ilx in a nutshell
― jody (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 17:52 (twenty years ago) link
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 17:53 (twenty years ago) link
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 17:54 (twenty years ago) link
― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 18:16 (twenty years ago) link
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 18:20 (twenty years ago) link
Actually he stated numerous times that he didn't give a shit about that so honestly I'm not 100% sure what his issue is besides people seeing his picture without him getting a counter hit on his website. I'd understand more if it was the bandwidth thing, though not really why he was dealing with it in such a fashion (the same shit happens to me all the time and I just don't even give a fuck to be honest, like as been pointed out it's really easy to fix if I cared about it).
― Allyzay, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 19:40 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 19:41 (twenty years ago) link
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 20:41 (twenty years ago) link
― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 20:46 (twenty years ago) link
On the one hand the "other" stevem says he complained when the found out somone was leeching (his word not mine, but mighty appropriate) from their site. And the reason that the he was upset? Because he wasn't getting CREDIT for his work. And you guys say you don't understand what my issue is. I want credit for my work! DAMNIT! I want control of how my artistic output is used. It's my right to have both of those! But then the other stevem goes on to say that rather than leeching now he copies the images and serves them off his web server, and that he *might* (though likely not) stop using the image if the owner comlained. So he's willing to ask someone to stop using his work or give him credit, buy may not afford somone else that same courtesy? Internally inconsistent.
Regarding the bandwidth issue. Just because your message board didn't tax my bandwidth means it is okay to "leech" some of it? By this (failed) logic the next time you go to the ATM and take out a hundred bucks from your overflowing bank account, you won't mind if I reach into your wallet and extract a 20 dollar bill?
It is precisely this attitude of entitlement and open flouting of legal and ethical behavior that I find so offensive. The hypocritical element is just frosting on your cake of moral turpitude. Have you people never heard of the Golden Rule? Did your mommy fail to teach you that it's wrong to take something from somone (even if they have plenty) without their permission? Did your daddy somehow forget to teach you that stealing is wrong? Someone absolutely forgot to impart empathy or responsibility upon you... But judging by your moral development, you're only 10 years old, so there's still hope.
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:00 (twenty years ago) link
It's the WORLD WIDE WEB. If you don't want people linking to your images, this is a bad place to keep them.
To paraphrase Chuck D, it's like dropping a whole bunch of M&Ms and freaking out when people pick them up.
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:01 (twenty years ago) link
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:02 (twenty years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:04 (twenty years ago) link
When Julia Child and The People's Court combine efforts.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago) link
― kephm, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:07 (twenty years ago) link
― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:08 (twenty years ago) link
As it is, I now *strongly* wonder if he tries this same sort of tactic every time for every potential link he's gotten.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:11 (twenty years ago) link
― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:13 (twenty years ago) link
― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:14 (twenty years ago) link
― Felonious Drunk (Felcher), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:16 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:19 (twenty years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:20 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.deansabatino.com/images/portfolio/portfolio_richard.gif
― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:24 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:29 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:30 (twenty years ago) link
― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:31 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:31 (twenty years ago) link
But no, you guys can't take a hint. You've collectively downloaded that big ass file more than 1200 times since August. at a toal bandwidth utilization of about 3.3GB. My site generally pushes about 4 or 5gb+ a day... That's why it's colocated. Regardles of your bandwidth consumption (which would have been significantly lower if you had got the little 640x480 image you were requesting), you are not entitled and have not been granted permission to use my images or bandwidth... Yes, it really is the principle of the matter.
Then when I started looking around and saw how casually and OFTEN you guys steal images, I couldn't believe my eyes! And then there was this "fuck you" attitude of "it's our right to take from you whatever we want" that just amazed me!
So check this shit out... I know you all think I'm whacked outta my gourd... Even if I am whacked outta my gourd, What I'm saying about copyright and usage is real. So here's the real deal:
if you are interested in understanding copyright laws/issues:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
pay special attention to the section on inlining in this link:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/linkright.html
It really is a good idea for your guys to responsibly address this issue. Add a link to the front page of the site that says "click here to protest the use of your content" or some such thing. And then nicely remove any protested content. Instead of inlining images, post links to html pages so the owner, creator, person doing the work, gets credit. Ask permission if you want to use an image. Probably 98% of the time, the owner will say, fine. I've only turned down one request for using one of my images, and that guy was a stock broker! Grow up be responsible, put money in a savings account, use condoms when bumping uglies, Don't run with scissors in your hand, don't play leapfrog with unicorns. stop and smell the kine buds... Live love and prosper...
Just don't steal my fucking shit! ;\
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:32 (twenty years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:33 (twenty years ago) link
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:36 (twenty years ago) link
fitter, better, happier....etc
and to quote A Fistful of Yen, "Visit a dairy, and learn how milk is made!"
― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:39 (twenty years ago) link
Your objections/position/suggestions have been noted.
