Actually, I revisited that previous cite that TWDuke gave us, and this is what it says:
According to this, it appears that it is considered copyright infrigement to “link and frame” (which is similar enough to embedding) to images from another site. If it prevents the visitor from visiting the other site’s HTML (or, in every case that has been done to me, even allow the visitor to know that the graphic comes from a different site) then yeah, it’s copyright infringment.
No, you’re wrong there. According to the Ninth Circuit you’re wrong, and also on many other levels you’re wrong. He should not blame only blame himself. He should blame the bandwidth-stealing and copyright-violating thief. That’s who he should blame.
Is theft or unauthorized use suddenly the victim’s fault just because they don’t use every tactic available to them to prevent theft? The thief knows what they are doing is wrong, and just because it’s “easier” to do it, it doesn’t mean that the victim of their theft “should not blame anyone but themselves” if they end up being victimized. (This is not to say that the potential victims should not try to protect their property–it just means that the “blame” always lies with the thief. Always.)
You’re poor? That’s your excuse? You’re POOR? Oh, cry me a river.
Dude, that’s weak. I have gotten that a lot of time from people who want to use my artistic or photographic works. “We don’t have any money, but we want to use it anyway.” Does that fly in any other profession or product? No.
Hey, listen–I’m poor too, but I don’t get freebie food or gas just because I’m poor. And let me assure you of something, lest you have forgotten it–music, while a wonderful thing, isn’t a life-sustaining thing. You don’t HAVE to steal it–you don’t HAVE to have it, no matter what. You just want it, and you don’t want to pay for it. Stop trying to justify it by saying that you’re poor. That’s just pathetically weak.
Ah, poor gex gex, something’s got your panties all in a bunch. There, there, I know what’ll makes things right. Why don’t you go listen to your (snort! snicker!) Justin Timberlake song. He’s so dreamy! Now there’s an artist’s work that’s worth compromising your integrity over. Go on now, it’ll make you feel better.
Apparently my Google skills aren’t up to finding out which states are part of the Ninth Circuit, so I’ll just say it’s very likely I’m not in it. More importantly, I’m not as concerned with whether it is legal as with whether it should be legal. My position is that it should be legal, regardless of what some court that may or may not affect me has decided.
Bad analogy.
Putting a file on your web server with no access control is like putting a plate of cookies on a table in front of your house. Most people walk by and just take one. If someone takes the whole plate of cookies, he’s a jerk, but if you get shocked and outraged when that happens, you’re naive - it’s a fundamental risk of the distribution system you’re using. If you want more control, use a different system; don’t expect everyone else to make your system work.
Indeed, and why not? What’s the difference between this product, and other products?
Drum roll, please…
You can’t copy physical products without incurring a cost for someone, but you can do that with information. Once a song has been recorded once, there’s no marginal cost for each additional copy.
Any free food you get is food that someone else can’t have. Distributing physical products is a zero-sum game; distributing information is not.
Look–there is precident for this kind of thing (Ninth Circuit) and this precident says it’s a copyright violation.
So, you’re saying that stealing someone else’s images (without giving proper credit to them) while simultaniously stealing their bandwidth is “valid” and should be legal. I’m glad the Ninth Circuit disagrees.
Yes, I get it. Because you are pro-bandwidth-theft and pro-stealing-of-images-without-giving-credit. Obviously. (Well, you may pay lipservice to it being a “jerky” thing to do, but bottom line, you think it’s “valid”.)
Bad analogy.
It’s like putting a plate of cookies on a table, with a sign that says, “DON’T EAT THIS, IT IS FOR DINNER!!!” (Or for Grandma, or whoever.) It’s like putting this plate of cookies on the table and making it clear many times that it is against the house rules to eat even one, let alone all of them, until permission is given. So anyone who goes ahead and eats them anyway is a big stinking jerk and thief and the person who put the cookies there has every reason to believe that no one should be eating those damned cookies until they are told it’s OK to do so.
