^If either of the sites involved - especially the blog - end up with a C&D letter out of this, I think they'd be well justified in throwing a massive, hall-of-fame hissy fit over it.

Nothing takes away from the fact that technically, bootlegging is illegal, of course, BUT for Prince's right-hand girl to post a link to a page (and offer thanks!) that links to a bootlegging site for the purpose of fans downloading the aftershow "in case [we] missed it", only for his legal team to send a C&D letter, would be absolutely beyond the pale...even for him.

Why isn't the original thread back up?

THEY did not explain.

There was no link in there, everybody knows where to find the link and still THEY do not have an excuse.

So P does implicitly OK this.

The original location of the recording is still in operation.

So why bother censoring?

Why bother not clearing up the situation for all to understand?

udo said:

Why isn't the original thread back up?

THEY did not explain.

Does it really matter? It's over and done with now anyway.

And must you paste that video in everywhere you post (including twice in this thread alone)? If you can't see how the premise of it is so totally flawed, it's not even worth having a discussion about copyright with you.

In any case, this thread is about why Andy would post a link to a bootleg, not whether boots are right or wrong.

And ultimately, if the mods, on Ben's behalf, want to err on the side of being overly cautious on this site, that's entirely their right. I don't know what was still in the thread that could have been an issue, but it's days ago now and probably long forgotten by almost everyone, so bringing it back now would be pretty pointless.

Chiquetet said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I think P probably allows her a bit of leeway to discover his legacy.

Is that what he's calling it these days?...

LOL sounds naughty doesn't it!!

Chiquetet said:

udo said:

Why isn't the original thread back up?

THEY did not explain.

Does it really matter? It's over and done with now anyway.

If doesn't matter to you it's no use explaining.

And must you paste that video in everywhere you post (including twice in this thread alone)? If you can't see how the premise of it is so totally flawed, it's not even worth having a discussion about copyright with you.

Please elaborate.

In any case, this thread is about why Andy would post a link to a bootleg, not whether boots are right or wrong.

THEY did not explain their position and their action.

So we can only assume.

A very bad situation for understanding.

And ultimately, if the mods, on Ben's behalf, want to err on the side of being overly cautious on this site,

In that case they can still communicate. In case of that thread they were hysterical as the link had gone.

If we can't even mention that Andy posted something in her failbook or twitter, then what has reality become?

that's entirely their right.

See above. Right doesn't matter. It's about reason.

I don't know what was still in the thread that could have been an issue,

Now that is the core of the issue.

but it's days ago now and probably long forgotten by almost everyone,

Oh!?

So we let the mods have responsibility -delete threads- but not bear responsibility -i.e. explain- ??

so bringing it back now would be pretty pointless.

That is your idea of mature moderation.

I can agree that we -THEY and us- have to learn, have to adapt to situations.

But that works only when we communicate.

And THEY don't.

So I can say here:

Andy has interesting videos in her failbook and sometimes in twitter.

And have the thread deleted?

udo said:

Chiquetet said:

And must you paste that video in everywhere you post (including twice in this thread alone)? If you can't see how the premise of it is so totally flawed, it's not even worth having a discussion about copyright with you.

Please elaborate.

If you can't see how a video stating that taking someone's bicycle is theft, but copying the bicycle (ie. building a second bicycle) is fine, has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual property, copyright and copying music (ie. a predominently online based commodity that, by definition, can only be sold as copies of the original), then truly, there's no point discussing it any further.

udo said:

Chiquetet said:

And ultimately, if the mods, on Ben's behalf, want to err on the side of being overly cautious on this site,

In that case they can still communicate. In case of that thread they were hysterical as the link had gone.If we can't even mention that Andy posted something in her failbook or twitter, then what has reality become?

There has always been a very tenuous link between reality and internet forums.

But seriously, yes, there has been a communication issue here for some time, which exists for various reasons, and is really more a discussion for a different forum. But ultimately, if they want to take the thread down they can and, although communication could be clearer, it's not as if the mods have been absent - at least two have posted in this thread alone.

udo said:

Chiquetet said:

that's entirely their right.

See above. Right doesn't matter. It's about reason.

Right absolutely does matter and, in fact, is at the heart of the entire discussion (and concern!)

They have a right to remove a thread - Ben could shut down the whole site tonight if he wanted to. Reasons are always welcome and probably help the site run more smoothly, but at the end of the day, Ben and the mods have all the rights here.

udo said:

So we let the mods have responsibility -delete threads- but not bear responsibility -i.e. explain- ??

You don't "let" the mods have anything - Ben does. Sometimes it might be smarter not to offer too much by way of explanation, either to stay covered in the event that a legal issue arises, or because the more they try to proffer an explanation, the more debate tends to ensue on the topic. No discussion = no fuel.

As for not bearing responsibility, they DO bear responsibility - we're not the ones that will be faced with the consequences if a choice made by a mod results in action being taken against the site. And yes, I don't see how that could happen in a thread that's had links removed, etc... but then I'm not going to be the one answering difficult questions if there's something I didn't think of, so I'm happy to accept that the thread is gone. All that's left to wonder about is why we're still discussing it??! What's on the telly?!

udo said:

Chiquetet said:

so bringing it back now would be pretty pointless.

That is your idea of mature moderation.

No, it's my idea of not sweating the small stuff. If I was a mod, I'd feel obliged to consider it more carefully, but I'm not, so I shrug and move on.

udo said:

I can agree that we -THEY and us- have to learn, have to adapt to situations.But that works only when we communicate.And THEY don't.

I think there's probably a bit too much of "THEY and us" on this site. Slowly but surely, for various reasons, it seems as if a battleground is being forged and a lot of people see the mods as being against "us", being the posters (as if they don't post too!)

Constructive criticism or asking questions is one thing, but squaring off against them is not helpful. Communication is not so straightforward (or appealing) when every decision you make is likely to get turned into a 6 page debate. If we want mods to feel they can communicate more openly with the greater org community, perhaps we need to help by fostering an environment where we're more likely to hear them out, see it from their perspective and offer suggestions rather than judgement and sarcasm.

Chiquetet said:

Constructive criticism or asking questions is one thing, but squaring off against them is not helpful. Communication is not so straightforward (or appealing) when every decision you make is likely to get turned into a 6 page debate. If we want mods to feel they can communicate more openly with the greater org community, perhaps we need to help by fostering an environment where we're more likely to hear them out, see it from their perspective and offer suggestions rather than judgement and sarcasm.

I am asking for communication, explanation and reasons.

What is that about squaring off?

If they were mature they could communicate and explain while giving reasons.

Not the shortsighted Ben-stuff that other people quote. (nothing against Ben, but they refer to him)

Nothing about simply referring to rules either.

It is about applying the rules correctly, explaining when there is doubt - and there is!- while giving good reasons.

None of that happend.

So what -w.r.t. 'rules'- did we learn?

Nothing.

And what w.r.t. other stuff did we learn:

quite a bit more.

Any updates?

Did we contact the legal department of the org?

Did we consider that even a b00tleggar has his copyright in a b00leg?

The way the b00tleggar recorded (equipment, position, etc) are their own.

The music recorded of course may not necessarily be their own.