted by delmoi at 8:45 AM on December 27, 2005


Of course, I suppose if research were done in good faith, it wouldn't be put in 'quotes'.
posted by delmoi at 8:48 AM on December 27, 2005


You see, nkyad, God's PowerMac G4 w/ OS9 almost certainly does not have a DVD burner

My G4 does have a DVD burner. As I mentioned the data was actually copied onto the recordable DVDs that came with my Mac.
posted by God at 8:49 AM on December 27, 2005


What a waste of a cool username.
posted by kcm at 8:51 AM on December 27, 2005


Sweet Jesus doesn't know what he's talking about. In fact, what he's saying is completely counter to reality. No basis in fact at all. It's like he's delusional.

Have you even read the DMCA? I have. And you don't know what the fuck your talking about. Why is it that people who have no idea what the law says seem to want to make grand pronouncements about what is and is not legal? I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the law.

Oh my god. You are such a moron it's almost unbelievable. What you are saying is like, the exact opposite of the truth. Where in the hell did you hear this and why do you believe it's true? I'm honestly curious how someone could have such a bizarre belief.

Demoli, I don't know what the hell your problem is, but attempting to circumvent copyright protection is illegal under the DMCA. Whether or not in this particular case it would hold up is immaterial - people have been sent DMCA violations for talking about Star Trek movie plots, never mind how to steal a Star Trek movie. But, then again, you've read the DMCA, so you must be right. I couldn't possibly have read it as well...
(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
Gee, looks arguable to me...

Asshole.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:52 AM on December 27, 2005


My G4 does have a DVD burner.

Wow, every time someone's caught assuming you're not a compete idiot, you jump right in there to prove them wrong. I guess you proved me wrong there.
posted by boaz at 9:01 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


I apologize for misunderstanding that the DVD in question was not the OS X DVD, but rather a DVD of media that you needed. I wasn't able to discern that from the question as asked. Damned pronouns.
posted by SemiSophos at 9:04 AM on December 27, 2005


God, email me

I'm 99% certain I know exactly what God's problem is

This thread is a gold mine.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:08 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


compete idiot - stupid misspelling or deeper truth? I report, you decide. Hint: it's the first
posted by boaz at 9:08 AM on December 27, 2005


SweetJesus : "people have been sent DMCA violations for talking about Star Trek movie plots"

Er...Do you have any links for that? The one you provide is for a copyright violation issue, but I don't see anything about the DMCA in there.

Also, I don't see what part of the "looks arguable to me" quote you offer from the DMCA pertains to this discussion.
posted by Bugbread at 9:10 AM on December 27, 2005


Tortfease it, barrators.
posted by Carbolic at 9:21 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


Bugbread: Also, I don't see what part of the "looks arguable to me" quote you offer from the DMCA pertains to this discussion

Are you kidding me? I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider AskMe a 'service'. Whether or not it's primary purpose is copyright circumvention is again arguable, and that's why the world has lawyers. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but demoli is either misguided or has a hell of a lot more faith in the kindness of Apple computer's lawyers than I do. Allowing "How do I circumvent Apple's copyright protection to install this bootleg copy of OS X 10 I got off the net"1 to be asked on your site isn't smart, regardless of what Demoli seems to think.

Er...Do you have any links for that? The one you provide is for a copyright violation issue, but I don't see anything about the DMCA in there.

Google Search: "DMCA and Fan Fiction"

1The jist of it...
posted by SweetJesus at 9:28 AM on December 27, 2005


By the way Bugbread, DMCA covers all sorts of copyright violations...
posted by SweetJesus at 9:30 AM on December 27, 2005


Dear user God,

You asked about how to get some pirated software to work on your computer. I generally frown upon questions involving clearly illegal things. I delete questions about how to trick urine tests, I delete questions about locating pirated software, and I delete questions about how to grow pot, among others. It's stuff that gets me and the site in hot water and potentially could bring the whole site down.

To your specific question, the most obvious problem is how anyone is supposed to even help with that. They don't have your exact hardware setup and any random "OS.X.tiger.war3z.d00d.zip" file presents all sorts of unique problems. No one gave a helpful answer when I deleted it. Everyone seemed to agree you should just buy it and forego all the install headaches.

I see you are trying to draw paralells with earlier posts that skirted a moral line somewhere. The double feature site is a clever hack. It's about something that would get you kicked out of a movie theater, but the application is a pretty cool example of programming. Your question, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities. You just want help with your random downloaded warez.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:33 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


SweetJesus: can you even read?

(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;


They're talking about selling ore creating physical devices, software, or services that circumvent DRM, not talking about DRM in general. In other words, exactly what the words on the page mean. Not to mention the post wasn't even about DRM to begin with. How is a paragraph of text a "technology, product, service, device, or component" How does not being allowed to say something not violate free speech as explicitly allowed in the DMCA section 1201, c, 4 as I posted before?

It's not debatable.

Secondly, you don't seem to know what a DMCA notice is. A DMCA notice comes from another part of the DMCA which provides a quick way to remove copyrighted material from the internet. Rather then then trying to get a court injunction to remove something, you can send a DMCA notice to an ISP, which forces them to remove the material in 48 hours wether or not it actually violates copyright or assume liability or get the original poster to take responsibility. It has nothing to do with the anti-circumvention section.

Anyone can send a DMCA notice to any one at any time for any reason.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 AM on December 27, 2005


Also, the bit about "steal fricking cameras" is bullshit. Amazon was offering an amazing deal that didn't work out for anyone in the end. I was unemployed at the time, if that matters to you -- but no one "stole" anything from amazon. Amazon wasn't hacked. People pushed a button on a website and were offered a low price for an item that was corrected hours later. You could argue that people were taking advantage of the deal, but they weren't lifting cameras off a shelf and walking out.

You downloaded a pirated copy of an OS. Those are not the same things.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:40 AM on December 27, 2005 [1 favorite]


« Older Cleanup on aisle 47857...   |   Is this chatfilter and do we want it? Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.