# What city is shown in this photograph? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837 "2010-03-26T02:38:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/81 "2010-09-10T20:31:47Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > FWIW The tapatalk app I use to view SDMB does turn some links into embedded images, depending on how you link to it. The link in question didn’t, but a later link in this thread came up as a picture of the google logo. It is possible to have a URL on the website be an image on the phone. Whether that changes anything is beyond my scope. That link \*is \*a picture of the Google logo, if I’m understanding what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/82 "2010-09-10T20:45:16Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > > [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > > > FWIW The tapatalk app I use to view SDMB does turn some links into embedded images, depending on how you link to it. The link in question didn’t, but a later link in this thread came up as a picture of the google logo. It is possible to have a URL on the website be an image on the phone. Whether that changes anything is beyond my scope. > > That link \*is \*a picture of the Google logo, if I’m understanding what you’re saying. I’m just mentioning that using this app shows the actual photo, not just the URL. So the argument that only urls are being shown may not be true if viewed using this app. ie, in post 49 on a computer I see a link, on the app I see a picture. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/83 "2010-09-10T20:48:40Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > > [@Polycarp](#): > > > > However, there is the issue of “theft of bandwidth” – a private family site with a low but adequate bandwidth cap might have legitimate grounds to protest a popular site’s linking to a graphic on it, and therefore drawing on its bandwidth allowance every time the other site was accessed. I doubt that would be an issue here, with an embedded link in one thread on a discussion board and a professional site with presumably higher bandwidth cap. But it can be a concern – if Fark or Digg embeds a link, someone’s bandwidth allowance can be consumed literally overnight. > > But that’s not what happened. > > The OP didn’t hotlink an image, because the SDMB setting don’t even allow inline images. If the image was hotlinked, and was therefore called from the other server every time someone opened this thread, you’d have a point. But it isn’t. It’s just a link to the image. > > And Fark or Digg or Slashdot an mess with your bandwidth allocation or your server capacity even if they do nothing more than provide a direct link to your homepage or a content page. All it takes is enough people clicking that link to bring the site crashing down. I am aware that that was not what happened here. I pointed out the circumstances in which theft of bandwidth can happen, as a courtesy to others who may not have drawn the distinction between posting a link in a message board thread and embedding a linked image on a popular content page, and in consequence have derived from the discussion about copyright here that it’s OK to do the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/84 "2010-09-10T21:07:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > > > **envirocr** has requested that this thread be closed. We don’t normally do this for someone other than the OP (and sometimes not then). However, the OP’s question has been answered, the ancillary issues have been thoroughly hashed out, and I’m sure **envirocr** ’s understanding of copyright law has been greatly enriched. That being the case, if the OP has no objection, and no other pertinent questions arise, I’ll close the thread a little later as a courtesy to our new member. > > NO FUCKING WAY! > > If the thread was going to be closed anyway, that’s one thing. But it would be horrendous precedent to close a thread at the request of someone who marches in and spouts a load of crap on an issue completely unrelated to the OP. > > By closing this thread, you’re rewarding him for what is nothing more than a hijack. > > Very, very bad form. Relax. Since there are apparently unexplored aspects of the issue and continuing interest, I’ll leave the thread open. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/85 "2010-09-10T21:28:23Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > > [@PlainJain](#): > > > > I disagree. A big corporation throwing it’s weight around doesn’t equal redeeming value. > > You might want to read a little closer. > > I said that if Ticketmaster _doesn’t_ like it, then it must have some redeeming value. I can’t stand Ticketmaster, and anything that is inconvenient for them is a good thing, as far as i am concerned. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/86 "2010-09-10T22:36:42Z")
This thread illustrates why we should abolish copyright entirely. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/87 "2010-09-10T22:39:13Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > This thread illustrates why we should abolish copyright entirely. No, it really doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/88 "2010-09-10T22:39:14Z")
> [@](#): > > This thread illustrates why we should abolish copyright entirely. That’s just as ridiculous a claim as envirocr’s. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/89 "2010-09-10T22:41:43Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > [http://www.envirocr.com/](http://www.envirocr.com/) > > Not an intellectual property firm I don’t think that’s him. I think that **envirocr** is Charles R. Wolfe, who created most of the content on the [myurbanist.com](http://myurbanist.com) website. Mr. Wolfe’s [website](http://crwolfelaw.com/) says that he specializes in environmental and land use law. So perhaps he’s not as well-versed in copyright law. (BTW, if he’s still reading this, I’d like to know why he put a 2006 copyright on a [photo](http://www.myurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/%C2%A9_BHHC2006_MelbFlinders1917.jpg) taken in 1917.) ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/90 "2010-09-10T22:41:45Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > This thread illustrates why we should abolish copyright entirely. > > That’s just as ridiculous a claim as envirocr’s. Prove it. With a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/91 "2010-09-10T22:47:54Z")
I asked a friend who from Malta and whose brother still lives there said that this: > [@](#): > > Yes Malta, St Julian’s, west coast above Valletta, my favourite restaurant on the island is just round the bend on the right hand side of the bay…Madonna was once alleged to own the pent house in the tower block on the left…most probably rented it while making a movie…it’s a luxury condo development with a marina… ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/92 "2010-09-10T22:54:47Z")
