Before You Begin Coding..You Should...?

In article <d0ego3p93mhakf5h1mmbk755cnfmv6edrb (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
Jeff North <jnorthau (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

dorayme (Punch)
Jeff North (Judy)
Punch
Judy
Punch
Judy
Punch
Judy
Punch
Judy
Punch
Punch
Judy

| You snipped it again. (Punch)

No I didn't. Stop being dishonest. {Judy)

There you again. It must be a nightmare being you, thinking the

worst of everyone, seeing moral faults left right and centre.

You snipped my words. You should never snip my words. My words
have come a long way and I don't put them together like normal
human beings. Normal earthlings have a stock of words and letter
types from which they can generate an almost infinite supply of
instances. In other words, words for earthlings can be very cheap
and your practice is a perfect illustration of this. I, on the
other hand, came to this planet with a finite (but not
insubstantial) supply of them. Please snip my words with great
care, they are gone forever. Snipping me is a sort of murder. It
is a crime. If you ever visit Mars, you *will* be arrested and
charged.

| Who can judge now how little your
| conclusion follows from my words? (Punch)
|
| You seem quite unable to see things in context. It is almost
| never ok to "just put" something in your pocket and "walk out of
| a store".

What do you mean "almost never ok". Is one form of shoplifting ok
while another form isn't? (Judy).

It is quite a breathtaking sight to see a man who imagines every
kind of moral fault with others being so unimaginative in every
other respect. Some shops in Sydney, occasionally, like to throw
stuff out and have trestle tables full of stuff, usually old
goods. They invite the public to take whatever items they fancy.
Here is a situation where it is ok. Your idiotic "Is one form of
shoplifting ok while another form isn't?" shows you cannot even
conceive of any relaxation of copyright or normal commercial
demands in otherwise commercial settings. It is a perfect
accompaniment to your vicious fundamentalist holier than thou
attitude.

| It is very often quite ok to grab a pic from a website
| and stick it on your desktop. I do it on a daily basis with my
| own pictures and my own webpages as a lazy way to avoid going
| through my file system.

With your own IP you are free to do with it as you like. Other
people's IP is a completely different story.

| I know it appears mean to say this but you have insulted me and
| when this happens, I relax all the rules.
|
| You, Jeff North, appear to have an arrested moral development.

Oh I see, I have "an arrested moral development" because I asked
permission to use an image, from a web page. Where as you would just
take it.

Now who looks to be dishonest? But perhaps you are not really.
There is another more benign theory: namely that you have an
arrested moral development because you cannot distinguish the
context within which it is sometimes ok to download and use
something and sometimes not.

--
dorayme

On 12 Jan, 10:55, Jeff North <jnort... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Thanks. I finally found a site which left the copyright notice intact.http://blog.labnotes.org/2006/06/27/...rn-web-design/

So you think that stealing content is OK, provided that you label te
stolen content as "This was the copyright of someone else, until I
stole it" ?

Ben C wrote:

Unless a website specifically asks you not to do particular things then
it's perfectly OK to save an image and put it on your desktop.

Possession is 9/10 of the law? Hmmm...

It's like a pie shop trying
to charge passers-by for smelling the pies.

The way I see it, you're allowed--encouraged even--to smell the pies
while you're in front of the pie shop. I think what you've done, though,
is walked away with a bite of it. Sounds like stealing to me.

And this is getting pretty off-topic for this group, dontcha think?

--
Berg

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:43:27 -0800 (PST), in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Andy Dingley
<dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com>
<2c44f87b-ede6-4dec-accf-f6d747897ed1 (AT) z17g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com>
wrote:

| On 12 Jan, 10:55, Jeff North <jnort... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:
|
| > Thanks. I finally found a site which left the copyright notice intact.http://blog.labnotes.org/2006/06/27/...rn-web-design/
|
| So you think that stealing content is OK, provided that you label te
| stolen content as "This was the copyright of someone else, until I
| stole it" ?

No. I can now write to the author of the image and ask permission.
If I can't get a response from the author I will probably NOT use the
image as I would like it for a classroom presentation (not for my
desktop).
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau (AT) yourpantsyahoo (DOT) com.au : Remove your pants to reply
-- -------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:04:14 -0600, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Bergamot
<bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com>
<5uskq5F1i95puU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net> wrote:

[snip]

| And this is getting pretty off-topic for this group, dontcha think?

Maybe/maybe not. Copyright should be a concern for all web developers.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau (AT) yourpantsyahoo (DOT) com.au : Remove your pants to reply
-- -------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5uskq5F1i95puU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net>,
Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Ben C wrote:

Unless a website specifically asks you not to do particular things then
it's perfectly OK to save an image and put it on your desktop.

Possession is 9/10 of the law? Hmmm...

He said putting it on your desktop, not grabbing it and selling
it or using it to become an overnight multibillionaire. I think a
bit more hmmming is needed.

Best not to archive or save a webpage for offline either, and it
is probably unsafe to open an image in a new tab, that is getting
awfully close to desktoping it[*]. And be careful of arranging
the normal web page in any way that loses the context of the
picture. And do not take any motivation or type of use into
account, even desktoping for personal observation and remembrance
could land you in trouble with the tut tut brigade.

