Re: Windows 7 Challenge???
Fascinating, that this is still being discussed, and although I believe answering your questions may be counter-productive in general, I will try to answer some of them for you.
1. Is it legal for you to give out free copies of Windows 7? (Not as in free free, but as in Free Trial?
In this specific instance, I would actually tell you that this question has almost no relevant meaning to what this individual was trying to achieve and what our abilities are to moderate content under our Terms of Service guidelines and beyond. Distributing, giving out a trial, or giving out a free copy has nothing to do with what this guy attempted. It has little to do with why he was banned. In fact, we have only given out one legitimate, retail boxed copy of Microsoft Windows 7.
Here is some background: Not long before Justin Breithaupt (JULinux)'s arrival on the website, we held a giveaway entitled the "Millennium Celebration Award". The top tier individual who won, sabrehagen, was sent a free retail copy (free for him - not for the website) of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition. This was sent directly to Australia, as a gift, with an enormous shipping charge associated with it. This was due to his major contribution to the website and through a soundly performed non-biased selection process, which ultimately, was conducted by three administrators at the time, including myself, having reviewed many tens of thousands of postings, and using internal mechanisms to find view counts, replies, and a number of other variables. Then, a content review took place.
The award was a gift wrapped, legitimate copy of the operating system. At this time, the giveaway was designed to encourage members to post quality information and get involved in the community. This giveaway was not a big success, but it made someone happy. We had hoped it would inspire individuals to help others, contribute to the website, and expand our overall outreach of the website. We spent many hours discussing this idea. It is my belief, although I am not certain, that this man, Justin Breithaupt, caught wind of this giveaway, seeing that it had ended with an individual who had received the gift (A YouTube video was created thanking the community and showing the gift wrapped box -- which I can assure you, with 100% validity, was sent to this individual - who did formally thank us for its receipt). Other mentions were made in different areas of the website, and awards were given out on profiles and so forth.
Interestingly, the winner of the competition had made only one post, and to this day, that post has received hundreds of thousands of views due to the content of the original post and the subject matter of the thread. We intentionally never put down a artificial limit of who could receive the gift, and knowing full well that many people wanted the gift -- we would get some people feeling upset that they had, perhaps, contributed X number of posts/threads and not received the gift. However, the gift was not about who had the most posts, who had seniority, or anything of that nature. We did stipulate that it would be sent to whomever we had determined had drafted the best original posting on the site. To this day, I believe that this determination was made by the community itself, overall, as the number of views for which that thread has is enormous, and the number of replies, equally interesting in thought provoking activity.
Now, there are so many unique, well-written posts on the site, there is much to be said about this gift altogether, as we could not afford to send out many free copies of Windows 7 willy-nilly. The idea of sending out many legitimate retail copies of Windows 7 to top contributors is a very nice idea, and I certainly wish we could do it more often. However, the failure of this particular giveaway to generate the type of activity spike we were hoping for, in order to enrich the site with new members and so forth, as well as the costs associated with giving out such an award, did not incline us to continue holding giveaways. In general, many giveaways can be seen in a negative way as well. For example, one may argue that people view them as being gimmicky and so forth. This is not to say we would not, at some point, hold a promotional event sometime in the future of this magnitude. It would be great if we can gather and collect the resources currently required to host another giveaway, properly market it on the website, and make it more participation intensive.
This giveaway, at the time, was extremely costly for the website, as at the time, the website was incurring enormous fees in terms of hosting fees, specifically. Many of these costs have been mitigated, but now, we are focused on delivering content in a different way. Whereas before, we did rely on one solid method of content delivery, we now rely on an entire network of CDN servers throughout the world. So while costs in the hosting area have been off-set, new costs have emerged, including costs for domain renewals and ever-present licensing fees.