That’s what it’s like. That’s why there are copyright laws, that’s why “bandwidth theft” is a dirty word among any webmaster worth his salt, and that is why some ISPs have policies against bandwidth theft and hotlinking. Because everyone knows it is the wrong thing to do.
Sigh. If someone comes up to me and asks me for a digital copy of some of my artwork or photography, and pleads poverty (therefore they should be exempt from paying), you know what? They are still not getting it. They have a lot of nerve assuming or expecting that they are somehow more “entitled” to freebies (even if the “copies” are potentially unlimited) just because they are poor.
It’s a weak excuse–to plead poverty and use that as a reason to be able to steal someone else’s work. As Bob Cos pointed out, if it’s “worth” stealing, it’s “worth” paying for.
And my point is even more apt because intellectual property is not a tangible thing, and it certainly is not life-sustaining. One could certainly forgive Jean Valjean for stealing that loaf of bread. But would the Jean Valjeans of today have to steal MP3s or digital files of stuff they liked? No! They do it because they have a selfish sense of entitlement.
I have never condoned plagiarism, and I can’t even imagine what definition of “stealing images” you’re using here - no one is taking anything from the original artist, or even copying the images illegally. The artist has decided to let anyone download the images at any time for any reason, and these other webmasters are simply taking him up on that offer.
So you don’t want anyone looking at your web site until you give them permission?
If you have a web site, people are going to download files from it, and it’s silly to expect them to only download the files you choose in the order you choose. The idea that no one should load your images without also loading the HTML is as absurd as the idea that no one should change the channel during a commercial on TV. No one is obligated to pay attention to everything you want them to see.
Well, luckily for them, they can get a digital copy without you having to lift a finger. That’s the beauty of information.
Oh yes, god forbid someone should want to experience modern culture without paying for it. Let’s confiscate all the radios, so we can be sure no one will ever hear a song without first paying the corp–I mean, artist who owns it.
When someone embeds (as in <IMG> another artist’s graphics from the artist’s server onto their own page, are they letting the visitor know where the image came from? Usually, no. That’s what I (and the Ninth Circuit) call copyright violation, i.e. “stealing”.
“Any reason”? No. They can and do download the graphics into their browser cache, because it’s kind of hard not to. But can they download the files so they can upload them to their own server and publish them? I am sure you would say no, legally, they can’t. Right? And can a webmaster imbed another artist’s graphics (stealing the image–violating copyright according to the Ninth Circuit) and steal the artist’s bandwidth? I say no. You obviously say yes. Yes to stealing someone else’s content and their bandwidth.
Bull. Shit. You know better. The links I provided before (warning of the evils of bandwidth theft) should tell you that it is common knowledge that NO webmaster is offering “free bandwidth and content stealing”.
:rolleyes:
More spin. Why am I not amazed?
People can look at the damned cookies on the table. They just can’t consume them selfishly. People can look at the damned graphics from the artist’s website. They just can’t steal the graphics for display on their own site, simultaniously stealing someone else’s original content, and bandwidth.
Why! Amazingly enough, it’s more spin!
“Downloading files” for personal viewing really isn’t the issue here, my dear. Embedding someone else’s files onto your html web page just so that you can steal the original content and leech bandwidth from someone else’s site is not the same thing. And you damned well know it. So does the Ninth Circuit.
Well, luckily for us artists, the Ninth Circuit (and many more courts to come, I’ll warrant) disagree. And the law can be a very painful thing, when it’s against you.
What’s this? Let’s see, what is it again? I know, it’s SPIN!
The radio music is paid for. The TV programs are paid for. My artwork is not paid for when someone just swipes it without my permission. My bandwidth is paid for by me, and yes, I can say that it’s NOT OK for some content leech and bandwidth leech to not steal it. And…once again, the Ninth Circuite agrees with me!
A while back in this thread you said downloading music was trivial, but I am glad to hear that is not your real opinion.
