## Re: Martin's pages

[ Follow-Ups ] [ Post Follow-up ] [ Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]

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:

: : It is absolutely NOT considered bad netiquette to copy entire
: : sites.
: This is in YOUR own opinion, you do not speak for everyone. Many
: netiquette sites will mention it. Whether you agree is irrelevant.

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?

Follow-up Messages:

- Re: Martin's pages Savant 18:52:31 12/24/2000 (3)
  - Re: Martin's pages Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes 06:39:23 12/25/2000 (2)
    - Re: Martin's pages Savant 09:51:30 12/25/2000 (1)
      - Re: Martin's pages Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes 12:20:14 12/25/2000 (0)
- Re: Martin's pages Savant 18:51:34 12/24/2000 (0)

Post a Follow-up Message

    Name:

    E-Mail:

    Subject:
    Comments:

    : : : It is absolutely NOT considered bad netiquette to copy entire
    : : : sites.
    : : This is in YOUR own opinion, you do not speak for everyone.  Many
    : : netiquette sites will mention it.  Whether you agree is irrelevant.

    : 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 <EM>abuse</EM> 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?

    Optional Link URL:

    Link Title:

    Optional Image URL:

[ Follow-Ups ] [ Post Follow-up ] [ Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]