Posts deleted - no information given at the time as to why

Nehaxak

Hi,

In response to this thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055502953

I replied that it is possible to use a VPN to view material direct from the TV networks' websites while still maintaining and adhering to the law, both in this country and the US.

My post was deleted, which I did not know at the time, actually thought I just imagined posting (it happens!...) so I posted again and that post was deleted with the following comment left in it's place...

"Don't post links or methods to watch copyrighted material."

What I posted and what I said gave no inclination or link as to anything illegal nor any "method" used to watch "copyrighted material".

Use of VPN in the country of origin is perfectly legal and well within laws of both the EU and the US as a means to view TV shows directly on the networks website.

Again, I gave no "link" nor did I mention the use of VPN to watch "copyrighted material" - merely saying one can use a country specific (in this case the US) VPN to view TV shows from the relevant countries' TV network if they so broadcast that material for FREE on their websites.

OP asked a question, I gave a perfectly legal answer, deleting entire posts is just a tad extreme, especially with no notice given (notice was only given on the second deleted post, in place of the post itself).

Just a little pissed off at posts being deleted for giving a perfectly legal and lawful answer.

seamus

Nehaxak wrote: »

Use of VPN in the country of origin is perfectly legal and well within laws of both the EU and the US as a means to view TV shows directly on the networks website.

Please provide links to rulings and statutes to back up this assertion. Nothing except Irish court rulings and law will be sufficient - U.S. rulings, other websites, all useless.

Syndicated shows are 99.99% of the time copyrighted for viewing (publication) based on geographic location, therefore viewing (publishing) that content in a different geographic location is a direct breach of copyright law.

Much like showing a rented DVD to kids in school. Yes, that's a breach of copyright law too.

Nehaxak

So...unlawful by assumption (please provide proof to the contrary yourself Seamus) and censorship by deletion of posts based upon that ?

Again though, my post was deleted without ANY notice. There is also NO mention of this in the charter of AH ?

Given the amount of threads mentioning, supporting and even posts within condoning the pirate bay and other such actual piracy services, I find it very strange that when I post giving an actual legal means to view TV shows from the US without breaking any laws, my posts are deleted.

At the very least, it's unprofessional to just delete posts without any notice or mention at all.

I can see me posting this as being pointless and your reply biased as to come back and even mention "court rulings and law" explicitly saying using VPN to watch TV shows in the US from Ireland is legal - is absolutely rediculous not to mention idiotic as a court ruling assumes an actual case has been brought before the courts, of which there never has.

Lock thread tbh as I cba arguing over this with someone I've had disagreements before with in the past on After Hours, you clearly cannot remove yourself from that and I'm not wasting my time arguing.

I'll take it as just simple biased censorship.

seamus

Nehaxak wrote: »

So...unlawful by assumption (please provide proof to the contrary yourself Seamus) and censorship by deletion of posts based upon that ?

Unlawful by fact. I've read the statute. If you really want to see the relevant legislation, then indeed I'll go find it. I'm in the middle of making dinner now, so I don't have time, but maybe later.

Rest assured I wouldn't claim that there's anything wrong with it on assumption alone.

Again though, my post was deleted without ANY notice. There is also NO mention of this in the charter of AH ?

Given the amount of threads mentioning, supporting and even posts within condoning the pirate bay and other such actual piracy services, I find it very strange that when I post giving an actual legal means to view TV shows from the US without breaking any laws, my posts are deleted.

At the very least, it's unprofessional to just delete posts without any notice or mention at all.

Well, perhaps. It's generally taken as a given across the site that you don't describe methods of breaking the law, including methods of breaching copyright law, which is what you did. Where something is taken for granted as a no-no across the site, a moderator will often remove posts without notice because it doesn't seem like notice is necessary - the poster should know this piece of general knowledge. I do the same with threads mentioning a certain promoter.

Incidentally, please report threads which discuss piracy or law breaking and don't assume they're OK - they're not.

I can see me posting this as being pointless and your reply biased as to come back and even mention "court rulings and law" explicitly saying using VPN to watch TV shows in the US from Ireland is legal - is absolutely rediculous not to mention idiotic as a court ruling assumes an actual case has been brought before the courts, of which there never has.

