Speaking of the Rules....

[adam]

I know what an analogy is.

I am not stupid.

I am just saying in my mind the analogy is erroneus.

Again, that's fine because its your interpretation.

A book is not like a dvd.

That is a fact.

THAT is what I was replying to, and what I cannot agree with.

[gitreel]

You need to read my other post.

It is infringement, not stealing.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Supreme2k]

I'm not disagreeing with you, adam, just a couple of notes:

Sorry if I am being rude but this is getting ridiculous. I file suits of infringement every day.

I hope those are all legit. This statement also shows that you live in the U.S.A.

The very definition of copyright means that if you don't own that right, you can't copy it. Its that simple

One of the thoughts that I've had for a while is "What is the extent of a copy?" I'v seen people look at a pic for all of five seconds and spray-paint* an exact duplicate on a wall. I've heard people duplicate not only the words, but a singer's voice down to a T. Seems like a loophole or a snowball effect waiting to happen. I know that copyrights can be broken if not constantly maintained. I don't have the reference handy, but a few comic book characters were infringed upon, but the companies lost the right to sue due to them letting most instances of infringement "slide."










*of course, now there's a couple of laws being broken

[adam]

I hope those are all legit. This statement also shows that you live in the U.S.A.

We would not proceed with a case unless we believed our client had a valid claim. You'd get sanctioned for that anyway. Yes the US is very litigious but we are an IP (among a few other things) law firm. We file suits because that's what we get paid to do. We also defend against alot of infringement suits too. I'm sure we don't file any more infringement suits than any other average IP firm in any other country.

One of the thoughts that I've had for a while is "What is the extent of a copy?" I'v seen people look at a pic for all of five seconds and spray-paint* an exact duplicate on a wall.

That's not considered a copy or a duplicate. If the work is substantially similar then its considered a derivitive work, because its created independantly but based on the copyrighted source. The creation of derivitive works is also the exclusive right of the copyright holder, unless it falls under a Fair Use exception. Unless it is a parody due to the context in which it is created, that is a clear cut example of copyright infringement. It doesn't matter that the individual uses their own talent to create a separate work, you can't just copy someone else's finished product in doing so.

I've heard people duplicate not only the words, but a singer's voice down to a T. Seems like a loophole or a snowball effect waiting to happen.

Well you can't copyright a voice. Inpersonating someone like that (assuming its not in parody) would fall under a completely different set of laws. That's considered appropriating someone's name or likeness and is considered a violation of the "right to publicity." Impersonating someone's voice has universally been held to be perfectly legal as long as you don't portray it as the actual person doing the talking, ie "radio ad with me saying I'm Bill Cosby and I use brand X." For a funny case on this do a google search on "johnny carson" "here's johnny" and "toilet."

I know that copyrights can be broken if not constantly maintained. I don't have the reference handy, but a few comic book characters were infringed upon, but the companies lost the right to sue due to them letting most instances of infringement "slide."

Correct. There are statutes of limitations on every cause of action. If you don't file your suit within so many years of the cause of action arising, or within so many years of learning of the act giving rise to your cause of action, then you are permantently barred from ever bringing that claim, regardless of its merit.

Or your actions can constitute a waiver of some legal right or the granting of permission to that party.

But this stuff applies to all causes of action not just copyrights.

[adam]

Really, none? Then your firm must be a shining example for others to follow... although I think you are a bit ahead of yourself now.

How so? We bought all the books in our library. We abide by the licenses of all of our computer software. All the documents in our case files were either provided by our clients or by opposing counsel through court order. What would we even have that would infringe on any copyright?

With that said, I haven't had an opportunity to look at all x million of our documents. But I just don't see how engaging in copyright infringement would help our practice, except to save money on books and software that we would otherwise have to purchase. But anyone who engages in that kind of infringement is a fool and will pay much more money in the long run.

[proxyx99]

I guess I have to take your word for it.

With regard to the main issue you are in a lot of hot water here. The problem is that, as I see it, many members have a different opinion on the subject due to their understanding of what is just rather then inability to understand the principals of what is being discussed here.

