Maybe Hatch is hoping to head up the RIAA
Mr2001: Earlier in this thread, you said that hotlinking was not OK. But you seem to be contradicting yourself with (once again) a convoluted spin.
So, I’ll make it a simple question–is hotlinking OK with you? Because that is exactly what I am talking about here.
Yes, or no? Are you supporting hotlinking? Yes, or no?
What’s your point - webmasters can’t complain about lost banner ad revenue, because they have the option to put banners on every page?
A site that only puts banners on the front page is losing ad revenue every time someone links directly to a sub-page; and even a site that has banners on every page loses revenue when someone visits only one page instead of five pages.
Surely, if the operator of an image site can complain about losing ad revenue to external <IMG> links, the operator of a news site can complain about losing ad revenue to external <A> links.
But some browsers don’t load images automatically, and some clients (spiders and caches) do load <A> links automatically. The only difference is one of degree. (I won’t even touch <LINK> links.)
I said taking credit for someone else’s work was not OK.
I think my short answer is yes. I’m not sure what you mean by “hotlinking” here: <IMG> links, <A> links to images, or <A> links to HTML pages?
Plagiarism is not OK with me, and I consider <IMG> links to be plagiarism if the context misleads visitors to think the images were made by someone other than the real artist, like someone claiming your picture was drawn by their cousin in Budapest.
(OTOH, I don’t think a lack of credit is always the same as plagiarism - look at the core set of smileys right here at the SDMB for an example. Who drew those smileys? Not the Chicago Reader. Probably not the authors of vBulletin either, since many other boards use the same smileys. But no one on the SDMB claims to have made them, they’re just there.)
Other than plagiarism, any links from one site to another are fine with me. That’s what the web is all about. It’s rude to use another site’s bandwidth when you could host the picture on your own server instead, but when it would be illegal to copy the picture to your own server, I think it’s perfectly valid to link to the artist’s server.
Actually, you wrote this:
So, what is it? They’re jerks but you still think it’s OK? Which is it?
What?!?! You are not this dense. Surely you know more about the web than I do—surely.
How many times did I specifically state imbedded images? IMBEDDED. Meaning, <IMG> images, showing up in their HTML, with no credit given to me, no nothing, just there, on their page. (Linking to an image, as in <a> to the .jpg file pisses me off too, but not nearly as bad as the embedded files.)
If you were unclear as to what that meant when I said embedded, you could have easily asked before.
OK, we are on the same page about the cousin in Budapest, but when someone imbeds <IMG> image in their HTML page, and all it is is an image—no credit to the photographer or artist, no mention that it is done by so-and-so at so-and-so.com, no nothing, just an image (used as if it is clip art, or something) then what is that? Is that OK with you? Yes, or no?
A related question: Is bandwidth leeching OK? Yes, or no? Because when someone does an <IMG> to one of my pictures just so they can use it as clipart, they are leeching my bandwidth, something I pay for.
So, once again, is bandwidth leeching OK by you?
They very likely came from a free clipart site, or they were bought in a collection of royalty-free clip art. (I have one of those—lots of photos and art, the rights already paid for!)
Oh, I see. So scratch my previous question. You are pro-hotlinking and you are pro-bandwidth leeching. Even though you previously stated that you thought that people who did that were “jerks”. I see. Gotcha.
Well, you are certainly in the minority when it comes to this practice. Here are some cites from webmasters who feel very differently than you do, and their reasons why:
Equine Web Design writes:
From espyder-tech.com
These are the reasons why many webmasters don’t like hotlinking and bandwidth leeching. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, and I’m sure you know it.
I didn’t find any pro-bandwidth theft and pro-hotlinking cites. Where are they, and do they echo what you have stated here?
I guess we’re hung up on the definition of “OK” now. They’re jerks but I definitely think their jerkish behavior should be legal.
