Posted by Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes on December 25, 2000 at 06:39:23: In Reply to: Re: Martin's pages posted by Savant on December 24, 2000 at 18:52:31:
when I was talking about RFC1855, I didn't want to make it
a holy grail, but I wanted to show you that you shouldn't
just write "It's netiquette" when it isn't. Write something
like "Some people consider it bad behaviour", but don't
generalize it in that way. Or some day people might begin
to actually believe what you write.
And I can just repeat again that I didn't download anything
I wasn't using. I watched each video, page and picture
I downloaded, yes.
There is hardly evidence for your arguments. You write about
ZDNET and "entire web rings" to be against hotlinking. OK,
but who says there aren't other people who recognize it *good*
to do hotlinking? If everyone'd consider hotlinking to be bad,
noone would do it and we'd have no problems! However I belong
to neither side, IMHO it is neither good nor bad behaviour,
it depends on the situation. Yes, all I can do is to repeat it.
You write "I belong to a group that believes ALL material on
the internet has an inherent copyright to the author". Believe what
you want, but you are 100% wrong. I can give you the evidence
that there is in fact a lot of public domain on the Internet. For
example the mysql client of older versions is public domain (quote
from mysql.h: "Copyright Abandoned 1996 TCX DataKonsult AB & Monty
Program KB & Detron HB This file is public domain and comes
with NO WARRANTY of any kind". And there are a lot of other
people who drop their copyright. It is legitimate to publish
something as public domain.
You write "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." -- LINUX and it's operating
system GNU are based on the GPL which permits you to do everything
except to deny anyone to do everything with the content. This license
is very popular. IMO you can't just say that proprietary licenses are
the one and only.
All I can say about this senseless discussion is that you have
misunderstood the spirit of the Internet. I can hardly imagine
that you have been on the net for 20 years. All your arguments,
might they be right or wrong, will not change my opinion. My
opinion is based on a very long experience. I am not the stupid
newbie; I know exactly what I am doing, I know the backgrounds of
the Internet, I have been working on many major projects that
made the Internet what it is today (eggdrop, fetchmail, etc.).
The problems of traffic and bandwidth are well known to me.
: 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?
No, it doesn't. http was designed for ease of use, not to deny people
the right to download something.
: 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.
Now you show your true face. I think I don't need to comment
this.
: 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.
Now I understand why you are against it. Freedom seems to scare
you. For example the freedom to download an entire page. Control
is what you need. I hope the Internet never becomes what you want
it to be. EOT.