Having 2000 eyes on the Internet and bringing USEFUL and RELEVANT material to the members here is a good thing, C&P or not, IMO. I, for one, wish you guys could lighten up on that "rule" because the useful material would not be available to us without trolling for it on a dozen or more sites. not to mention the value in having FILTERED material from sites like ebookw, vs having to spend an hour combing through the BS in the "computers and IT" category. Now multiply that hour by a hundred Sonsivri guys being forced to do the very same exercise.
For instance, the E2014 DVD was brought here, I never bothered to look for it anywhere, nor did I stumble across it, it's very useful, and now, with this "no C&P of any kind" rule, I, and a hundred other guys need to go look for it, wherever it is, then not share that finding with our friends here - that's not a very good idea, is it?
Is it better to have someone repost it up to a site where they get paid, after having mined it from a free place like ebookw (assuming they even found it), or for someone to just put it up, as found, taking responsibility for the link?
The only issue, in my mind, is whether the links are viable or maintainable by the poster. None of the links from that site are working today (looks like nitroflare may have been taken down).
I never understood the hard stance on "It has to be your input...". On a C&P it IS your input. It's the content that counts, the issue is that the link to the material and the material itself has been verified, not whether you re-upped it to a filehost to get around an arbitrary and draconian rule interpretation.
I think the rule was meant to be "no c&p if you have not verified the contents of the filehost you are linking", not whether or not you spent a token amount of time re-uploading the material you did get from somewhere else.
We have members here who are fluent in Russian and Chinese, where most of the good stuff originates. They also are the ones who sometimes have a $hitty uplink. In some places it is illegal to post/distribute such materials, but it is not illegal to point a finger at it. Do we advocate them not posting the link, as is, from those kinds of sites, never seeing the good stuff that was/is there?
I'm all for making this place a FILTERED, one-stop shop, a portal, an information gateway, to our hobbies and interests with this site. Otherwise, it's going to be a ghost town for relevant and good content. FILTERED content from wherever
. I, for one, don't care where it's from, as I'm sure 99% of the members don't, as long as the link is good and the contents of that link are what they are claimed to be.
I think the rule should be ""no c&p if you have not verified the relevant contents
(not just the link) of the filehost you are posting" not a draconian "no c&p of any kind".
What say ye?