That’s exactly why I asked - it seemed like you were talking about something else. If you had said that instead of “hotlinking”, your meaning would have been clear. I guess I’m not hip to the latest leeching jargon.
I don’t have a simple answer to that one. I’d have to see the page in question to decide whether it’s plagiarism.
Using a rainbow line or a spinning “NEW!” on your page without giving credit (or claiming authorship) is fine by me; putting someone else’s artwork on a page entitled “Art By Me” is clearly wrong; most other uses fall somewhere in between.
It’s jerkish but should not be illegal.
You’re putting an awful lot of words in my mouth for someone who never went to dental school. Does your state licensing board know about this?
What I said is that I am pro-leeching-when-it-is-the-only-way-to-avoid-illegally-copying-the-images. It’s still rude, but so is a crucifix submerged in urine - and I wouldn’t outlaw either one.
Yes, I’m already aware that webmasters don’t like leeches, but it sure is swell that you were thinking of me.
Do they even exist? Who knows? I don’t need other sites to tell me what to think.
Uh, actually, you’ve written this:
It’s “perfectly valid”, is what you said. That sounds a lot more like “OK” and “pro-hotlinking” that “jerky” to me.
So, which is it? “Perfectly valid”? Or “Jerky”? And if a person cannot legally (according to your definition of “legal”) copy someone else’s art or photo onto their site, why should they be allowed (and be called “perfectly valid” when they do so) to leech bandwidth, and/or embed someone else’s content, from the artist’s server, onto their own site? Is it so incomprehensible or beyond the realm of possibility to (once again) just simply link the the artist’s HTML page?
I’m merely copying and pasting your own quotes back to you.
No, you actually said it was “perfectly valid”. And you know, there is a “perfectly valid” way to show or refer to someone else’s art or photos—link to their HTML. Hotlinkers and Leecher are jerkish, and are certainly certainly not using the only option open to them. So, no sympathy for them when the webmasters who are sick of leeching and bandwidth theft lower the boom. Any webmaster worth their salt knows the score when they leech, and they know they have other options.
Sigh. Please look no further than the quote you referenced. See that sentence you seem to have ignored between the two you added emphasis to? It says that I believe you and others are not paying money to an owner when you certainly are able to, for a product that the owner is entitled to be paid for. Really, help me understand, why is this so difficult? You owe that person money, money you could pay, and you won’t pay him. Your rationale: “I’d rather not for this particular product.” The owner of that product is damaged. Period.
Your use of that product creates a de facto obligation to compensate the owner. Such is the nature of copyrights (though, of course, I’m simplifying). Period. The fact that you have not diminished some physical supply of something is as immaterial as it ever was with intellectual property, even before there was such a thing as a computer. It seems that many want this to be some cool loophole, but it simply is not. As soon as you use the product, you owe the owner. If you don’t pay him, he is damaged, the same as anyone else is who has an obligation defaulted on.
The owner of the copyright has the right to say that no one can use the product without compensating him. That is the monetary value of his right. If you can effectively override that right–if everyone can and does–you have rendered his right worthless. You have enjoyed the benefits of a product to which you have contributed nothing, a product others have created and/or paid for.
There, I’ve said this about every way I can think of.
Can we have some sort of reference for this “surcharge on blank media that goes to the RIAA” claim?
Its fascinating… and makes me feel a whole lot better about all those mix tapes I gave my high school girlfriends to better help them understand what an amazingly sensitive and culturally aware person I was (Lata Mangeshkar and the Damned on the same side! genius!)