However, if music is not trivial to you, how do you justify being against letting people hear music?
The music I listen to is not played on the radio or on MTV. The only way I can hear it is file sharing. There is no chance that I would have bought it without file sharing, because I would never have even heard it. So if you are against file sharing, you are against people hearing music. I am glad that you have been able to hear so much music in your life, even if you have forgotten so many songs. But isn’t it extremely selfish to turn around and try to deny others the same thing which you just admitted was so important to you?
yosemitebabe:
No. I don’t need an excuse for file sharing. File sharing is a good thing. File sharing is the only way to hear music that is out of print, not played on the radio, and not played on MTV. It is the only way to hear a huge volume of music in order to find the few gems that change your life. It is the only way to see which albums you should spend your limited resources on. These things are very important, and are only accomplished through file sharing.
I brought up money to counter the idea that anyone could pay for what they downloaded if they wanted to. Given that I have no money, and the cost of buying what I download would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, clearly that idea is wrong. However, I do spend more than I should on cds anyway. In fact the only reason I buy any cds at all is because I have already heard them and know that I like them. I can’t afford to waste money on a cd I don’t like, and then not have the option of returning it. So again, file sharing actually increases profits for the RIAA, at least in my case.
Sometimes I think you come to these threads just to rant on about your own artistic and photographic works, despite the lack of similarities to file sharing. File sharing is about downloading something for your own personal use. It is not about using what you downloaded on a web site and not giving credit. In the case of your art, the parallel to file sharing would be someone wanting to look at the picture without paying. And guess what - you are letting them do just that, by having the picture on the web at all. If you don’t want people to see it, don’t put it online. People doing more than just looking at it is an entirely different matter, and really is not relevant to the file sharing debate.
But if you could make food or gas appear out of thin air, wouldn’t you do that? If you could make food from all around the globe appear, wouldn’t you use that power to try out a lot of foods you would never have had otherwise? Or would you say “no, making this tibetan cuisine appear out of thin air, even though there is absolutely no chance I would ever have bought it, is stealing their profit.”
And now you are making the same argument I wrongly thought Bob Cos was making, that music really isn’t that important. As I said before, all I can do is disagree, as it is not really something I can prove logically. I could give you examples of what music means to me and others I know, I could explain that I am in a band and rely on file sharing to find inspiration and ideas that are vital, that my favorite songs to perform are covers of songs I downloaded, and so on. But if you don’t believe music is important, I can’t convince you.
So let’s see what we have so far:
I say: File sharing is the only way to discover your favorite bands.
Response: Too bad, you don’t get to hear them.
I say: I would not have even heard of this band without file sharing, how can hearing about them possibly cost them anything? Doesn’t it instead increase their chance for profit, since I will buy their cd if I like it?
Response: I can’t explain it, the figures don’t back it up, and I have to admit they don’t end up with less money than they would have, but I remain faithful that in some cosmic way they are hurt by your hearing their music.
I say: Music is important. Discovering my favorite bands without anybody ending up with any less money than they would have, and in fact often ending up with more, is worth breaking the law for.
Response: Music isn’t that important. If you can’t afford to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cds, in an attempt to find the ones you like, with no option to return the ones you don’t like, then you don’t need or deserve music.
I say: Wow. That’s pretty crazy, but oh well. Believe what you will.
And I understand that part–if people used filesharing as a “preview” to what to buy next, that’s not so bad. In my case, I’ve downloaded music that I have on CD (but I can’t find the damned CD) or that I have on LP. (But where the hell is that LP?) Maybe the RIAA doesn’t like me doing this, but they are bloodsucking bastards so it doesn’t surprise me.
But this is a far cry from people downloading tons of music just so they never have to pay. Which may or may not apply to you.
Do you keep the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of music that you download? Because that seems wrong. If you are only downloading it to preview it so you can decide what to buy next, then why keep the stuff you never intend to buy?