I take a huge issue with the practice (rather then the letter) of the law under scrutiny although I realize that there is no other way to deal with the intelletual property issues. Allowing Fair Use is a very controvercial issue and no wonder that all parties involved have really hard time drawing the boundries. I understand the rationale behind DMCA and other statutes. Creating an exception to the rule could potentially make what's already difficult close to impossible (in terms of protecting work of art). Traditionally the infridgment is linked with the violator engaging in a large scale operation exploiting someones IP. Tha outcome would usually take away from rights-holder income. Plain and simple. Owner did not get paid.
DVD's are not different but due to the advances in technology instead of a single violator you are dealing with several millions of individuals copying DVD's call it "for personal use". Economicaly there is no difference. Owner still did not get paid (rental DVD copy scenario). As to the purchased copy, well, everyone knows that there are million ways to lie your way out out of this (bought it , lost it yesterday and planned to destroy the backup today or bought it, lent it and it comes back tonite etc. etc.). Making an exception would open floodgates in terms of number of copies made (CD's good example).
Here a dilemma, allow Fair Use but be very tough on even small, indiv. violators or disallow and make the law more of a warning sign while anyone can do whatever they want with widely avaiable hardware.
There's also "canadian way" a bit relaxed or "european way" ("don't you dare even think about that").

Members disappointment with current law has everything to do with how they understand social justice, "Robin Hood"-ism - taking from the rich is not stealing after all, but redistributing what should be in a public domain anyway.

[adam]

I take a huge issue with the practice (rather then the letter) of the law under scrutiny although I realize that there is no other way to deal with the intelletual property issues.

Well that's just it. If we are limiting our discussion to personal backups then there is no practice, because its barely even possible to get caught and its certainly not practical for the copyright holder to do anything about it. All we have is the letter of the law and that's all I was really speaking of.

Allowing Fair Use is a very controvercial issue and no wonder that all parties involved have really hard time drawing the boundries. I understand the rationale behind DMCA and other statutes. Creating an exception to the rule could potentially make what's already difficult close to impossible (in terms of protecting work of art).

Let me explain what I meant when I proposed allowing an exception. I've mentioned this before in the past, but not so much in this thread. As already stated, this aspect of copyright law and the DMCA goes almost entirely unenforced. All big business can do is go after the software manufactures, and really only the commercially successful ones at that. Meanwhile the home video enthusiast is going to continue infringing on copyrights as much as their conscience will allow. What the law actually says really means nothing to these individuals, either because they simply don't care or because they take issue with the law and feel its unjust. So I completely agree with you. Making a legal exception will just give people a legal excuse to do what they are probably going to do anyway, while meanwhile the copyright holder still isn't getting paid.

That's why I have proposed in the past, what I feel, is the best compromise. You said you disfavor the "Canadian way" but it seems like the only happy medium to me. Allow legal personal copying but force the consumer to pay the copyright holder through subsidies on those items used for making backups (tapes, cdrs, dvdrs, maybe burners, etc..) Whether you are actually copying for personal use or for personal gain, either way the copyright holder gets paid, and for copying that would have occurred anyway.

I'm not kidding myself though. I know that would never happen in the US. The consumer wouldn't understand why they'd have to pay more for something they already think they are entitled to do, and the media industry simply won't ever give in.

[proxyx99]

[quote="adam"]

You said you disfavor the "Canadian way" but it seems like the only happy medium to me.

That is not what I said (see above). I was just listing accepted (possible) approaches.

[adam]

My mistake.

[2-cat]

For Adam:

From your own reference, eg:

Quote:
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.



A. for #1.
IF you study case very closely, it was established LONG ago (like back in the 1800's in the U.S. that if an individual wanted to purchase a book & then take it home & copy it "in entireity" for themselves they were entitled to by "fair use" as long as they did NOT 'distribute' such a copy (eg. give it to another).
"reproduction" in every case law example I can find on record has been defined as 'commercial' style reproduction. (eg. multiple reproduction of some type intended for 'distribution')

B. almost every circumstance of case law I've found the cases have been prosecuted under items #2 or #3; eg. either under "derivitive works" or "distribution of copies"!