On the web, possession is a 10/10th licence to do many things
that would be classified as fair use. This does not mean any use
whatsoever.

It's like a pie shop trying
to charge passers-by for smelling the pies.

The way I see it, you're allowed--encouraged even--to smell the pies
while you're in front of the pie shop. I think what you've done, though,
is walked away with a bite of it. Sounds like stealing to me.

To put a pic from a webpage on the desktop is stealing? Christ
almighty! Save us Dear Lord from these rigid moralists who never
think past their own noses.

Talking of noses, if one did smell a nice pie smell when passing
a pie shop and bottled it for private enjoyment and utility in a
strict diet regime when home, I would like to see a wig and gown
as the pie shop's legal team trying to get a quid off the hapless
non-customer.

There was a marvellous BBC TV production that featured an
unsuccessful outraged wigged gent putting up the moralist's case:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/...rley-affair.sh
tml>

---------------
[*] Reminds me of http://preview.tinyurl.com/35wkx7

--
dorayme

Jeff North wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:04:14 -0600, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Bergamot
bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com
5uskq5F1i95puU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net> wrote:

| And this is getting pretty off-topic for this group, dontcha think?

Maybe/maybe not. Copyright should be a concern for all web developers.

Perhaps, but what does it have to do with stylesheets?

--
Berg

On 21 déc 2007, 19:57, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

As for getting the image (permission is
different issue), you just right click and save it to disk.

The image at
http://www.vilain.com/web-design.html
originally comes from
Alan Foreman from poisonedminds.com
and was named web-breakdown.png
and it had an attribution of such and a copyright notice attached,
written on it.

In all fairness, this should ... err... must be said in broad
daylight.

Regards, Gérard

In article
<dce54df5-89a5-4a81-86c7-8eb4aa1f347f (AT) v29g2000hsf (DOT) googlegroups.co
m>,
GTalbot <newsgroup (AT) gtalbot (DOT) org> wrote:

On 21 déc 2007, 19:57, dorayme <doraymeRidT... (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:


As for getting the image (permission is
different issue), you just right click and save it to disk.

The image at
http://www.vilain.com/web-design.html
originally comes from
Alan Foreman from poisonedminds.com
and was named web-breakdown.png
and it had an attribution of such and a copyright notice attached,
written on it.

In all fairness, this should ... err... must be said in broad
daylight.

Regards, Gérard

Well, because you have mentioned this, I have just reread the
thread to see if I might have been too cavalier.

Perhaps I was - given the absurd world in which I live.

It simply did not occur to me that anyone would feel precious
about this particular pictorial joke. Any more than any verbal
joke. Jokes are bandied about and god help us all when one is
required by the moral brigade to always remember who first made a
joke or to respect it if someone gets all precious about it.

I live in a world with people with absurdly serious and precious
attitudes to silly and trivial things while yet they are cavalier
about the most serious things one can imagine. The same people
who want to get all possessive about the silliest things are
often quite happy to support social policies that cause untold
suffering to others.

It is simply ridiculous in my eyes for Alan Foreman to be
bothered in the slightest way with what anyone does with his
pictorial joke - if he was? Perhaps the notice was something
formal in that original website, dictated by others?

But if it is what he feels and there are laws about it, so be it.
It does not mean his feelings are good feelings, wholesome
feelings, or that the law is good on such things.

You know something, Gerard? That picture does not seem so amusing
to me any more after your information. It makes me feel a bit
sick.

--
dorayme

On 2008-01-14, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
dce54df5-89a5-4a81-86c7-8eb4aa1f347f...ooglegroups.co
m>,
[...]
The image at
http://www.vilain.com/web-design.html
originally comes from
Alan Foreman from poisonedminds.com
and was named web-breakdown.png
and it had an attribution of such and a copyright notice attached,
written on it.

In all fairness, this should ... err... must be said in broad
daylight.

Regards, Gérard

Well, because you have mentioned this, I have just reread the
thread to see if I might have been too cavalier.

Perhaps I was - given the absurd world in which I live.

It simply did not occur to me that anyone would feel precious
about this particular pictorial joke. Any more than any verbal
joke. Jokes are bandied about and god help us all when one is
required by the moral brigade to always remember who first made a
joke or to respect it if someone gets all precious about it.

For something like that I might attribute it if I could remember whose
it was. Otherwise I might say "someone came up with this". Or nothing.
But I wouldn't actually pass it off as my own work.

A verbal joke on the other hand I would just re-use or adapt without
crediting it. Jokes just wouldn't be funny if you had to keep crediting
them to people. Professional comedians steal each others jokes all the
time. It's just the way it works.

The same goes largely for philosophical ideas as well. Some very
academic books try to credit everything all the time but it makes them
so turgid as to be practically unreadable. You also often find the
author is so hamstrung by angst about misattributing things that he's
unable to say much at all.

Ideas were always meant to be shared freely, that's how they develop.
Claiming credit or charging money for work you didn't do on the other
hand is obviously unfair, and that's what intellectual property laws are
there for.

There will always be grey areas where you need to get legal advice or
err on the side of caution (although saving a picture from the web and
putting it on your desktop is not one of them).