You know why I do that? Because some of you think that “copyrighted works” only mean music. And that if the copyright laws are changed the way some of you would like them to be, it will only affect the Evil RIAA. I’m here to remind you that other works are copyrighted, and yes, the people behind those works are entitled to keep their copyrights intact, and protected. The evilness of the RIAA notwithstanding.
Well, were we discussing that, and arguing about people merely “viewing” my photos? No. Because there really isn’t much of an argument about the appropriateness of someone merely “viewing” images on a web page, is there?
My dear, it’s called a “hijack”, or a “strayed conversation”. Some of us are talking about bandwidth theft and the copyright violations revolving around that (as in what the Ninth Circuit thinks, etc.) What?!? Have you’ve never seen a side issue discussed on these boards before? I am shocked!
But I can’t, and neither can you.
I do sew my own clothes and make my own pottery, though. I am depriving the clothing companies and pottery manufacterers of profits. But guess what? I can do that, because I know how to do that. If you know how to farm your own food without going to the store, hey, go for it. And if you can make your own music and never copy or steal anyone else’s music–hey, go for it. But when you steal someone else’s music, it isn’t the same as making or creating your own, is it?
:rolleyes: Condescending much? You think I don’t know how important music is? I, who just tonight bought season tickets for another year at the opera? Me, who flew out from Hooterville just to see Jerry Goldsmith perform at the Hollywood Bowl? Yes, I know.
But with all that said, music is not life-sustaining in the same way that bread is life-sustaining. You won’t die if you don’t get to steal it. You can listen to it on the radio, you can listen to CDs at the library, you can go to free concerts. Once again, it’s damn important, but it’s equally important to support the artists that you love so they can continue to produce works that you love. It’s not OK to consume, consume, consume and yet never give back. I don’t know if this totally applies to you (since you do concede that yeah, you do buy some CDs) but bottom line, it’s not right.
**Just to get it out of the way: Let me start by saying, way to keep up the proud tradition of strawmen with the second sentence above. And, BTW, do you destroy the downloaded song after you give it a listen? Do you purchase anything you hear that you like? Can you say that you have not kept a collection of songs that you come back to time and again though you have not purchased them? If so, I respect your position more than I gave you credit for. I’ll think this over; perhaps that is a circumstance where no damage has occurred–depending upon your answer. But the fact that you said you have thousands of dollars worth of songs (or something like that) in your collection, mainly because you have no cash, leads me to think you may not have the right answers.
You’re a musician, and I respect that. Just as I respect all musicians and artists enough not to steal their work. That’s all I’m saying.
Nope. They can download the files for whatever reason they want; downloading is downloading. They don’t cross the line until they actually start serving the files to other people.
Call it what you want.
No TV stations are intentionally offering commercial-free television either, but that doesn’t mean you’re obligated to watch the commercials.
Television is designed to be something you can choose to watch or not watch, and the web is designed to be someplace where pages link to each other, and each element of a site is a separate request that may be cached. Whether the TV station wants you to watch the commercials, or whether a webmaster wants you to view all the elements of a page at once, is irrelevant to what you’re obligated to do.
Nonsense.
Downloading files is exactly the issue. If Site X links to your picture but no one ever visits Site X (at least with images enabled), your bandwidth won’t be affected one bit - so the link on Site X is only relevant to your bandwidth cost to the extent that it causes people to download your files.
By whom? Advertisers, yes? I sure don’t pay to listen to the radio. The artist gets the exact same royalties whether or not I hear his song on the radio - just like he gets the same royalties whether or not I hear his song on Kazaa. What a coincidence!
And it doesn’t mean that we are obligated to look at a web site’s banner ads or read the text on their HTML pages. But they are part of the “package deal” if we want to watch TV. They are there.
