Too much hostility may lead to excessive use of administrative power

[Malaksbane]

It was quoted from the forumrules.

There is never a question asked about the legality of the download, when a download is suspected the thread is closed and the poster reprimanded.

If, in general practice, the rule is 'no downloaded material' then the forumrules should be updated to reflect that. That would make it clear for everyone.

[4Dude]

Originally Posted by neuron2

You agreed to abide by our rules

It amazes me Neuron2 how many people DO NOT READ THE RULES when they check the box that says they agree with them and will abide..

[Malaksbane]

Maybe I need to repeat it, the current practice is not described in the rules.

[LocalH]

Originally Posted by Malaksbane

There is never a question asked about the legality of the download, when a download is suspected the thread is closed and the poster reprimanded.

That's not true. I have seen many locked threads where a mod asked the OP what the original source was, and they either evaded the question or outright admitted to having illegally distributed material ("I downloaded it from the net", "gave to me by a friend", "no longer have my originals"). Also, I have seen many threads where the OP did not take measures to obscure their source's filename and thus garnered an automatic lock because this made it evidently clear they were processing illegally distributed material. Also note, rule 6 does not merely apply to downloaded content - if I give you a copy of a DVD illegally, and then you come here to ask for help processing it, rule 6 still applies (even if my source was legal for me to copy, once I gave it to you it became illegal).

I have also seen many cases where the source was "kind of" suspect, i.e. the OP is processing material that is not generally legally available in their country (Japanese-only anime sources come to mine) and while there is no outright evidence of it being illegally downloaded, the mod who closed the thread always gives the OP the option of clarifying via PM whether the source is legal or not. These threads almost never get reopened because in many (but not all) cases, the content is illegal for the OP to be processing.

I have also never seen a situation where a thread is locked if the poster is using legally downloaded content licensed such that they can indeed process and transcode it. To determine whether downloaded content is legal requires knowledge of both where the file was downloaded in the first place, and any license attached to the content. Thus, one could legally ask for help with processing public domain content found on archive.org, or content released under a Creative Commons license that allows such processing. I have never seen a thread locked where the OP was asking for help with processing such material. Note that I have seen threads locked where the content itself was legally downloaded, but there was no license attached to it - in cases like this, the default is roughly analogous to what copyright law allows along with the fair use/fair dealing exceptions found in the law of various countries (I say roughly because fair use in the US generally paints a somewhat wider brush than the analogue of fair dealing found in other countries). In such a case, if a person has such a thread locked, but they feel they are operating within the law that would apply in their jurisdiction, there is always the option of contacting the locking mod and explaining the situation fully.

[lych_necross]

There is an old saying that pertains to this topic: "I think he doth protest too much". I'm not saying this about anyone poster specifically, just about users who complain about rule 6 violations. Copyright laws aside, Doom9.org is a privately owned, and operated, forum and is allowed to enforce whatever rules the owners want. If a user is upset that his/her thread was locked, discuss it with a mod in private and get on with your life. Also, if the movie in question was legally downloaded, the OP should have no problem providing proof of purchase.

[Doom9]

Maybe I need to repeat it, the current practice is not described in the rules.

Wrong
You just don't agree with our interpretation of "content of questionable nature" but that's your problem. There are many other rules that can be interpreted differently than the mod team does - but again, it's not up to you.

Since I'm so fracking sick and tired of all the blah blah about our rules, I'll upload a new set as soon as I can figure out where to (seems my current ftp access has the wrong root), which after the rules lays down the laws on usless discussion like this:

The interpretation of these rules is solely up to the owner of this forum and can change at any time without prior notice. If you're unsure about what constitutes a breach of a rule, ask a member of the moderator squad or refer to the most recent precedent in the forum (though since interpretation can change, we cannot guarantee that any precedent you may find still applies so in order to be on the safe side, ask a moderator if the precedent still applies).

And rule 6 will state

No warez, cracks, serials or illegally obtained copyrighted content! Links to content of a questionable nature (e.g. anything you don't own and/or have downloaded), asking for, offering, or asking for help/helping to process such content in any way or form is not tolerated.

[Malaksbane]

Actually, no, there is a legally binding agreement which defines what is permitted and even if not particularly likely, this might be used by parties seeking to inconvenience doom9 owners.

Originally Posted by LocalH

That's not true. I have seen many locked threads where a mod asked the OP what the original source was, and they either evaded the question or outright admitted to having illegally distributed material ("I downloaded it from the net", "gave to me by a friend", "no longer have my originals").

That confirms what I said, legality isn't checked, what happens is that basically a hint of the material being processed is downloaded is sufficient for a threadlock.

That's fine, I understand doom9 wants to stay clear of (illegally) downloaded material, my point is to be more specific about it in the rules. Right now there is a discrepancy between the rules - #6 specifically - and how they are applied, or seem to be applied.

Also note, rule 6 does not merely apply to downloaded content - if I give you a copy of a DVD illegally, and then you come here to ask for help processing it, rule 6 still applies

Rule #6 is a baseline, I don't suggest replacing it, but adding a sub for the explicit case of downloaded material.

... processing material that is not generally legally available in their country

People travel. And internet exchange & trade is rather common these days.

... the mod who closed the thread always gives the OP the option of clarifying via PM whether the source is legal or not.

As far as I have seen such threads they usually don't. And few people really know what is legal and what not, or what license 'accompanies' their AV-material.

These threads almost never get reopened because in many (but not all) cases, the content is illegal for the OP to be processing.

Switching to pedantic mode; that is unlikely because, most material (childporn excluded) can be processed legally no matter where I got it from. It's redistribution that is typically illegal.

... To determine whether downloaded content is legal requires knowledge of both where the file was downloaded in the first place, and any license attached to the content.

What do you mean with 'attached to the content'?

what copyright law allows along with the fair use/fair dealing exceptions found in the law of various countries

They tend to restrict redistribution, not acquisition.

Why not avoid discussions on what is legal and what not, keep it simple and prohibit discussion of processing downloaded material in any shape or form (maybe with exceptions for material that is obviously PD or GnuCC-like ). As seems to be the practice. That is clear and it seems to be what the semi-hidden announcement in Newbies states.

[Doom9]

Let me make this simple for you:

Rule 17) No discussion about the rules or their interpretation.