Very bluntly a large body of case law has established that because of "fair use", that prosecution *just* for the act of copying was next to impossible in the US prior to the DMCA.
Only if copies were being 'Distributed/disseminated' in some way has prosecution been successful (or even pursued in any examples I've seen).


& also notice that items's 4 thru 6 prohibit "PUBLIC display or performance".

There is NO restriction listed, mentioned, (nor even intended from my readings) as to PRIVATE display or performance!!!
& in fact a study of the discussions (or debates if you wish) that have come up with every proposed change in copyright laws will find that specific mention is always made that such laws are NOT intended to affect the PRIVATE use of the copyrighted work IF it is legally obtained (purchase, gift, & etc.).
Private reproduction for "personal use" has been considered part & parcel of this "Private Use" issue for a couple hundred years or so (U.S.; longer in many other parts of the world).



BTW: ONE of many reasons I try to keep up with the basics on copyright issues is that my business is one that has at times been challenged under #3 of the above reference.
EG. I *sell* the 'used' original copies of Books, recordings, videos, & etc.

Quite often copyright holders & publishers of copyrighted works have *objected* to the sales of such items on the second hand/used market; claiming that such sales detract from their incomes!
Challanges to such sales have always failed as part of "Private" or "Fair" use.
EG. if ya buy the d*mned thing then you have a Legal Right to transfer the ownership of said item - EVEN IF IT IS A COPYRIGHTED WORK! However one of the 'caveats' of such a transaction IS that ALL 'copies' & etc be transferred with the original!!
EG. ya don't copy the original then sell it keeping the copy for your own use. 'Title' & 'Possession' of any copies (partial or complete) MUST be included in the transfer!

& the latest challenge is now from Software developers (lead by M$ of course) who are now trying to establish the bit that if ya BUY a copy of the software that even after you quit using it & remove it from your computer/s you DON'T have the right to sell said copy!
Any *bets* on how that one turns out??
& I consider it a 'given' that one of these days I myself will end up in court on this one as a 'dealer' in 'used/secondhand' software!

= = = = = = = = = = =

Also some notes re other specific statements you've made:

Teachers may only copy for student use 'excerpts' of a work as classroom 'examples'; copying of entire scenes, short stories, movents of a musical work (as with sheet music) IS prohibited!
It is frequently done in schools to avoid having to run out & grab another single piece of sheet music (Band, Orchestra, & Chorus); or another scritp copy for a play & etc
However, this IS considered to a direct violation for "Public Display or Performance! Even photocopying or Mimeographing say a play scene or short story for classroom use to avoid purchasing copies is considered a violation.
Teachers like reviewers are limited to 'excerpts'!



Also: Radio & TV broadcats ARE normally also 'copyrighted' material!
(check the credits of a TV show sometime).

However, the issue of 'recording' such did not come up till 'cheap' methods of recording such had been developed that could be distributed on a 'mass' level.
By this time there had been such a LONG period of (mostly) wealthier enthusiasts that had already been doing just that (recording broadcast material) that the issue of recording such for 'private' use was was pretty well 'moot'.

Radio roadcast had been 'recorded' almost from the beginning (when some 'bright' individual set an old Edison cylinder recorder/player in front of a radio speaker - LOUSY quality, but a 'reproduction' none the less) so even the broadcast industry already knew there'd be a "snowball's chance in h*ll" of successfully prosecuting on just the 'reproduction/copying' issue due to "prior use/practice"!
& when the first tape recorders came out even tho expensive, they were immediately put to use for "bradcast recording" by some users.
Same with TV; equipment was developed early on for recording from broadcast, intended for 'licensed' rebroadcast use; however there were those who could afford the $50K plus cost & bought such equipment for 'private' use.
& so forth...
THAT is why the whole BetaMax case was built upon the "inducement to piracy" issue, rather than any 'reproduction/copying' issue.



BTW: if YOU are a Lawyer in the U.S.; then you should also know that generally the term "the letter of the law" is practically MEANINGLESS in the U.S.

The "LAW" in the U.S. is what has been defined by what is known by "Case Law" as developed by actual Court Decisions!
In MANY cases this turns out to be NOT what was intended by the framers of a specific Law or even the Constitution (look at stuff re Firearms for a Prime example of this).
& In Case Law "Precident" as defined both by previous court decisions & "Prior Use/Practice, weighs as strong or stronger than what's written in the legal codes!

