ViewAskewbian

In the Bruce Springsteen thread in Music Talk once it was revealed the album has been leaked online it was posted by benedict:

"A reminder to cungar, and anyone tempted to follow suit....
.... discussion of material obtained without proper recompense to the copyright holders for a very long time has been frowned upon on DVDtalk."

I found it very strange that this was being posted here yet nothing was mentioned a few weeks ago when the work print for Rob Zombie's Halloween leaked online and pages upon pages of discussion transpired afterwards.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=467548&page=1

How about Sicko?
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....ighlight=Sicko

Or Hostel 2?
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....el+2+workprint

New Harry Potter book?
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=506203

Is the rule unique to just Music Talk?

DVD Josh

It's probably just unique to what posts the mods are made aware of.

jdodd

Someone raised a stink about it recently and now probably a) the mods are being more proactive, or b) someone reported the thread.

Dignam

The 'rule' isn't actively enforced. The two words that carry the most weight are "frowned upon". That's very different than actually taking action against people who discuss their illegal downloads.

Imagine a shoplifter getting busted by mall security. If a rent-a-cop takes the stolen clothes away from him, but leaves him in the store and walks away, can you really blame the guy for taking stuff again? There's no motivation not to break the rule if being caught has no consequence.

I created a thread in feedback about the rampant discussions of pilot episodes and nothing really happened. Of all people, one of the most vocal torrent users echoed my observations. We may strongly disagree on the use of them, but we see eye to eye in the blatant hypocrisy of locking one thread and letting ten remain. When an OP says 'it's available in places we can't mention' and the discussion remains open after a mod reviews it, there's no way to misunderstand that. The OP isn't suspended, so why not talk about torrents or give a heads up that they're 'out there'? When a member gives links to a torrent site with specific file names for TV shows and no action is taken, there's no way to misunderstand that. There's no reason not to, breaking the rule has no consequence. But bump an old topic about toilet paper, and BAM!

Posts like this that are reported stay with no action taken:

"50 and Kanye have both leaked, downloading both as I type along with some new 7L and esoteric album.."

The rules aren't in place because the activity isn't allowed, they're there to protect the site from liability. Once you realize that, it all makes sense.

Chrisedge

I think there is a HUGE difference, in talking about the actual content of such things, and the METHODS and HOWS/WAYS to obtain them. DVDTalk has often had conversions about things (music/movies/etc...) before they are officially "out". To limit those discussions and to lump that in with the messages of obtaining said movies/music/etc... would be a diservice to those that do like discussing (or even reading "early" reviews) them.

Many sites, have early reviews, based on sneaks, press copies or whatever. Now I know most of the folks that have something early, obtained them from illegal means, but we shouldn't limit discussion about the actual content of the media, just limit the discussions on how to obtain them.

benedict

If I notice it or receive a report I endeavour to do something about it. It is that simple.

However, no doubt someone will point out that by not treating a reference to a scanned novel exactly as I would try to treat a reference to a copied digital file (be it audio or video) I am guilty of hypocrisy. So be it.Yep.I cannot speak for the other moderators, but the number of times I have deleted posts, split/locked threads, sent public and private warnings and, yes, arranged for suspensions gives the lie to your argument. You are doing a wonderful impression of someone who holds the site and its humble servants in contempt.

I am at a loss to understand your specific suggestion regarding the kanye thread. A charitable person might say that you forgot or missed the fact of this action.

Someone less charitable might say.... something else entirely.

Yes, I did miss the new post in the original kanye thread that I'd tried to clean up - interestingly it came from someone who joined this month apparently with no regard to the rules he agreed to when he signed up. He'll now be dealt with and, additionnally, you can rest assured that if it transpires up he was an existing member who joined again with a new name in order to flout the rules then both will be banned, no questions asked.

Anyway, I'll drop Geoff a line tomorrow to see if he is able to take a look at this and maybe to have the last word.

ViewAskewbian

This is what I was driving at. Though I can understand not being able to link to where one can get said illegal material I don't believe our discussion of the contents (especially if we Spoilerize) should be banned. A few years ago I used to work for both a record store and a video store and I would post about screeners copies we would be sent weeks before release date (a full review of Jersey Girl a week before release comes to mind) and this was never mentioned to me as being "frowned upon". I certainly understand that the mods cannot see all but in this regard, if links are not posted on how to obtain these downloads, I don't see the harm in writing something like: "Yeah, the new Bruce album is excellent." In benedict's case, I also couldn't understand the moderating of one forum (Music talk) against the other (Book talk [he's already pointed out allowing scans of the Harry Potter book from the linked thread above]) in regards to this what appears to be a sometimes rule. And benedict, I'm not taking jabs at you here and understand the mod gig isn't always an easy one.