The cost of actually sending the gift to the individual was not entirely calculated, as we did not anticipate a winner all the way in Australia. And thus, having found no online stores in Australia which would accept U.S. currency to ship to the winner, a decision was made that a legitimate, retail copy would be sent directly from New York, United States to Perth, Australia. Paperwork was filed to ensure this did not violate import/export laws with the carrier and so forth. The delivery incurred import tax and a specific designation needed to be given for the gift to pass through customs and safely reach the winner. Thus, much paperwork needed to be filed through international courier to get the gift to our winner. And it was my goal that the gift be sent reasonably quickly, wrapped professionally, and sent at the utmost expedience to the winner of this contest, within reason
To be more precise, that contest ended not long before Justin joined, demanding a free copy of Windows 7. The initial problem with Justin Breithaupt's initial attempt to acquire a "free copy of Windows 7" is that he engaged in a practice, that by our best moderating standards, would be considered solicitation. This online solicitation, to the best of one of our administrator's knowledge, constituted either a spam advertising campaign or a disingenuous attempt to make a mockery of either the website or the greater Windows community in a non-constructive way. Our giveaway was a truly genuine attempt, from its conception, to make someone happy that they made a great contribution. Its primary function was not to solicit a massive response from our members or viewers (although that would have been great!). That could have been considered a secondary function.
However, as the owner of the website, I am fully authorized to make purchasing and executive decisions for the website, and that does include giving away free items. We have drafted many abandoned proposals on how to reward our members and visitors with "neat stuff", including, in the past, mousepads, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and all sorts of items. However, while conceptualizing making one great looking mouse pad or coffee mug is quite inspiring, the logistics of distributing them world wide, for us, is almost impossible. We must also, in cases where trademark and copyright is concerned, respect such matters. You will observe, for instance, that we have gone to great lengths, on every page, to indicate that this site is not owned or operated by Microsoft. Yet, we have loose affiliations with the business, for which we are proud, and this includes a Partnership Program membership, Microsoft MVPs, and in our early beginnings, the use of the site by some members of the product development team. Many of the website's staff has contacts with agents and representatives of the corporation, and from time to time, we do, on rare occasions, request information when possible.
2. Why exactly was he banned at first? (Like, in what did he do that was it considered spamming?)
The ability for any business, organization, or institution to purchase private property, and give it to anyone it pleases, is a simple, fundamental property right. Even if we could freely have sent Justin Breithaupt (JULinux) a "free copy of Windows", the possibility of this ever happening became zero not long after this man joined our website.
You must understand the absolute ridiculous nature of this request. For instance, while I may give my car, my home, or even a wash cloth to an individual, under no circumstances, would I welcome, a person barging onto my property demanding a free car, home, or wash cloth. Likewise, on a forum of this type, we do not accept these types of solicitations, as a matter of etiquette, and what some would term "netiquette", and a matter of implied policy concerning what could be construed as spam, software piracy, unlawful activity, copyright infringement, or some kind of combination thereof. Now the initial ban was made for spam solicitation. Justin Breithaupt solicited the site, in a quite annoying and menacing way, that this would draw immediate skepticism. Clearly, as adults, we all know that Windows is not free. Many of us are firmly aware, including Justin Breithaupt, who claims himself to be a developer, that Microsoft Windows is a closed-source proprietary product. I would consider this the same as going to an iPod website and demanding a free iPod. Walk into a place where people talk about cars, and ask for a free rental. Whatever it was - it was disingenuous and designed to bolster his YouTube video, whereas he clearly tries to establish, that simply due to the fact that his system is free, it must therefore be better. This was a trolling type of mechanism that this man would ultimately use to bolster his video and position it in such a way that he would create feedback -- the type of feedback you're receiving right now.
After Justin Breithaupt was initially banned for spam solicitation, it was then quickly explain by Justin Breithaupt that he was making some kind of video challenge. This information takes time to get to us and to discuss if a mistake has been made. After this information was relayed to the rest of the administrative team, we actually did hold a private teleconference call regarding the ban, as, in the past, we had become quite diligent about criticizing nearly every single ban we would make during those times. We felt it very important to evaluate every single one, and still do to a great extent, on the off chance some bizarre error or misunderstanding could have taken place. We would evaluate the facts and try to get to the bottom of them. Even today, it is quite rare that someone actually formally objects to a ban. This is mostly because we do not simply ban users for unprovoked reasons, and have implemented quite strict protocols that all moderators do follow. These internal rules, which we follow, are the result of years of experience managing online forums, chat forums, implementing network content filtering, and so forth. The internal policies are also the result of online and offline experience in IT administration and the culmination of years of discussion and revision, as well as business experience and general rationality. So whereas we are now at a point, where we can honestly say, that most bans are accurate, the reasons themselves are conveyed to the user immediately.