And I won’t know about it. Doesn’t make the bandwidth and content leech any less reprehensible, but I won’t even know. But when my weblogs show me that a bandwidth and content leech is sucking off my my server’s titty (my, isn’t that descriptive) then yeah, I can, if I so desire, go to the Ninth Circuit (if it were in my jurisdiction). Because I created the original content, and I paid for that bandwidth. I didn’t create the content so that any leech could steal it, and I don’t pay for bandwidth so that leeches could use it instead of paying for their own bandwidth.
People unwittingly downloading my files (not even knowing that they are my files) because some leech linked to my site, and is leeching my content. Because these leeches are too lazy, greedy, selfish or unoriginal to create their own content. And the Ninth Circuit has something to say about such behavior.
Just to illustrate this a little more specifically, recently a rather polished-looking website leeched one of my thumbnails (a painting of a cowboy) to illustrate a news story about Pres. Bush and Texas. I don’t know why they chose my painting. Apparently they saw my painting as a form of cheap “clip art”. They were too lazy or selfish to actually go and buy one of those “Royalty Free” CDs with umpteen images of everything imaginable. Oh no…they had to leech from me. No credit to my web page, no mention of who painted the cowboy, nothing. Just cheap, bandwidth free (for them) clip art. I quickly replaced the stolen picture with a graphic saying that they were copyright violators and thieves. They quickly removed the graphic.
Now, tell me, why is this a “valid” thing to do? Was my cowboy painting so unique, so indespensible that it was the only graphic that would have illustrated their little news story?
And the artists choose to let the music be played on the radio. It’s “worth it” to them to allow it to be released in that way. Because there are certain restrictions and limitations with radio, and they are OK with that. And because the radio allows a certain promotion of their work in a way that they are comfortable. And because it’s their work, and they actually (fancy this) are entitled to a say over how the hard work they produced is distributed.
But those who avail themselves of file sharing as an alternative to actually buying the music by the artists they (supposedly) admire are just leeches. They don’t care about the artist’s rights, they just want to consume, consume, consume. Yeah, I get the message loud and clear.
Hey, according to your value system, I should have bought his whole goddamn album. I ain’t that much of a sucker.
(Besides, it’s actually a good song! No really! Look, I don’t listen to any of his other shit! Oh… shut up…)
Of course. I recently went to Sydney just to buy a copy of Cursive’s latest album, after downloading 3 tracks from it. It wasn’t available in any of my local stores. Death Cab For Cutie have especially profited from my use of file sharing. I downloaded 3 songs from their We Have The Facts And We’re Voting Yes album, then bought it, then bought their next album The Photo Album when it came out, bought Give Up, the album by singer Ben Gibbard’s side project The Postal Service, and have now bought a ticket to DCFC’s show next month, when they will tour Australia for the first time. That’s two examples. There are countless others, but hopefully two should suffice.
Of course I maintain such a selection. Those are songs that I like to listen to every now and then that aren’t worth the asking price. As I’ve said three times now, there’s a difference between “good enough to buy” and “I want to listen to that every so often”. I give my money to artists that maintain a consistent body of work. One hit wonders and Justin Timberlakes aren’t worthy of my cash. Doesn’t mean I don’t want to listen to the odd song of theirs.
yosemite babe, I fail to see what point you are trying to make. You seem to be trying to prove to us that other people hotlinking to your pictures is wrong. We all agree.
However, we also feel that you should not be complaining about it if it is in your power to prevent it (which it seems to be).
Take trademark law. Trademark infringement is illegal in the same way copyright infringement is. However, if the entity being harmed in the infringement does nothing to try and prevent said infringement, a kind of permission is implied, and the trademark ceases to exist.
Not entirely applicable to your situation, I understand. However, the point is the same: by failing to utilize available technology in order to prevent hotlinking, you are implicitly undercutting your right to bitch and moan about it.
Well, you always have a right to bitch and moan about it, but we don’t have to care.
No, we don’t “all agree”. Mr2001 thinks it’s “perfectly valid” to hotlink and steal original content. Surely this did not escape your notice.
