Automoderated users, edit
1,837
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 135:
Line 135: + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 14:41, March 4, 2009
, 14:41, March 4, 2009→Comments Section: It seems like we're reaching a conclusion.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: "''Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.''": Perhaps not, but it ''does'' cost the site's owner, in that there is extra bandwidth involved and extra disk storage space (assuming both are being paid per quantity used). True, the cost would be nowhere near $5,000, so the law would still not apply, but because the cost is small, not because there is no cost.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)
::::::After reading through this discussion again, it seems to me like various posters have made a strong case that [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] does not apply here. This discussion has been very worthwhile, and I, for one, have learned a lot. Some posters have raised valuable questions about certain language that ''might'' apply, which has spurred us on to examine the law more deeply, but upon further examination it seems like this is not the case. Unless someone else has points to consider, it seems like we're coming to the conclusion that the reference to [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 18 USC § 1030] should be removed from the article. In addition, if any of the editors who brought this to our attention have been sanctioned because of their participation in this discussion (and I'm not sure if this has been the case or not), it may be wise, upon reflection, to review that decision. Thank you so much to everyone who has participated - your contributions have all been useful. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)
==Please un-archive the current discussion==
==Please un-archive the current discussion==