Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 10, 1999 at 06:08:22 {AAJB0ph6mYrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ******Censorship or Moderation? posted by Lobo on November 09, 1999 at 22:27:45:
Lobo
Read the following very carefully, it is from H2O’s FPP.
Material linked that illegally exists (such as links to pirated software or literature existing without authorization by the legal copyright holder) will be cause for immediate removal by H2O moderators upon discovery.
According to that FPP statement links should be deleted to copyrighted material when that copyrighted material exists without authorization by the legal copyright owner.
My question to you is, does Kent have authorization for his publication of the Society’s copyrighted material? Yes or no? It is just that simple. Unless Kent has authorization there is no gray area.
As for Kent’s contention that he is innocent of any copyright infringement because “the police dropped the case”, as I have already demonstrated, such is not exclusive to innocence. Kent just assumes he is innocent because he has not been prosecuted.
As for the linked material, I am glad he has it on his site. I just think that linking to it from this site violates this site’s FPP. That is one reason I asked Marquis these questions:
5) Do you consider it fair that founders of H2O should have a policy for what they allow on this site? Do you consider that their prerogative or yours?6) Do you think that people agreeing to that policy should then honestly keep that agreement?
I could not care less if Kent respects the Society or not. I could not care less if Kent respects H2O or not. But if he wants to be the guest of H2O by participating and he has agreed to abide by H2O’s policy of participation then he should abide by that policy. It is that simple. Do you consider it honest to promise one thing and do the opposite?
Friend