If it were so damned easy, I would have done it by now. I mentioned before—I tried it once, and lost my whole website! I will try again, but once again—just because some think it’s easy, it doesn’t mean it’s easy for me, with my particular web host, with my massive amount of images.
Besides, when is it OK to “blame the victim” because some people are thieves?
But look at the links provided previously—do you seriously think that any webmaster is unaware that hotlinking is wrong? Why do they start doing it anyway?
Trademark violation can be done out of ignorance, but this is rarely the case with hotlinking—especially amongst the veteran webmaster.
No one is stopping you from not giving a damn, anymore than anyone can stop me from bitching and moaning. So the question is—do you defend the practice of leeching and call it “perfectly valid”? Yes, or no?
Not so fast. You aren’t obligated to look at banner ads or download them. Same with HTML pages.
I can’t speak for the web designer. Maybe he did think it was so unique and indispensible that no other picture would suffice.
Why is it valid art to put a cross in a jar of urine? Is it such a unique, indispensible method of expression that the same message can’t be put across another way? Of course not. But it’s not my place to tell that artist that his rude piece of art isn’t valid art. The artist is a jerk, but he still has a right to do what he does.
Since they don’t make any more or less money from radio listeners than from file sharers, file sharing is also “worth it”. You can’t complain that one group consumes music without paying, then condone another group that does the same thing with a different appliance.
I thought you were against a selfish sense of entitlement?
Yes, I’ve noticed that you hear what you want. Kinda reminds me of that Far Side strip: “Blah blah blah blah blah consume blah blah blah blah consume blah blah…”
What is this? More spin? More twisting around of the facts?
The content of a TV show includes the show and ads. One can step out of the room (or skip over while taping) the ads. When one sees an HTML page, one can opt to tell their browser to not download images, or merely ignore the banner ads. Or, install “pop-up blocker” (to avoid those nasty pop-ups). But this isn’t about the visitor, this is about the webmaster who is deliberatly designing their site to “steal” (violate copyright, according to Ninth Circuit) someone else’s content. And steal their bandwidth. This has nothing to do with the visitor, who is just browsing around the web and is an ignorant participant in all this. This has everything to do with the actions of the webmaster and very little to do with the visitor. And you know this. You are deliberately trying to deflect the issue away from this.
And of course he could not write me and ask to use it. By the way, I noticed that all the other graphics accompanying the other news stories on the page were also stolen, “hotlinked” graphics. I suppose that the webmaster thought that each and every one of these graphics was so unique and so indespensible, that he had to use these particular graphics—none other on the entire planet would do?
Oh, sure. And it’s so “valid”.
Not trying to be rude here, but do you have a clue what you are talking about? Do you have a remotest of clues that the picture of Cross in Urine is dramatically different than hotlinking and copyright violation?
Or are you trying to contend that the artist who created the Cross in Urine was stealing someone else’s resources (something like bandwidth) and was also violating copyright (according to the Ninth Circuit)? Is this what you are contending?
Once again, spin, spin spin.
Radio listeners usually don’t know what the next song is going to be on the radio. The songs on the radio are often “cut off” at the beginning or end (by an ad, the DJ, etc.) so in reality the whole song is not being played in its entirety. These restrictions (not really knowing exactly when a song is going to play so you can’t just tape it and only it) and not really hearing the whole song (DJ interrupting) are just two “limitations” to music played on the radio that does not exist with file sharing. They are not identical things, and it should be easy to see (well, to most folks) that an artist might be sanguine with one but not with the other.
Cute. So a person who works and invests in something is “selfish” for actually wanting to keep some control over that thing? Pretty curious notion of “selfish”. But then I wouldn’t be surprised if the people who expect unlimited freebies would consider those who want to cut off their supply of unlimited freebies to be “selfish”.
And you spin things in amazing ways. Spin, spin, spin…
Okay, first of all, don’t use “steal.” The only thing that was taken from you was a small amount of bandwidth. And he believes hotlinking is wrong, as do we all. He just thinks it should be legal, as in you can’t put the offender in jail.
