Because I actively encouraged it 
speaking of ignoring context…
I’d suggest re-reading Dan’s post on the matter since you want to be so particular about context. A slight difference between a vague “Right-click/Save As” statement in a thread such as this, versus a thread where someone is actively asking can we edit catalog files and someone replying with suggestions on how to accomplish that.
You’re saying it’s ok for you to literally tell people exactly how to infringe intellectual property rights, as long as it’s unsolicited advice?
I’m curious to see how this plays out now that you have twice posted instructions for downloading and infringing others’ intellectual property rights. If it’s forbidden information, it’s forbidden information. I believe that it’s not about what was posted, it’s about who posted it, and I think this proves it.
Well you quoted it so does that put you in the same camp?
Actually the situations are not the same - one was preceded by actual theft of IP and posting the file in a public forum. Followed by months of snarky references to that and then the latest posting. The other, not.
I’ve just been thinking a bit more about the whole situation: According to Swiss law, whatever I do with the file myself would probably count as fair use. We have a very relaxed copyright law, under which I’m allowed to download even pirated films legally, as long as it’s for my private use and I don’t offer it for others (so no torrenting) - Would I encourage people to “break the law” if I mentioned the unmentionable or would I just advise them of how to avail of their rights? Yeah, I’m playing advocatus diaboli, but those who know me wouldn’t expect any less 
Yes, it’s a giant conspiracy against Palmer. You figured it out.
I have zero interest in debating this with you when you seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Again, feel free to read Dan’s statement - and maybe reread it. There is a distinct difference between what I posted and what was posted elsewhere.
For what it’s worth (probably has negative worth), everyone I’ve talked to about this outside the Glowforge forum has said that Glowforge was probably looking for a reason to get rid of Palmer because he was constantly negative toward the company… Its not entirely unlikely. I don’t like to think this is the real reason, so I won’t. But from an outsider, probably biased based on the information I had available to tell them, perspective… 
Lots of people have been but yet we have only had one member suspended and one banned.
Make of that what you want.
All of their past actions have proven to be the complete opposite of what you state.
Hahah I was just saying that it appears that way from an outside, incomplete perspective. Not that I adhered to that perspective 
Let’s see, folks complain off and on about palmer being caustic and some even asked for him to be removed, and he stays for a few years. Other folks come to the list, call Dan a crook and the GF a scam, and they stay as well. Palmer is banned for a direct violation of a posted rule, yet they let back in. He steps a toe over the line again, and is gone. Clearly a vast conspiracy and GF just really sucks at being able to carry out a plan. Yeah, that’s it…
1: This is going to be a deeply unsatisfying answer, so I apologize in advance. What our legal agreement permits or prohibits is a question for the lawyers who wrote it. They cost $500/hour, and would love to answer as many hypothetical questions as you can dream up. As you can imagine, I’m less excited than they are about that.
2: That seems like a perfectly reasonable (and helpful) answer.
I’m happy to answer any other questions here as best I can (although I’ll be off soon until tomorrow night).
That’s priceless! They must be related to my lawyers 
But at the risk of offending any lawyers on the forum, I expect it’s endemic to the breed.
Hmm, if the lawyers are $500 an hour, how much you chargin’? 
Don’t get me wrong, I agree the ban was warranted. I just don’t like that glowforge has now set a precedent of not telling the banned what exactly broke the rule, just that a rule was broken.
That is the reason for his first suspension. We’re not talking about that. He broke a rule in the past and was temporarily suspended for it. That’s a given. Now they say he broke a rule a second time, resulting in a permanent suspension. The question at hand is what he did to result in that second suspension and why jbmanning5 didn’t just break the same rule (“you agree not to violate, or encourage others to violate, any right of a third party”).
If he was suspended for making snarky references, then they should not have invoked the IP rights rule. You’re basically saying it’s ok for jbmanning5 to break the rule because he’s more likable. Which seems to be agreeing with me that the rules are not being applied objectively.
It doesn’t seem like there’s any big unanswered question here though, so I don’t think it sets some big precedent. When someone correctly predicts the reaction to what they are going to say, I don’t think they are shocked when it happens. (For example, if you think the ban was warranted, then I’m guessing you know what the ban was for, right? )
While the circular debates have been entertaining, I think it’s kinda run it’s course and I’m done. I do appreciate everyone’s passion though and I wouldn’t expect any less from the forum. Personal responsibility, loyalty and a sense of fairness are all very good things.
No I’m not. I’m saying it was repeated violations that he likely got booted for - starting with the very serious posting of someone else’s work on a public site. Jbmanning hasn’t done that. If Palmer had just been a pita he most likely would still be here - lots of us are. I believe it was the initial theft and then the subsequent taunting post that invoked the repeated bad behavior clause.
Many of us are objectionable but only one was caught stealing and then later poked the bear proving that the initial banishment did not result in repentance. We also don’t have a clue as to what the conditions if his first return we’re predicated on. Perhaps he was given a red line that he decided to cross - which seems consistent with his “I’ll probably be banned” comment.