Anyway… what if I buy a blank tape in, say, Finland… do Finnish record labels get a cut? Am I stealing from the RIAA then…?
not really it’s more. “if could not not get for free, i would not buy it anyway.”
if you would have bought it, i agree you have hurt the artist if you get it without paying the artist. sadly due to work for hire laws the copyright owner and artists are not same person in many cases. this is also wrong. downloading the song deprives the artist of just pennies. while if you would have bought the music anyway this would be wrong, a deprivation of a few pennies is not much of a guilt trip. send the artist a few dollars and it all equals out to more then artist would have gotten anyway. i believe the artist is the rightfull owner of the copyright.
copyright is there to protect the artist. work for hire removes that.
however i still don’t see any way you have done anything wrong if you would not have bought it anyway, or there were no copies to buy.
in other case then copyright the person the obligation had to do something for you to owe him/her. a doctor had to give a physical, a lawer had to defend for example. they are out of time for nothing if don’t pay. however if you would not have bought it anyway (due to either it not being worth the price, or unavailable for sale, for example) it makes no differance. the artist gets the same amount of money for the same amount of work. when you listen to a song the artist has no additional work to do.
is this right when the copyright holder and the srtist are not the same person?
what about when no copies can be bought?
well when you put it that way i see what your saying alot better. i still believe if you not have bought it anyway (those $22.50 cds you see every now and for example, or maybe currently unpublished works). you have done no harm. no harm no foul.
however i do believe you atleast have a moral case there. it does not convince me personal but, as always, let your own conscience be your judge
i thank you for the effort. i atleast understand your argument better.
Why can’t it be both? A crucifix in a jar of urine is valid art, but it’s still rude. Linking to an image on the copyright holder’s site is a valid way of putting together a web page, but it’s still rude. Ideally, you would contact the copyright holder and get permission to host his image on your site, but if that can’t be done, linking to his copy is an alternative.
They should be allowed to do it because they aren’t distributing the image themselves, only redirecting the user to someone else who is willing to legally distribute it. It’s just like providing directions to the site, but in a form that the computer can understand.
Of course he could do that instead. But that’s a decision for the web designer to make, not me or you.
Exactly. If the webmaster wants to “lower the boom” by fixing his web server, he has every right to do so. But if he chooses not to fix his web server, he shouldn’t blame anyone else for his bandwidth use.
Yes, and if you copy his work without paying for it (or otherwise getting permission), you’re breaking the law. We get it.
He isn’t “damaged” any more by illegal downloaders than by the thousands of other people who choose not to buy the album, for whatever reason. The only difference between the guy who downloads a song but doesn’t like it enough to pay for it, and the guy who never liked the song in the first place, is that one of them has a copy of the song–which didn’t cost the copyright holder anything.
The copyright holder isn’t even aware that the guy has that illegal copy. How can you be damaged if you aren’t aware of the damage, and the damage has no discernable effect on you?
Yes, copyright violation is illegal. Thank you once again.
The copyright infringer never signed a contract with the owner. The owner is completely unaware that the infringer even has a copy of the song. Neither person is a party to any agreement with the other, so how can either person be damaged by breaking that agreement?
There’s a difference between someone infringing on your statutory rights and someone actually harming you.
I do the same thing when I hear the song on the radio, or listen to a friend’s copy, or buy the CD used. Big deal.
dutchboy208: The Audio Home Recording Act covers royalties on blank media. Not all blank media is surcharged, though. Regular CD-R media is not, but “music CD-R” media is.
**No, you don’t. You are violating his right of ownership. This is also, quite justly, against the law. But regardless of that fact, it is a violation of the owner’s rights.
**He is damaged in the same way a writer is if someone photocopies his book rather than pay for it. To you, I surmise, this does not damage the author in the way stealing a book from Barnes & Noble would. This demonstrates, I believe, a profound misunderstanding of intellectual property rights, which do not depend upon a “physical” loss to be violated, though inexplicably you seem to think otherwise.
You really can’t see that the distinction you draw above is sort of critical? The guy who downloaded the song (as opposed to someone who has no interest in it) gets to enjoy the benefit of the song without contributing a penny for it. It is valuable to you, or you wouldn’t have downloaded it. But you refuse to pay for it. The person who owns the rights to the creativity and sweat and effort that created the property is entitled to be compensated by anyone who draws value from his property. Or are you arguing that you download for free only those things that are completely of no value to you?