When someone is complaining about rampant theft from their house because they left the door open, part of blame lies on them. That doesn’t make stealing okay, but people tend to respect their point of view less if there were steps they could have taken but didn’t. No matter how hard it may be to install the lock.
Even assuming that no one is completely ignorant (which I’m betting most people are) there is no limit to what people will think they are entitled to. I recall a story where and australian airport was being closed, and some woman demanded to be put on the last flight out because “she was an American.” And linking to a measly picture or two (in their minds) probably doesn’t rank on their “top ten felonies to avoid” list.
No, but the fact that you’re complaining about it without taking advantage of all available options transferred your reason for whining from “because people suck” to “because I’m too lazy to do anything about it.” For the former, most people are obligated in poilte society to at least pretend to care.
And do I think it’s right? No. Do I think it should be legal? Yes, especially considering there are ways to prevent it, thus there is no need for the government to step in on behalf of a lazy webmaster.
And if I may repeat my question, what exactly are you trying to get at with all this? Your argument with Mr2001 seems to be “spin spin spin!” to every point he’s trying to make. Are you trying to convince us that the death penalty should be the punishment for all hotlinking? Do you want us to convert, and join your side crying “Technology is hard! Uncle Sam, do it for me?”
No, I’m focusing on the real technical issues instead of human intent. The problem of another site linking to your images is nearly indistinguishable from another site linking to an article instead of your front page, or a browser loading your site and filtering out some of the images, from a technical point of view.
And if you’re going to be imposing restrictions on the web, you better consider the technical implications. It’s one thing to have a discussion about what people should do, but at the end of the day, those files are served by software and requested by software, and that software may work in ways that seem like “bandwidth theft”, without any malicious intent.
Yes, he should have done that. He’s a jerk. But he’s not a criminal.
Uh huh. Because it’s okay to be a jerk if you’re making “art”, but not if you’re just putting together some geeky web page. Artists deserve their artistic freedom, regardless of who they offend, but computer nerds are just out to steal from those hard-working artists. You’re coming in loud and clear.
There are analogous limitations on file sharing. You don’t know whether the file you want will be available, you don’t know if the person you’re downloading from is going to be online long enough for you to get it, you don’t know if the file has the correct artist name or title, and you don’t know if it will have skips, static, or DJ interruptions.
OTOH, the limitations on radio are pretty minimal. Just set your tape deck to record for any two hour period, and chances are you’ll get every currently popular song you want. You might have to do some editing to get a specific song, but that’s no harder than, say, ripping a copy-protected CD.
A person who expects to control a piece of information once it leaves his hands, just because he spent time creating it, is selfish.
I guess you’ve never paid for web hosting? They charge for bandwidth. Go over your limit, you pay more. You may choose a certain allottment of bandwidth based on what your website’s traffic gets–not what every bandwith thief is STEALING from you.
Yes, it’s STEALING when you end up paying for someone else’s selfishness.
Oh, you mean if the thief is arrested, they’ll also arrest the homeowner for leaving their doors unlocked?
Maybe the random kid with a weblog, (I get those too) but a “professional” webmaster–no. No way do I believe that they don’t know. If they have webhosting and know about paying for bandwidth, then of course they know how it goes.
You’re getting two things mixed up. Hotlinking is frowned upon, strongly, but it is not illegal. If someone were to hotlink to an image that were in the public domain, that would not be illegal. Just assholish.
But to hotlink (embed the copyrighted image from another server in your own HTML) or copy someone else’s copyrighted work (on your own server) and display it on your own site? According to (once again) the Ninth Circuit, that’s illegal.
Firstly, I do do something about it, as I have mentioned previously–I check my web logs, and when I find an offender, I replace the “stolen” image with a message saying that they are a bandwidth thief and a copyright violator. (Because according to the Ninth Circuit, they are). So I do do something; it’s just a hassle, and I get to see first-hand how audacious people are. Alas, I am not technologically savvy enough to do some other more sophisticated preventive measures (but thanks to some suggestions on this thread, I will try again). I am also not rich enough to “watermark” my vast collection of graphics, because such services are rather expensive.