Indeed. And therefore you have absolutely nothing on which to base your opinion that it is "completely legal" because it has yet to be ruled as such in an Irish court of law.

I've seen the law on this, and though I'm not a solicitor it's fairly clear-cut and I'm happy that I'm right. But if someone can show otherwise, I'll change my opinion.

Lock thread tbh as I cba arguing over this with someone I've had disagreements before with in the past on After Hours, you clearly cannot remove yourself from that and I'm not wasting my time arguing.

I'll take it as just simple biased censorship.

I'm flattered that you remember past disagreements we've had, but unfortunately I don't. In any case, your opinion is your own, and I'm insulted by the implication that I would harbour some form of grudge towards purely because you expressed your opinion.

Notwithstanding that, I'll open this thread to any other smod to give their opinion on it so you'll at least feel like some sort of impartiality exists here.

Nehaxak

seamus wrote: »

Unlawful by fact. I've read the statute. If you really want to see the relevant legislation, then indeed I'll go find it. I'm in the middle of making dinner now, so I don't have time, but maybe later.

Would you mind if we opened a discussion on this maybe in some legal forum ? I am actually interested in the debate and would like some views from those in the legal profession.

...
Well, perhaps. It's generally taken as a given across the site that you don't describe methods of breaking the law, including methods of breaching copyright law, which is what you did.

...and that is something I do understand and do adhere too, however in this case I (honestly!) do not see it as a means or way of breaking any laws in this country nor anywhere else.

Where something is taken for granted as a no-no across the site, a moderator will often remove posts without notice because it doesn't seem like notice is necessary - the poster should know this piece of general knowledge. I do the same with threads mentioning a certain promoter.

Fine, that's understood and taken as required for posts relating to the promoter you mention and I see no problem with that, but again, seems my posts were singled out for whatever other reason.
As much as I understand mods shouldn't be expected to know the "whole 9 yards" (sorry am listening to sky radio classical rap music while typing) in regards copyright, I do feel a line needs to be drawn between that which is absolutely illegal and that which is just not understood.

...And therefore you have absolutely nothing on which to base your opinion that it is "completely legal" because it has yet to be ruled as such in an Irish court of law.

Ah Seamus, that's not fair to say something like that. You can't start removing posts relating to people running naked on the moon just because there's been no court ruling on the matter to deem it legal or illegal.

I've seen the law on this, and though I'm not a solicitor it's fairly clear-cut and I'm happy that I'm right. But if someone can show otherwise, I'll change my opinion.

I'd like to debate it (elsewhere though not here) as I see it different.

I'm flattered that you remember past disagreements we've had, but unfortunately I don't.

Don't be flattered it's a gift/curse I have. I can remember written or spoken word (that interest me) and the people behind them for a long time after the fact. Can write up minutes of meetings years afterwards and remember dates and those present, would make a good secretary :eek:

In any case, your opinion is your own, and I'm insulted by the implication that I would harbour some form of grudge towards purely because you expressed your opinion.
Notwithstanding that, I'll open this thread to any other smod to give their opinion on it so you'll at least feel like some sort of impartiality exists here.

No, no need, I apologise for the implication as your reply leads me to believe I was and am incorrect in that assumption.

I'd rather debate than argue the issue elsewhere but I still feel it wrong that posts are deleted in such a way.

seamus

I would be more than happy for you to start the discussion going on the legal discussion forum. I think it was brought up before, but no harm to start a new one maybe referencing the old one.

I do feel a line needs to be drawn between that which is absolutely illegal and that which is just not understood.

It's a tough one to draw though. Boards doesn't have the time or the money to be drawn into legal test cases (it's currently undergoing one), so where where a formal ruling has yet to be made but we're quite confident that it's *probably* not legal, we take the safe route and we censor it. Where it has yet to be decided, but there's a good chance it's legal, we leave it be.

For the record, posts advising people to run naked on the moon would be advising people to commit suicide, which afaik is illegal in this country, so we'd have to censor them

Thanks for the apology, appreciate it.