And if you are not arguing this, then surely you must concede that if everyone who saw value in the property took it without paying for it, the owner would have had his property rendered worthless. Individual instances are no more moral, and the damage they create is different only in degree. This is simply inarguable.
**I think copyright owners are quite aware of the damages they incur from filesharing. You may have read some of their objections in the paper.
**You are trying strenuously to avoid the ethical question I pose to you by couching it purely in legal terms. Whatever makes you happy, I guess.
**You are arguing that unless there is a previously established agreement, as a general rule it’s impossible to violate another’s rights? That’s a curious notion. I’m afraid I disagree. So does the Bill of Rights, just as another example. By the way, if the owner suddenly became aware of your specific theft, would that somehow make you feel differently? Why?
**There may be, I suppose. In these situations there is not.
**No big deal to the copyright owner, either. Why would anyone think there was damage associated with someone conducting an activity that the copyright owner readily concedes does affect his property rights? Not quite the same with downloading free songs, though. They do tend to take exception with that, you may have noticed.
That should read, “Why would anyone think there was damage associated with someone conducting an activity that the copyright owner readily concedes does NOT affect his property rights?”
Which is another term for “copyright”, correct? Or is there some other law we’ve all overlooked?
Correct. The writer has lost nothing; the guy who copies the book hasn’t denied the writer a profit, any more than another person who has never heard of the book.
No, I understand how copyright violations work. Are you talking about something other than copyright?
Yes… the same as if he listens to his friend’s album instead of buying his own, or buys a used copy instead of a new one.
“If” - but that isn’t the case. File sharing has not harmed music sales.
The damages they claim to incur. Real figures don’t back those claims up.
Nope, unless I had an agreement with the owner. Even if he’s aware of my jaywalking[sup]*[/sup], the only harm is can possibly claim is that I’ve denied him his potential profits. Of course, someone who has never heard of the album, or who decides not to buy it (or to buy it used instead of new) after reading a poor review, is also denying him those potential profits.
I’m not convinced he is “harmed” simply by not getting to choose who listens to his music and who doesn’t. He has already given away that choice if his music is on the radio, or if any of his fans have friends or sell their CDs at used record stores. There are legal ways to listen to music without compensating the author, so who cares if someone does the same thing illegally?
- copyright violation, theft, jaywalking - all the same thing, right?
Exactly. The only difference is that the copyright owner doesn’t like one method, but does like the others - or at least has no control over them. (They’re not all happy about used CD sales, you know.) There’s no harm done either way.
Bob Cos:
I think this is the reason you have such a hard time understanding this issue. Presumably you have infinite stores of money, so you can’t understand that some people have no money. For example, I’m a college student paying my way with student loans. I have downloaded songs from thousands of albums. Say each album costs $20. That would be more than a hundred thousand dollars for me to buy them all.
So what you are saying right here, is that even though I have no money, I actually really could pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars if I really wanted to.
If you can’t see why your argument is not only wrong, but also completely absurd, I don’t know what to tell you.
Also, keep in mind that I don’t know which album to buy until after I’ve downloaded it. Apparently in your world not only is everyone rich beyond belief, but they are all psychic.
By your logic, I should buy an album instead of downloading. But how do I know which to buy? By downloading. See the problem?
One last thing - do record companies get any money from used cd sales? Because I have hundreds of cds, but I got almost all of them used. I never buy new cds except for my absolute favorite bands.
If record companies don’t make money from used cd sales, then that proves even more that downloading a song can’t hurt them. Even if I sold my blood to get enough money to buy a cd, I would be getting it used. If I could find any used cd store that had a copy of Richard and Linda Thompson’s out of print “Pour Down Like Silver.”
And as for your assertion that music is trivial, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. Music is very important to me. I’m in a band, and I often cover songs that I have downloaded. Not only that, but music has been a comfort and inspiration at many times in my life. Just because it is trivial to you does not mean you can write off all music as trivial.