[adam]

IF you study case very closely, it was established LONG ago (like back in the 1800's in the U.S. that if an individual wanted to purchase a book & then take it home & copy it "in entireity" for themselves they were entitled to by "fair use" as long as they did NOT 'distribute' such a copy (eg. give it to another).

I tell you what. If its in every case you have studied, then you should have no problem citing one. Don't tell me to just go and study 200 years of law...carefully. If you have an applicable holding then state it. This has never been held under Fair Use. What you are saying simply isn't true.

You can believe what you like, but you are basically just ignoring the obvious. You raise Fair Use but you completely neglect to properly define it. Fair Use has absolutely nothing to do with private copying. Fair Use is an ad hoc tool that courts use simply to avoid unfairly punishing someone. Yes it has been around since common law (way before 1800's) but it has been codified into Title 17. As an ad hoc legal tool, it can only be considered "law" once it has actually been USED sucessfully in a case. If you can cite even one single case where a court has ever ruled that Fair Use entitles someone to make private copies of media for personal use, then we can talk. Until then, you can read all the internet sites you want on this and get all the biased inaccurate commentaries. If you want to know the law then read statutes and court opinions. Its obvoius that you have done neither.

You: Teachers may only copy for student use 'excerpts' of a work as classroom 'examples'; copying of entire scenes, short stories, movents of a musical work (as with sheet music) IS prohibited!

That is exactly what I said. You are just being argumentative for no reason.

Me: You can also copy SECTIONS of books for limited purposes. Teachers can do this to let the entire class read a section of a commercially released book instead of having to go out and buy a copy for each.

The reason they can do this is because multiple high courts were presented with this argument and it was repeadedly held to be a proper Fair Use right, so much so that it was codified into Title 17. Do you know of any actual case where a court made a similar ruling for private copying?

BTW: if YOU are a Lawyer in the U.S.; then you should also know that generally the term "the letter of the law" is practically MEANINGLESS in the U.S.

The "LAW" in the U.S. is what has been defined by what is known by "Case Law" as developed by actual Court Decisions!

Bullcrap. There are 4 types of positive law, Constitutional, statutory, case law, and administrative law.

All are important and all are equally valid. The only one that trumps all is Con law. Case-law is really only used to interpret statutes and administrative law and can only trump other law by ruling that it is unconstitutional, in which case that law is usually just amended to achieve compliance. We are a common law country, but we are very quickly becoming a civil law one. The vast majority of our laws and controversies are now statutorily based.

Elements of statutes which have been repeatedly tested and defined come to be considered black letter law. They are called this because their meaning is so clear and accepted that you can truly take the language at face value. The fact that a copyright holder has exclusive rights to copy, precluding an individual from making any personal copies not provided for under any other previsions of title 17, is well settled. I cited two Sup. Ct. cases which expressly said exactly that. It seems you even acknowledge this since you say that the right to copy comes under Fair Use, an exception to a copyright holder's exclusive rights.

And as you noted, Fair Use is an almost completely case-law driven legal concept. (You can check title 17 and clearly see that personal copying has not been codified into the statute). If a court rules that something is "Fair Use" then others in that jurisdiction can generally make the same argument if simiilarly charged. But like you said, private copying goes largely unenforced. You even seem to insinuate that it is impossible or maybe illegal to enforce it? This isn't true, but it just goes to show how self defeating your argument is.

If Fair Use cannot establish a law until used as an affirmative defense, and no one can ever file a suit of infringement for personal copying, then how could the defense ever be raised and ruled on? How can a court create such a right, if they are never given the occasion to? No court has addressed this issue to create an exception to a copyright holder's exclusive rights for personal copying. Furthermore, if the Fair Use right to copy for personal use just inherantly exists, even without a single court every having ruled on it, then why does Title 17 make an express exemption for personal copying of computer software, but for no other type of media? Copyright law is blatantly clear that copying of any kind, not exempted, is a violation. Therefore, under "the letter of the law" personal copying is still a violation of copyright. And again, this is all very well settled through case law. You disagree simply because you don't understand.