ViewAskewbian

Thanks.

fumanstan

I don't have a problem with openly talking about pre-release media when it is obtained legally and you're able to truthfully say how you have access, but when people continue to post things like "it's out in the usual places" it's obviously alluding to torrents or whatever.

The way I see it is if someone asks where you got something early, you should be able to truthfully answer. If not, then you shouldn't be writing about it.

Rogue588

And the problem with that is...? Is someone forcing you to compromise your ethics/principles/etc talking about content in a way that doesn't fall under your criteria? And have you given any thought to the fact that the person openly talking about illegally obtained pre-release media might not have a problem when it comes to lying? I'm not understanding this train of thought..

IIRC, and I could be wrong (since I don't have - what seems to be - a righteous superiority complex), but didn't the member who gave a links to "a torrent site with specific file names for TV shows" do so in a PM attempting to assist a fellow member of the community. Now, the ethicality of that exchange is between the person doing the asking and the one providing the information and not the forum's responsibility. Though, i'm sure he didn't realize it was part of a sting operation...

Anyways, I concur with Chrisedge and ViewAskewbian. As long as the discussion is about the content and not the methods to obtain 'em, I don't see what the problem is.

ViewAskewbian

Rogue588 has stated exactly what I was going to here except this one thing. In the be all end all, what I am driving at here, is I see no issue talking about something that has been leaked online as long as we are not posting where said leak is. The recent Halloween thread was filled with some good discussions comparing the leaked workprint to the finished film, a Tori Amos leak for her box set awhile back had talk of the quality of the demos and such, etc. I don't feel people here are posting: "Ha ha, I just snagged the new Bruce album and didn't pay a dime suckers and you can do it to here _____________" but actual discussions are being had be it about quashing Harry Potter rumors or saying how terrible the new Rob Zombie film is compared to the old Carpenter flick. I plan on purchasing the new Springsteen album but also downloaded it to give it an early listen. Am I a minority there? Maybe but I don't feel we should be silencing discussions about something just because it happened to float out into the open a few weeks too soon. I know this is a thin line to walk but if we are not linking directly to sights sharing these files (when somebody mentiones a leak it is obviouse by now where it is) nor are we offering to sell early releases that we may have obtained one way or another then I think open discussion about those releases shouldn't be a problem.

benedict

I've put something where Geoff should see it and can only leave it to him to decide whether there is anything to add to what he said here in this thread.

Please also see Blade's final post in the 2002 thread where the policy was explained.

fumanstan

Like was mentioned, it's just a thin line to walk. It's nothing about my own ethical opinion about the content... it's simply my opinion that the site should take an all or nothing stance. If you're going to ban any talk of torrents, then people shouldn't be alluding to them what so ever. If people want to lie, then so be it. Obviously this site can't prevent that, regardless if someone wants to lie about stories, experiences, or whether they're a reviewer or something no matter the topic. But if forum members want to lie about that sort of thing, then that's on themselves to be a liar and a thief.

Also, it isn't anything about sitting on my high horse and judging others, because hell... most people who are internet savy have done things they probably shouldn't have.

I just don't see how hard is it to wait the extra 2 weeks or so to discuss something when EVERYONE has a chance to hear it or see it and just avoid having to worry about any legality issues whatsoever.

EDIT: Oh, and in the end it doesn't really matter to me personally one way or the other. Just thinking that it seems odd that it's fine to talk about the material when it's obvious where it came from and people stupidly refer to where it came from. I thought it was funny when Dignam asked someone where someone got a CD and everyone became all defensive.

Supermallet

But the rub of it is that the act of hearing it is not illegal. The act of obtaining it without purchasing it (presuming you're not a disc jockey, record executive, or member of the press and were thus given a legal copy) is what is illegal. So if I heard a copy of the Cure's upcoming double album, I should be allowed to post about it as I see fit. If I illegally obtained the Cure's upcoming double album, I should not be allowed to discuss how or where I got it. But the actual content of what is on the album should be open to discussion. Because under your "all or nothing" rule, if I were a disc jockey or member of the press, I wouldn't be allowed to discuss the album early, either, even though I got it through perfectly legitimate means.

fumanstan

I wasn't really proposing all or nothing. I said earlier that I don't have a problem with someone posting about something that was legitimately obtained. More of an honor system to me. Just as I mentioned in the edit in the last post; Dignam has all the right to ask "where did you get it?" if someone posts about obtaining something early. If you can't answer honestly without getting in trouble by the mods, then maybe you shouldn't be posting. See what i mean? Can't stop people from lying, but oh well. Honor system.

If you're a reviewer or work in the media and has access to things early and want to share your thoughts, more power to you.