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.
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.
Relax. Since there are apparently unexplored aspects of the issue and continuing interest, I’ll leave the thread open.
I stand corrected.
This thread illustrates why we should abolish copyright entirely.
No, it really doesn’t.
That’s just as ridiculous a claim as envirocr’s.
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 website. Mr. Wolfe’s website 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 taken in 1917.)
Prove it. With a cite.
I asked a friend who from Malta and whose brother still lives there said that this:
Malta. No doubt. I recognized it instantly. Not too many places are as monochromatic. Very nice part of the city too.
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.
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.
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
Warning: There’s at least one link on that page that will lead to a gigantic gaping anus. Otherwise it’s SFW
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.
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 or a link to a paper with empirical evidence 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.
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.
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:
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.