So please. I don't what to hear "what you always read" or what the "law says IF you carefully read it." If you've got ANY law anywhere to support what you are saying then let's hear it.

[dosun]

I like how everybody just gives this one a little wink wink, nudge nudge, but the dude who accidently advertises his text books is banned and has to grovel for his membership back.

\

Nah, its the way this board works. I just got this msg from a mod today.
"2 - People are treated individually, and as equally as possible. " So basically comes down to whoever is unlucky enough to get a mod that is in a bad mood that day.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. Unfortunate interpretation of the AUP, and the policies of this board.
/ Moderator Capmaster

[indolikaa]

Nah, its the way this board works. I just got this msg from a mod today. "2 - People are treated individually, and as equally as possible." So basically comes down to whoever is unlucky enough to get a mod that is in a bad mood that day.

I completely disagree with that.

I haven't seen a situation yet where someone didn't get what they deserved. I think our mods are a little more professional than that.

[DVDJET]

this is an even scarier thought.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tech/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1700&idq=/ff/story/0001/200...09.htm&sc=1700




copyright gone mad imo

[Cobra]

I like how everybody just gives this one a little wink wink, nudge nudge, but the dude who accidently advertises his text books is banned and has to grovel for his membership back.

\

Nah, its the way this board works. I just got this msg from a mod today.
"2 - People are treated individually, and as equally as possible. " So basically comes down to whoever is unlucky enough to get a mod that is in a bad mood that day.

That was me who said that. I stand by what I said - if the attack is unprovoked then it warrants a formal warning, however if it is provoked then an informal warning is all that is required. Every case is individual, and every member is individual.

I see that you have chosen to use a vicious interpretation of my wording. Thanks.

Cobra

[dosun]

Thanks, the icon looks pretty.

I haven't seen a situation yet where someone didn't get what they deserved. I think our mods are a little more professional than that.

I never said that all the mods are unprofessional, just that certain mods favor certain posters. I have nothing against the ones that are professional. I was flamed at and responded with some. Yet I was the only one that got the warning.

[flaninacupboard]

Thanks, the icon looks pretty.

Well that's some conoslation, at least you have something pretty in your life.

[Cobra]

You recieved your warning for attacking other forum members, myself included. If you continue to do so, you will be banned.

[Capmaster]

Thanks, the icon looks pretty.

I haven't seen a situation yet where someone didn't get what they deserved. I think our mods are a little more professional than that.

I never said that all the mods are unprofessional, just that certain mods favor certain posters. I have nothing against the ones that are professional. I was flamed at and responded with some. Yet I was the only one that got the warning.

No. Others were warned as well. Yours was the only yellow card issued (see Cobra's post above for the reason).

[smearbrick1]

this is an even scarier thought.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tech/st ... mp;sc=1700

Don't like the law? We'll tailor make one for ya!

[dosun]

Capmaster, nothing against you. I think your warning was appropiate. I'm not referring to this thread. I was issued an informal warning and when I asked why I was the only one that received it Cobra responded with "People are treated individually, and as equally as possible." Both parties flamed and mine didn't even contain profanity, but I was the only one that received the warning.

[Capmaster]

Capmaster, nothing against you. I think your warning was appropiate. I'm not referring to this thread. I was issued an informal warning and when I asked why I was the only one that received it Cobra responded with "People are treated individually, and as equally as possible." Both parties flamed and mine didn't even contain profanity, but I was the only one that received the warning.

I'm cool. No offense taken by me.

Let's chalk this one up to experience and get on with our lives

Nothing to see here folks ...keep moving

[indolikaa]

Thanks, the icon looks pretty.

I haven't seen a situation yet where someone didn't get what they deserved. I think our mods are a little more professional than that.

I never said that all the mods are unprofessional, just that certain mods favor certain posters. I have nothing against the ones that are professional. I was flamed at and responded with some. Yet I was the only one that got the warning.

Now you are pissing me off!

I think I know what you are trying to say, dosun, and I don't like it. Longevity and post-count have nothing to do with how people are treated on this website. It's all about respect. You haven't been here long enough to earn it. And judging by your attitude, you don't seem to care, either.