That is not a claim that I made. Please respect the community guidelines, particularly “remember to criticize ideas, not people”.
I actually really dislike arguing. This thread is stressing me out and I want to let it go… I was on my way to bed and foolishly decided to come back and post something along the lines of “I’m sorry I got into a bad mood”, but I got pulled in again. The replies here just seem so illogical to me that letting them stand is maddening. You’re telling me to read Dan’s statement again does not change the facts. I have read it. He discusses two hypothetical scenarios that only add to the confusion because neither of them match what happened here:
The apparent context was that @palmercr said “Actually the opposite is true” in response to “there’s no way to download the catalog files”, which was in the context of an innocent question, “I can’t figure out how to save the file in inkscape to personalize it. Is that possible and how is it done?” They were not asking how to steal IP, they were asking how to use what they understood to be a feature of the product. You and Dan seem to be saying that there is a required context test for violating rule 2.8.4. Since nobody in that thread was asking how to steal anything, it seems like the context test was not met.
I still don’t understand what @palmercr did to violate rule 2.8.4 a second time. I don’t see how applying a fair standard would mean that what he posted in the “Can you edit catalog file” thread was any more “encouragement” than what has been posted by others. Perhaps there were other posts, or PMs, that we’re not seeing, that went further. Or perhaps it’s that the rules are applied more strictly to people who are a general nuisance.
I don’t think I can possibly say what is bothering me any more clearly, and I ran out of anything useful to add a long time ago, so I’ll wrap it up and promise not to post any more on this thread. Tomorrow I will use my Glowforge to make something nice and share a picture of it. And maybe it will stop raining so I can use my barbecue.
The thing is, though, that happens all the time here. A quick browse through the forum will yield photos of pieces people have engraved that infringe on all manner of intellectual property. I know you’re aware of this, because you’ve clicked the “like” button on a lot of them.
I’m no $500/hour lawyer, but as near as I can tell, it’s a violation of the terms of service just to print a TARDIS bookmark or a Jimi Hendrix photo. It seems like Glowforge would be just as within its rights to shut off those users’ access to the cloud software as it was to ban a user on the forum. I feel like that should bother some people more than it seems to.
The difference in this case is that the user was describing – kind of obliquely – how the Glowforge software works, something likely to be of general interest to anybody who would be on the forum. It seems like it would be of particular interest to anyone who is considering putting something in the catalog. It seems quite a bit more valuable as information than hey-look-at-my-Captain-Kirk-drink-coasters, which you can post with impunity even though it would seem to be at least as much of a violation of the TOS.
Palmer wasn’t encouraging anybody to violate intellectual property. He merely repeated the well known fact that the file was already on the user’s computer. A file which contained a design the poster already had a right to use and customize.
I’ve provided exactly the same information as Palmer, including links to detailed instructions, yet I haven’t received even as much as a “Hey, stop that!”
By helping others, @jules has directly assisted community members commit massive amounts of IP theft (in many cases, providing direct instructions for prepping obviously copyrighted material), but no one flags those posts and she hasn’t been banned (nor should she be, in my opinion - and I’m not picking on her, only providing an example).
The only obvious difference is the tact of the messenger, and you can hardly deny that, @dan.
And, if you are going to stick to this ridiculous assertion, then I expect that Glowforge’s moderators are going to have their work cut out for them as there are literally THOUSANDS of posts on this forum where your most beloved customers are going out of their way to help others actively violate the IP rights of third parties.
Additionally, there are THOUSANDS of posts on here of people unlawfully using other’s IP to make products on their Glowforge. In fact, Glowforge themselves have directly benefited from this as part of the #whatmadethis campaign. Hundreds of those posts included blatant violations of copyright.
@dan, your double standard on here is revolting, and indefensible.
(PS: I hope your $500/hr lawyers have already told you that once you start moderating, you better moderate it all or you become responsible for the third party content that you leave in place)
And, with that, I’ll return to my non-participating ways.
EDIT: After I’ve finished saying what I have to say on this topic.
Maybe. Copyright has a fair-use exclusion for personal use (as well as others like use in education and satire). People using other work for resale are commonly reminded of the issue. People who discuss plans to do that are reminded of it. Discussions of the Creative Commons license are pretty robust. Intent matters. In this case with the comment’s preface, the intent was clear - just another example if “yeah this is wrong but nudge nudge wink wink” behavior that so many in society embrace.
In this case, there is a non-violating method to modify the files by adding your own artwork via methods in the GFUI. I’ve used them. They’re easier to do than spelunking your hard drive for the source file. So telling someone they can be modified using the add artwork feature does not cause an issue. That comment would not have raised an eyebrow.
It seems this issue is one of those of polarization. One side doesn’t understand why the other side doesn’t see things in the same clear light they do. I expect like much of today’s societal discourse no one is changing any minds and are not likely to do so. The good thing is forum participation is optional - if it doesn’t provide value in excess of the negatives, it’s easy never to open the browser site again.