Posted by Savant on December 24, 2000 at 18:51:34: In Reply to: Re: Martin's pages posted by Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes on December 24, 2000 at 12:53:05:
For those who don't know what RFC means, it is "Request For Comments" (or also known as "Request For Consideration" in some languages when translated.) A English/German copy of RFC1855 can be found here and the original document (in English) can be found RFC1855 was finalized in October of 1995, and it was ORIGINALLY designed to deal with EMAIL and NEWSGROUP postings only. The section on 'Information Services' is tiny by comparison to the rest of the document. Also note the status of RFC1855 is listed as "INFORMATIONAL" and NOT as "PROPOSED STANDARD." It should also be noted that ANYONE can propose an RFC. If having this as an RFC means so much to you, I could submit a draft, and in 3 months time it could become an INFORMATIONAL RFC. However, the bottom line is that there is no STANDARD for netiquette, it is an evolving issue. I just want to be clear, I'm not suggesting you are doing anything inappropriate with the data. This is not about 'copyright violation', this is about BANDWIDTH and RESPECT. Downloading an entire site if you are NOT going to look at ALL the pages and ALL the images & other data is a WASTE of bandwidth. That bandwidth is costing someone MONEY, plain and simple. Let me explain it in simple terms. As I'm sure you are aware, most web sites place a monthly limit on how much bandwidth they can use. When the person goes OVER that limit, they have to pay a surcharge. If people like you and other people go around downloading entire sites when you don't use them (archival is not a 'use') then you are wasting bandwidth and costing them money for something you have never even LOOKED at. I don't know of ONE SINGLE PERSON who designed a web site that they WANTED to be downloaded in its entirety. Everyone who makes a web site makes it so people will READ it, and if a person wants to save a few pages/images they like, then that's OK. If a person wanted their site downloaded, they would put the files into a ZIP and post it on a FTP site. Doesn't that make sense? >: There is no 'law' that says you can't hotlink to You don't know how wrong you are! There are entire WEB-RINGS devoted to the elimination of unauthorized hotlinking. ZDnet has a good Web Guard site, hotlinking "is rude and most always harmful behavior, as many ISPs (internet service providers) charge their customers for something called 'bandwidth'." This also relates Intellectual Property Rights. I belong to a group that believes ALL material on the internet has an inherent copyright to the author, and regardless of the fact it is posted in public, it does NOT make that material 'public domain." Just because you can access it in public does NOT mean you can do whatever you like with it, UNLESS the author EXPLICITLY permits it in writing. It seems that every day that passes more and more people have less and less concern for 'manners'. However with the advent of the World Intellectual Property Organization (of which Germany _IS_ a member, along with 175 other countries) people now have a recourse to protect their intellectual property without the concern of differing laws in different countries. No longer can a person say 'well I can do whatever I like with this in MY country" if their country is a member of WIPO. Although the online protection of intellectual property is still being developed, the fact that WIPO can now order the change of ownership for domain names that violate another person's rights is promising. I'm not looking for you to stop what you are doing, I'm just looking for you to show a little respect for other people and ask before you entirely download a large site that may have taken a person MONTHS of hard work to create. I don't think that's too much to ask. Regards, Savant (BTW: I make a habit of replying to people in the manner they present themselves. So if you post in public, I'll reply in public. If you post in private, I'll respond in private etc..)
>: images on someone else's server, but it is bad
>: netiquette.
>
>It is neither good nor bad netiquette, it depends on the
>situation.