A warning is not a stain on your personal manhood. It's free advice. You can take it as such, or you can have a temper tantrum and make an ass of yourself. It's your choice, but I think you'd be advised to stop blaming others for your own conduct. And I REALLY think you should layoff this theory that videohelp.com is all about preferential treatment, just because you got booked.

[dosun]

You are right, I don't care about respect from a bunch of people that haven't even seen. I don't need to give respect but I try not to disrespect anybody unless someone else does it first. I don't give a damn about the warning. I was just questioning the fairness of the site as a whole as the thread title suggests.

[jimmalenko]

No-one is saying you can't disagree with certain people here - disagreement breeds discussion which is good for the forum. It may just have come across as a bit brash from LS because you are not aware of his style. Once you have been here a while you learn that certain people have certain styles, and you'll be able to interpret their meanings instead of just taking the literal one.

If you contribute to this site as much as LS has, you will be given latitude when responding to attacks to a certain degree. He (and all of us "elder statesmen") still have to abide by the forum rules in the end though.

If I were you I would shake my head in disgreement, then let it go.

[indolikaa]

IF you study case very closely, it was established LONG ago (like back in the 1800's in the U.S. that if an individual wanted to purchase a book & then take it home & copy it "in entireity" for themselves they were entitled to by "fair use" as long as they did NOT 'distribute' such a copy (eg. give it to another).

I tell you what. If its in every case you have studied, then you should have no problem citing one. Don't tell me to just go and study 200 years of law...carefully. If you have an applicable holding then state it. This has never been held under Fair Use. What you are saying simply isn't true.

Agreed.

And we're still waiting...

[jimmalenko]

IF you study case very closely, it was established LONG ago (like back in the 1800's in the U.S. that if an individual wanted to purchase a book & then take it home & copy it "in entireity" for themselves they were entitled to by "fair use" as long as they did NOT 'distribute' such a copy (eg. give it to another).

I tell you what. If its in every case you have studied, then you should have no problem citing one. Don't tell me to just go and study 200 years of law...carefully. If you have an applicable holding then state it. This has never been held under Fair Use. What you are saying simply isn't true.

Agreed.

And we're still waiting...

seems a pretty simple request, doesn't it ?

[dosun]

No-one is saying you can't disagree with certain people here - disagreement breeds discussion which is good for the forum. It may just have come across as a bit brash from LS because you are not aware of his style. Once you have been here a while you learn that certain people have certain styles, and you'll be able to interpret their meanings instead of just taking the literal one.

You don't really seem to get the point here. I never said he couldn't disagree and yes I do think that presenting different opinions are good. What was being debated wasn't an opinion question though. It was a factual question that had a definite black or white answer, not a grey one. Its not which "taste better apples or oranges", "its what color is an orange". And what he posted up in quite a few instances was flat out wrong or lies. I get an informal warning for posting up the correct information, while he gets nothing for posting up lies(not to mention quite a bit of profanity). His comments are "his style" while mine are "attacks"?

[jimmalenko]

No-one is saying you can't disagree with certain people here - disagreement breeds discussion which is good for the forum. It may just have come across as a bit brash from LS because you are not aware of his style. Once you have been here a while you learn that certain people have certain styles, and you'll be able to interpret their meanings instead of just taking the literal one.

You don't really seem to get the point here. I never said he couldn't disagree and yes I do think that presenting different opinions are good. What was being debated wasn't an opinion question though. It was a factual question that had a definite black or white answer, not a grey one. Its not which "taste better apples or oranges", "its what color is an orange". And what he posted up in quite a few instances was flat out wrong or lies. I get an informal warning for posting up the correct information, while he gets nothing for posting up lies(not to mention quite a bit of profanity). His comments are "his style" while mine are "attacks"?

I think you need to let it go. You are not doing yourself or anyone else here any favors. If you've got any more questions or gripes, take it up with a mod.

[dosun]

Actually I don't care about the computer subject since the guy got his dell already. I'm just questioning this board as a whole. I thought boards were supposed to be a place for intelligent discussion using facts, but maybe this one works differently?