Posted by Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes on December 24, 2000 at 12:53:05: In Reply to: Re: Martin's pages posted by Savant on December 23, 2000 at 19:40:51:
If you have been on the net for 20 years as you said, you should
know that the netiquette is defined in RFC 1855. I cannot find
anything there about asking before downloading whole sites. That
doesn't mean I think it's good to download high amounts of data
just for fun.
: We could have a spitting match over experience, yes I was programming
: computers on punch cards before monitors were invented, and I have been
: on the net for nearly two decades, but that is beside the point.
The Internet wasn't available two decades ago in Germany, so I
had no chance, sorry.
: The fact is there are people (like myself) that DO consider it BAD
: NETIQUETTE to copy an entire site without permission. If you disagree,
: that's fine, it doesn't change the facts.
As I said, whether you consider it bad netiquette is irrelevant,
as the netiquette is defined exactly in RFC 1855. If you don't want
your site to be downloaded in it's entire, write a paragraph about it
on your site. But don't expect people to consider it bad to do that
if you don't have such a paragraph.
: It's also bad netiquette to type ALL IN CAPS.
That's right. It's written on page four of RFC 1855
: : Copying the intire site is not as bad as it seems to be. As I
: : would watch anything anyway, it's better to download the whole
: : thing once than to watch it today once and tomorrow again.
: : 400+ MB surely wouldn't fit into the browser cache.
: If a person pays by bandwidth/traffic limit, can you
: imagine if everyone downloaded the entire site and they
: were not even LOOKING at most of the material? He would
: have to pay a LOT of money for something that is not
: being used. I don't think that is right.
We are not talking about 'everyone'. We are talking about
me. And *I* watched each video, each page, each picture
on it. Is it now OK for you that I downloaded it?
: The internet is not 'free'.
When I speak of a free Internet, I am referring to
freedom, not price. Besides, I never said the Internet
wouldn't cost anything.
: Everything you do costs
: MONEY to someone. If you don't care or respect that,
: fine. However, in MY opinion, to download a site just
: so you can 'have it' is rude if you do not ask first.
I am also paying for my traffic.
: If you want to save files that you are LOOKING at,
As I already said I *was* looking at all files on the site.
: that's fine, but for LARGE sites, netiquette states
No, it doesn't state that, as I said. Probably in your
opinion it *should* state it, but it doesn't, sorry. Go
to www.rfc-editor.org and ask whether you can
an update of RFC 1855.
: you should ASK before you take a copy of the
: site. If you disagree, that's ok, but it doesn't
: change the facts.
Your facts are wrong. No paragraph about downloading
private copies in the netiquette. Further there was no
paragraph about it on martin's page.
: : IMHO that is Internet abuse by the movie/music companies.
: : Private backup copies are legal anyway, at least in Germany, period.
: [...]
: I say if should be the law of country for the
: person POSTING the information, not the person
: downloading it.
I say it depends on the case. It always depends on the
situation. You should be intelligent enough to know that.
: If you connect to a server in
: THAT country, you should abide by that country's
: law. Period.
You forgot that the person posting, the person downloading
and the person owning the server can all THREE be from
differnt countries.
It's a senseless discussion anyway, as private copies
are legal in America and most other countries, too.
: : BTW, I generally don't 'just download', I try to
: : find out first whether the ISP the site is hosted at has a
: : traffic flat rate or not. But to ask anybody to download his
: : site is unacceptable.
: Well there are many people that disagree, but that
: is up to you. There is no 'law' that says you can't
: do it. The basic rule is, "download ONLY what you
: will use."
That's what I did. I used anything. And besides,
archiving is an use, too.
: There is no 'law' that says you can't hotlink to
: images on someone else's server, but it is bad
: netiquette.
It is neither good nor bad netiquette, it depends on the
situation.
: That is also why many sites have a robot.txt file,
: so search engines will only index the pages that the
: site owner wants to have indexed. Of course the search
: engine could IGNORE it, but that is also bad netiquette.
My downloading tool respects it.
BTW, to ignore robot.txt is not bad netiquette, it's
only a technical violation of some standards paper.
: All of the above examples are WELL KNOWN, and involve
: inappropriate use of bandwidth without permission.
: Downloading an entire site without permission is no
: different.
It is different. Inappropriate use of bandwidth without
permission can only be done by the one who *posted*
the material, because he is responsible for his
bandwidth. If you don't want a certain bandwith to
be surmounted, you can always make use of technical
measures.
: : If you don't want your page to be downloaded,
: : just don't publish it on the Internet.
: A person could also say, if you don't want your
: music stolen in MP3 form, then don't publish it. That
: doesn't make the theft any more legitimate.
You are wrong again. This is something completely
different. I didn't make copies that I gave to other
people.
The right comparison would be: "If you don't want you
music to be LISTENDED TO, then don't publish it."
It sounds right, doesn't it?
The discussion is quite off-topic now. If you answer,
let's use mail from now on, OK?