[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally posted by RogorMortis
Am I not correct in thinking it was the same IP adresse the over requesting came from? That could in legal terms also mean more than one person.

Indeed you're correct, it could in fact be more than one person. But it's highly unlikely that it is. In my experience IP addresses are usually assigned to single workstations these days (especially considering the OS and browser that the person in question is using (yes, I can see that too)). However, if more than one person is requesting the same song over and over, it still constitutes overrequesting. I suppose you can say that, for the purposes of this policy, "one person" could be construed as "a person or set of people coming from the same location". I'm still going to say "one person" because I want to keep this at a human readable level and not have to drag in a lawyer.

I'd like to make the point by removing songs from the list that is CENSORSHIP - a dangerous course to run because some regular listeners might be hurt in that way. This is a temporary measure I hope.

Incorrect. It would be censorship if I were to refuse to play an album or parts thereof for reasons of that could be deemed censorship (a legally defined term). I personally have no problem with the content of any of the songs that I have removed. Quite the contrary: there are several songs on the Moon that I do not like because of their content. They still play, however. Also, I have removed one of my personal favorite songs (Marillion's Grendel) not because of censorship, but because of overplaying.

Also, people could complain all they wish that we are practicing censorship. However, as this is legally considered private property (see below), and as a private entity (non-government funded), we are allowed to 'exhibit' whatever material we chose for whatever reasons we chose. This includes the right to NOT display whatever we chose for whatever reasons we chose. Is it censorship that we don't play any Eminem? Is it censorship that we don't play any Dökken? Is it censorship that the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art doesn't have a display of Hustler's Top 100? Of course not.

By blocking certain IP adresses - that is also DISCRIMINATION as the parties invovled haven't done anything illegal as such. This can have legal repercussions.

Wrong again, my Danish friend. The same regulations that allow organizations such as CNN to ban smoking, loitering, or other such activities in the public areas of their premisis apply here. This is legally considered the public areas of a private property, and as such, we can ban certain activities as long as we ban them for all parties regarless of race, creed, religion, disability, marital status, etc. etc. and I can assure you that were the regulars to abuse the priviledge the way they've been by these others, I would handle it in a similar fashion (a fact to which I've already given a de-facto demonstration). I might let the regulars know ahead of time, but only because I know how to get ahold of them, whereas the current crop of abusers have left no way of being contacted. But then, as I've also given a de-facto demonstration, I might not. We at Aural Moon reserve the right to add and remove material at any time with or without advance notice, for whatever reason or reasons we choose.

We won't like it, but we'll do it.

But back to discrimination. It would be discrimination were I to remove all access for a given group if all of the members of that group were members of that group due to factors beyond their control and not easily correctible by current acceptable legal, medical, or other practices or procedures (US Supreme Court decision providing a legal definition of discrimination. Heavily abridged. The wording is different, but the spirit is the same. If you wish to see the exact wording of the ruling, it's available online).

Note: I mention CNN simply because I'm very familiar with their policies. Having worked there as long as I did, I've seen their policies in action several times. I'll provide the legalese if you're interested.

SO I recommend to Dot, change the request system instead - either by increasing the time ban for a band or by request free days - That is more FAIR.

Valid recommendations. However, we've already tried them, with only very limited success. In other words, it doesn't seem to be working. Thus, we're taking more drastic, albeit temporary measures. Yes, the removal of the songs from the request pool is temporary, until such time as I can put a more robust system in place to prevent this abuse.

Again, the removals are temporary. The songs in question are still on the system, awaiting only a single change to the database (that can be accomplished in a matter of seconds). And once I've put the changes in place, the songs in question will likely be returned.

Roger -Dot- Lee