Malta. No doubt. I recognized it instantly. Not too many places are as monochromatic. Very nice part of the city too. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/93 "2010-09-10T23:20:07Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > That’s just as ridiculous a claim as envirocr’s. > > Prove it. With a cite. You prove your nonsense opinion with a cite. Better yet you start offering your work for free and then you can talk about abolishing copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/94 "2010-09-10T23:30:43Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I am aware that that was not what happened here. I pointed out the circumstances in which theft of bandwidth can happen, as a courtesy to others who may not have drawn the distinction between posting a link in a message board thread and embedding a linked image on a popular content page, and in consequence have derived from the discussion about copyright here that it’s OK to do the latter. There was a case where an artist got so pissed of with people hotlinking his fantasy art (like about 100,000 Myspace accounts using it as background, for a start) that he uploaded another image with the same name and overwrote the original. Of course the new image was goatse. Much hilarity ensued in the comments section on his website. Damned if I can remember the guy’s name though. It’s pretty easy to serve a “don’t steal my bandwidth” image for hotlinking, but you’ve still got to pay for that bandwidth too. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/95 "2010-09-10T23:40:15Z")
Ref previous post it was a guy called Jason Scott, and I slightly overstated the numbers, but not by much. Full story begins here: [Freedom, Justice and a Disturbingly Gaping Ass « ASCII by Jason Scott](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011) Warning: There’s at least one link on that page that will lead to a gigantic gaping anus. Otherwise it’s SFW ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/96 "2010-09-10T23:41:48Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > It’s pretty easy to serve a “don’t steal my bandwidth” image for hotlinking, but you’ve still got to pay for that bandwidth too. But if you’re paying for your bandwidth, that means you’re hosting your site on a paid webhost, rather than on a free service like Blogspot or Facebook or whatever. And if your website is hosted by a hosting service, and you are the owner/administrator of the website, all you need to do to stop someone hotlinking is to modify your .htaccess file to prohibit hotlinks. This is a trivially easy thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/97 "2010-09-10T23:53:10Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@ivn1188](#): > > > > Prove it. With a cite. > > You prove your nonsense opinion with a cite. > > Better yet you start offering your work for free and then you can talk about abolishing copyright. Funny you should say that. Here I am, offering my work for free, online. It’s a perfectly valid position to state that copyright’s intended purpose, which is to promote the progress of science and the arts via offering a limited monopoly on works created by the author, is not forwarded by the somewhat nonsensical and certainly labyrinthine set of policies and rules that we have in place. I certainly don’t need a [cite](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=301389) or a [link](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1407577) to a [paper with empirical evidence](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1410824) or anything like that to point out that the idea of copyright depends on the reality of an economic solution to the ill-defined value problem of works that would be copyrightable. Combine that with the corporatization of the vast majority of market-viable intellectual property and the large number of works produced with no expectation of profit, as well as the lowest common denominator effect of mass media, and it seems a no-brainer that our system might not being doing the job we intended. Finally, the obvious lack of understanding of copyright law by the masses, and even by those who would purport to rely upon it to protect their ability to support themselves while producing important or even essential works for public consumption, when taken alongside the rather large cost of using the legal system to rectify disputes over the interpretation of copyright statutes, provides more than enough evidence that the current system may indeed be unworkable or at the very least, be failing to achieve progress toward the goals required by its purpose. The irony of your post is that I do indeed provide a not-insignificant portion of my professional output for free, and that many of my colleagues do as well, even though our ability to provide services is hampered by high costs and a lengthy education process, as compared to a the entry cost for writing professionally, which is about the cost of a Big Chief tablet, a pencil, and some envelopes and stamps. You may find these items at your local five and dime, I’m sure. So to summarize my argument, the stance of abolishing copyright law is not nonsensical, and is anyway a policy argument rather than a straightforward interpretation of current law, and thus you are comparing apples to oranges in a _most_ inappropriate manner, as well as falling back upon the “no you” style of argument, which is, shall we say, less than persuasive. Thank you for your time and attention. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/98 "2010-09-11T00:24:16Z")
I’d certainly like a link to my web site from **envirocr** ’s site, which links to, and even provides a feed from a site that competes with mine, along with many other urban planning-related Web sites. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/99 "2010-09-11T00:37:11Z")
ivn888, what part of being in GQ do you not understand? ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837/100 "2010-09-11T00:40:21Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > ivn888, what part of being in GQ do you not understand? I was asked a question; I responded with a cite. If you feel that the thread should be moved or that my posts are inappropriate, feel free to use the report button to contact the staff with your concerns. ETA: > [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > Relax. Since there are apparently unexplored aspects of the issue and continuing interest, I’ll leave the thread open. This clearly indicates that discussion of issues related to copyright are perfectly acceptable. Obviously there is continued interest in discussing the efficacy of current copyright law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-city-is-shown-in-this-photograph/533837.md?page=6)