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:41 (twenty years ago) link
This is also regardless of it happening on thousands of other web forums, its wrong there also i would say. Though this does raise the following issue. if the boardowner is to be held responsible for this, does that mean that i, if i so wish, could i post a million of steves pictures to a board i didnt like, in order to get them into trouble? (i dont wish to do this, but it interests me how much responsibility the siteowners must take (of course yahoo ran into a similar problem with their groups thing)
also, i think the majority of the pictures here (not on this thread, which i havent seen until now, but on the board in general) are actually taken from members own sites (there are a lot of people on this board, a tiny minority of which are on this thread).
― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:46 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:48 (twenty years ago) link
― NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 21:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:04 (twenty years ago) link
http://www.shooter.net/folsom%20street%20fair%202003/source/17.html
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:05 (twenty years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:10 (twenty years ago) link
i've found alt-stevem's lecturing on copyright and ownership dull, familiar, predicatble and patronising as i suspect we all have. as if we were not aware of the 'rules' when posting images on here (stealing/sharing copyright material)...does he not realise many people just don't care about that even though they're aware of the law. okay so the issue is settled now and the complaint was only made on a matter of (petty imo) principle but i hope i at least clarified my position, however wrong you may deem it to be - though i reserve my right to change my mind obv. - maybe this should've been a new thread already.
― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:14 (twenty years ago) link
He said it.
― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:25 (twenty years ago) link
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:52 (twenty years ago) link
― Let's steal Steve's bandwidth and ignore his copyright!, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 22:56 (twenty years ago) link
Regarding your perspective on using/modifying/etc other people work. I see no problem with that. But by your own definition, when you guys link to my images in such a way that my site is never visible to the end user, you are clearly using my work whether small or large effort, and giving me absolutely no credit for it. Trust me, I do a bit of perl coding. cpan.org is my friend. I don't believe in creating any script from scratch. But when I use a module or script that someone else has written, I take the time to drop them an email and say thank you... No, I am not an angel. I've reached a point in my life where it's easier and less worries to pay for my sattelite channels rather than get a decoder. I pay for shareware that I use, and when I needed office for my mac, I convinced my boss to buy it for me. As I've gotten older, pushing 40 now, I have become much more aware that people who create things are not adequately rewarded. I have a bunch of mp3's believe it or not, if there is something I download hat I like and will listen to more than once or twice, I usually buy the CD... Although I'll likely buy it used on Amazon, so really the artists and the record company don't get shit.
I think the biggest thing that I disagree with you on is your attitude when confronted about using someone elses stuff. If you get caught. be responsive. if the owner wants you to stop, then stop. If you feel it at all, apologize...
and finally, is it really so burdensome to ask for permission before using something, or posting a link instead of an inline pull? Is it that hard to be sure that the person whose work you are using gets credit for the work?
I'm assuming the original link from this board was for a photo of SF. if Ally had emailed and said that you guys were having a dick comparison sessions between several large cities, and did I have any images to offer, I would have been happy to come up with a half a dozen really nice shots of SF. I would have felt good about it. Ally would have had photos... It all would have been cool. But that's not how it worked...
fwiw... If you follow politics.. The Republicans released a photo about a week ago of John Kerry sitting a couple of rows behind Jane Fonda (aka to vets as Hanoi Jane) at an anti war rally in the 70s. The effort was to link him to her radicalism. Only problem was that they never even met at that rally, and it was two years before Jane Fonda went to Viet Nam. The photo was taken 30 years ago. That photographer, because he has partnered with Corbis is making money on that image today. Corbis will chase down anyone who attempts to use that photo without the correct permissions.Because of copyright laws, and his ability to enforce or have them enforced, the photographer is making money on an image that he probably never made much money on before now.
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:04 (twenty years ago) link
Lot of dick swinging in this thread.
― ModJ (ModJ), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:09 (twenty years ago) link
― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:15 (twenty years ago) link
I think Mike's and my assumption upthread a bit just got proved.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:17 (twenty years ago) link
― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:26 (twenty years ago) link
Astounded a the amount of copyright violation happening/condoned on this thread, pissed off because of the 'tude here and the casual way you steal from me and others, and entertained while confounding you all... It's been a full fun filled day.
One point that I wanted to make is this: You (the generic you) may think that you can flaunt copyright law and use a persons images/content any way you want with impunity. On one level you are right, you are probably a punk kid with no assets worth chasing down. However the community in which you operate, meaning the provider that hosts thisserver, and other businesses are vulnerable, and a company like cnn or Disney will pursue them if someone makes enough noise. Wouldn't you feel real stupid if your provider pulled the plug on this board for violating their acceptable use policy after a nasty letter from Disney's copyright enforcement office? It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. It may not be quite the right page, but this link should give you an idea of the kind of legaleze your are up against... http://www.keypoint.com.au/agreement.html
You (the generic you and the community inclusive you) are vulnerable and accountable for your actions online. Period.
― Mr_Steve (Mr_Steve), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:35 (twenty years ago) link
Now you're just going out of your way to be an obnoxious sockfucker.
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:38 (twenty years ago) link
and entertained while confounding you all...
You do realise how ridiculous and pompous this sounds, right?
― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 18 February 2004 23:53 (twenty years ago) link