However, in the case of a spam banning, as we have a zero tolerance policy on spam, software piracy discussion, and several other Terms of Service rules, no warning is necessary, a reason is given immediately once access is removed, and that is that.
3. Why did the same administrator ban both of his accounts and delete his posts?
In order to understand what took place with Justin Breithaupt and the JULinux debacle, you must first understand that by even using this service, and the services of many other websites, you are in fact accessing computer systems that are not, in fact, public property, nor are they public domain. These computer systems are under, in almost all instances, private ownership. As soon as access is restricted to those systems, and that announcement is visible and apparent, any attempt to bypass such restrictions does violate the law in almost every country in the world. Evolving standards have provided us with laws, provisions, and guidelines that most websites (and courts) follow. Therefore, that access, can be restricted, at any time, and, under the law, for nearly any reason. Our goal was never to alienate Justin Breithaupt (the creator of JULinux). In fact, it is my contention, that his goal was to alienate us. In fact, no sooner than he explained that he was working on some project - a video project we had no understanding of, etc. - this man immediately bypassed our ban, and by doing so, arguably, broke the law by accessing a computer system or network without permission. He bypassed the security apparatus that banned him in the first place, thus creating a "ban evasion" scenario. He then began posting about how we must "Try it again" and attempted to hijack the conversation on the website with multiple postings (many of them exactly or nearly the same), e-mail threats about putting "all of this in his video", and so forth. To put it mildly, he trolled the site, accessed computer systems he was not permitted to access (and in fact, explicitly denied permission to access). The mere act of creating a secondary account, which was not banned, violated our Terms of Service agreement, and for that reason, he was immediately banned, using even heightened measures to prevent his continued access to the website.
No matter what he may claim in his videos:
- He was not denied access for no reason.
- Mid to large portions of his YouTube videos are a clear critique of this website.
- As far as I can tell, there is no real "Windows Challenge", other than to see how quickly you can get banned on a forum by acting half your age...
- There was no desire to stifle any constructive criticism about the Microsoft Windows operating system in any way, shape or form.
- His critique of our website was uncalled for, unprecedented, and unprofessional, but entirely within his rights. This therefore leads to Windows7Forums.com absolute right to respond, using portions of his critique, and perhaps the entire video series itself, in any type of response video.
- His e-mail campaign consisted of threats to our administrators about the consequences of banning him from using the website and not providing the free copy of Windows 7...
- To deal with his ramblings, a decision was made, in this specific instance, to create a response to his video.
- He then filed a DMCA "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" claim with YouTube, to try to take down the video and following this, we began working with YouTube to send them the bizarre and increasingly threatening and grandiose messages he had been sending us (at one point he warned me that although he could control himself - an army of raging supporters could not be stopped and that we should all be worried about this ... yes, he really did claim it was an army...)
- Filing a false DMCA violation is serious business. At the time, and perhaps, even still, no one has actually followed through with a federal lawsuit and won on YouTube, in order to get a video taken down. Deals have been struck with media publishers and YouTube to avoid liability, but there were never any in-court activities, as they would no doubt cost millions.
- YouTube ultimately restored the video after Justin Breithaupt failed to file a federal lawsuit in the United States, and after initial paperwork was sent to both him and YouTube regarding what Windows7Forums.com considered to be a violation of 1st Amendment rights.
- YouTube ultimately restored Windows7Forums.com response video, finding no basis for action. Our arguments included the fact that his videos have no monetary value, and therefore there is no civil liability or loss. Other arguments included the right to free expression, derivative works, and most importantly, fair use.
The matter was ended without incident, and the totality of the ridiculousness of the entire incident cannot be understated. We combine a combination of commercial, non-commercial, and middle of the road solutions to host this website, including Linux, and have for many years. I perform database administration, software updates, general maintenance, and other tasks for this website, in Linux, all the time.
There is no "Windows 7 Challenge". Use whatever operating system you are most comfortable with, fits your needs both monetarily and realistically, for whatever it is needed for. Does an apple taste better than an orange? Do you like rice better than lentils? It was a nice try.
I hope this explains our side of the story and not the one you see on some truly mean-spirited videos from this man.