I’ve repeated this many times, but the “spin spin spin” always got in the way.
My point is that displaying someone else’s copyrighted images on your own site without permission is illegal. According to the Ninth Circuit it’s illegal, even if the copyrighted images are actually being “leeched” from the copyright holder’s site onto the “leecher’s” and “copyright THIEF’S” site. It’s still wrong and illegal. That’s my point.
Well, that’s where we’re going off track. I’m focusing on human intent.
Well, (once again) the Ninth Circuit sees a big difference between hotlinking to someone else’s images and linking to someone else’s HTML. And I am talking about legalities, and intent.
But, once again, according to the Ninth Circuit, he is. He’s displaying my copyrighted image on his site.
Could we cut through the spin for a change?
Please, answer these two simple questions that I posed to you before:
Did the Cross in Urine Artwork violate someone else’s copyright? Yes or No?
Did the Cross in Urine Artwork directly access or use someone else’s resources (something akin to bandwidth) without permission, and possibly risking some other other person extra expense? Yes or No?
If the answer to both of these questions is “No”, then the point you were trying to make is completely moot, because these two issues are pretty much all I am talking about.
But when you get it, you have it. You can look for it at your leisure, not wait and wait by the radio and hope and hope it’ll be on. It’s there (from many sources) whenever you are in the mood to look. Quality may vary, but it rarely has DJ interruptions, and if one file is crappy, there are others out there.
But it will still have the DJ interruptions, and as we know, many CDs are not copy-protected. (I’ve never run across one.)
Ah, here we are back to the “information” thing. So, it is “selfish” for someone to expect to get paid for their creative work? It’s “selfish” for Microsoft or Adobe to sell their software, and actually have the audacity to try to stop bootleggers? So once MS or Adobe releases some software (or Disney makes a new movie) they should just let anyone and every copy it and distribute it, and not expect anyone to come to them to buy copies?
Good for the Ninth Circuit, but this isn’t GQ. I’m not concerned with the uninformed decisions of a court that doesn’t affect me.
No. 2) No.
However, it should be obvious that I’m drawing a different parallel between Cross in Urine and hotlinking. Both are rude, but both are valid forms of art; using someone else’s images on your web page is surely as valid as sampling in rap/dance music.[sup]*[/sup]
You haven’t put forth a convincing case that one form of rudeness (using bandwidth that someone has accidentally allowed you to use) is any worse than the other (pissing off Christians, no pun intended).
Samplers pay royalties, you say? That’s because they distribute the samples themselves, instead of instructing the listener’s CD player to download them from the original artist.
The point is, for the people who are inclined to rip songs, taking it from the radio is just as easy as taking it from a CD. And for many of the people who are inclined to download music, a copy made from the radio is just as good as a copy made from a CD.
For the people who are inclined to do both, the radio has the same potential for free music as Kazaa.
If that necessarily involves controlling the distribution of information, then yes. Many bands do get paid for their creative work, even when it’s illegally downloaded - they’re paid with sales of concert tickets, merchandise, and other albums, that wouldn’t have been sold if not for file sharing.
The same is true of software, IMO. For every person who buys a copy of AutoCAD simply because he can’t find an illegal copy, there are ten people who buy a copy because they’ve used it illegally in the past. (I’ve ordered over $600 worth of software that I never would have considered buying if not for illegal downloads.)
Correct me if I’m wrong: You think the right of an author to be the only one profiting from his work is part of a greater ownership, a right to have absolute control over his work. I see it the other way around; the author only deserves as much control over his intellectual output as is necessary to prevent other people from profiting from it.
(Well, you may pay lipservice to it being a “jerky” thing to do, but bottom line, you think it’s “valid”.)