**It is a right that is also protected by law. I’m not sure why you think something that has legal protection exists as a concept only in the contemplation of said law.
**On what do you base this evidence? And how can you logically conclude that if everyone file shared, the copyright owner would be damaged–your “if”–but if some smaller percentage of people do, then there is no proportionate damage? This defies arithmetic and logic, does it not?
**Only, I suppose, if we accept your definition of damage, which remains a bizarre one to me.
Straw men in Nightime’s post:
**
**
**
Dude, I’m no longer wasting time responding to your posts where the first portion of my response is to take you to task for crafting straw men. You’re not debating, you’re grandstanding in the hope of scoring some point, completely ignoring the actual text of my posts, for example where I state I don’t believe any individual purchase is beyond your means (which then leads you to argue “my” point that you have unlimited funds to purchase some indeterminate volume of CDs).
Bud, I’ve been around a little longer than you, and I’ll wager I’ve forgotten more songs than you know, from all the years I’ve played in bands. Yeah, music is trivial to me. Your use of straw men is appalling. :rolleyes:
Hmmm…
When I registered this account, did I give up my copyrights to these posts? 'Cause if not, then every one of you folks are theives. Your browsers are, even before you read this, committing theft of mine and everyone elses property here, violating our rights to not have our work copied without permision.
We should sue Microsoft (or Netscape) for making us all theives.
Uh, Kitfox, take a look at the fine print on the bottom of every SDMB webpage…
This is ridiculous. There is a big gap between “I would like to listen to that song again” and “I will go out and pay $30 for that song.” There are many songs that I would like to hear again…
…at the price they’re offered for.
Normally when something is for sale at a price higher than I’m prepared to pay, I have to say “sorry, I shall do without your product”. Why? Because, if I were to obtain their product for my use any other way, I would be depriving them of that product - for instance, should I want a BMW, but not want to pay the asking price, by taking said BMW, I would be depriving the seller of one BMW.
But with music we have the situation where I can obtain a (substandard, may I remind you) copy of a song, without depriving the seller of a copy of that song that they could be instead selling to another person. I am obtaining a copy of that song, without them losing anything - and since I was not going to be purchasing that song at that price they are actually losing nothing!
D’you want this illustrated for you?
I recently downloaded Justin Timberlake’s Rock Your Body. Now let me tell you, I am not a JT fan. I listen to a lot of music - from obscure artists on obsucre indie labels, to hip-hop, to dance - I’m one of those ultra hip music peoples who turn up their noses at anything that reaches above no 179 in the charts, let alone a no. 1 like Mr Timberlake’s song.
But for some reason, that song touched a chord. I heard it somewhere, and dammit, that’s some fine production - those little clap-claps at the end of each bar, the bass-line that’s almost aping Sugarhill Gang’s Rapper’s Delight (or posso Cher’s Good Times), that white boy funk - I love it.
Now, I tell you, if Justin Timberlake is going to be asking for $30 for his album, and if he’s going to be loading it up with all that other shit he does, I’m not going to buy it. That’s supply and demand. If he doesn’t offer a good enough product, he’s not going to get my cash.
But, why should I, just because JT’s record company overcharges and JT overloads his record with dreck, deny myself the opportunity to listen to Rock Your Body, which, as far as I’m concerned, is a good song? Especially when I have a way of listening to the song without robbing JT’s record company of anything, except a profit that they were not going to get anyway?
I’ll say it again. There is a difference between wanting something, and being prepared to shell out for the product at the asking price. If you don’t understand that, you’re too rich or too stupid. You can call that a strawman; I call that reality.
Yeah, just like FIRST DEGREE MURDER!!!
Remember, when you download music, YOU’RE KILLING PROFITS!!!
Sadist.
Seriously, I’d like a cite showing that some artist somewhere has been hurt by filesharing, or stop whining about the RIAA is barely making ends meet.