Except, to nitpick, wouldn't calling it "theft" be a little misleading?
I thought (and I may well be wrong) that copyright infringement was a civil claim. So these "thieves" are not stealing anything as much as infringing rights.
And this renders the law pretty much useless for punters whose work is taken and used without any eventual profit to the taker - the only remedies allowed by s 115(2) of the act are damages or an account of profits. If you don't lose money by someone pinching your kitten photo, and if they don't gain any from publishing it, what damage is there for you to claim?
Yet another case of defending your rights being more expensive than allowing them to be violated. And when this is the case, then the law isn't much use at all.
Well, the music and movie industries get away with calling infringement "theft"... it's "theft" in the same way that copying a DVD is "theft".
And true, it would require a certain bloody-mindedness to pursue it. But there are other damages which can be obtained (punitive, for example).
Even if damages weren't awarded, you should be able to get costs (which would be expensive for the infringer), and to obtain an order from the court that the infringer cease infringing your copyright. Once that order was in place, then serious penalties for breaching it would apply.
Someone is stealing pictures of your cat? Maybe they should just buy themself a cat.
What about using information in a blog post? Sometimes I don't use the whole article just bits and pieces.
I do try to credit photographs though or other blogs that I might quote.
Using bits and pieces is fine - that's what the fair use provisions are about. It's reproducing whole slabs of text, particularly when they're not actually necessary for the "criticism or review", that's not protected.
Just hypothetically, if "the copyright in the image automatically belongs to the person who created it", wouldn't the copyright of a picture of, say, YOU, reside with the photographer?
Unless, of course, you were both photographer and subject ...
Please don't feed the troll!
One option you may be interested in is licensing your photos with Creative Commons - this doesn't replace copyright, but it tells people how they can use the photos (or other works) without requiring personal communication with you.
For example, my photos on flickr are licensed under CC for use in Non-Commercial works, where I am given attribution. If my photos are changed in some shape or form, the new work must also be licensed under Creative Commons.
Of course, if you'd like no one to use them under any circumstances, Creative Commons isn't for you.
Don't bring 'em down, make 'em pay. Send them a royalties claim, set your own fee. (Hey, they should have checked your rates before using your material.)
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr Lefty.
Property is theft. Didn't you know that? Sometimes you're not a very good leftist. Or at least, not a very consistent one.
Stop creating straw leftists, TimT!
What if I posted a picture of your pussy on my site, but linked it back your original post?
Troll Tim - obviously, the copyright in the photograph resides with the person who took it, yes. If I use a tripod to take a photograph of myself, it resides with me. If my friend takes the photograph, it resides with him - or me, if he transfers it to me.
And my friend or I are quite entitled to refuse permission to republish it.
I had a sports article, that had been paid for in full, lifted lock stock and barrel by a rival site. The funny thing is, the bloke who nicked it had a big sign on his site saying "Copyright, please don't steal our stuff"
I think I used the phrase "thieving hypocritical cunt" in an email to the plageriser.
It worked, my article was off his site three hours later.
Well I'd just like to know what say the cat has in all of this. This picture was clearly taken in a private area (a fenced backyard?) where said kitten was happily frolicking, torturing native wildlife, licking nether regions, and other activities of a strictly personal nature, oblivious to the sleazy paparazzi lurking in the bushes.
It is our contention, m'lud, that in the absence of any signed release or evidence of verbal consent from the kitten, that the photo reproduced on this site represents a clear breach of S113A(b)and attendant regulationsof the Busybodies, Stickybeaks and Nitpickers Act (1995).
That pussy bears a striking resemblance to "Ceiling Cat"
So, if I were to take a glance around your site, I would see only photographs taken by you?
You have no photos or images anywhere on this site taken by, and property of, others?
Hmm?
Lefty, seriously, why would I want the pic of your cat. It's an ugly looking thing anyway. Give it to the local Chinese restuarant. It would be more useful.
So I presume you will be removing these stolen pictures of Andrew Bolt?
http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.c...-
boltwatch.html
And this stolen picture of Kerry Packer?
http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.c...lost-
kerry.html
Or these stolen pictures of Melbourne quadriplegic Dean Tabone?
http://anonymouslefty.blogspot.c...ning-
again.html
And I assume you will be changing your pic on your blog profile from this stolen image of actor Rowan Atkinson in his 'Blackadder' series?
http://www.blogger.com/profile/5940871
Thanks for the cat picture! I'm going to use it whenever and whereever I see fit.
By posting it on your blog, you've placed it in the public domain and forfeitted any right to copyright protection. "Lawyer", eh?
You've been blaired again, lefty.
Im with peter, don't call it theft because mixing civil penalties with criminal law has been a deliberate tactic of the content providing industries over the past decade or so.
And you forgot to mention the real forumla for working out how long copyright protection lasts:
Length of protection = lifetime of creator + [Current year - 1966*]
1966 being Walt Disney's final year on earth. The after death protection period used to be much shorter, but it's tracked this formula ever since then.
Australia is a bit behind in this regard, though, we're still on 50 years (which just covers him) while the US congress got ahead of themselves and gave disney an extra 20 years in the late 90s. I'm sure we'll match the 70 year protection period soon enough, though.
You want people to see the photos, don't you?
Request that people give you credit for the photo.
Too simple for a lefty, I suppose. By the way, I think you're an idiot.
Banned for attempting to name other posters.
Edited By Siteowner
So I presume you will be removing these stolen pictures of Andrew Bolt?
etc
"Stolen"? I'm only linking to the copies on the Hun site. I'm not publishing my own copies, and, furthermore, the Hun hasn't made any requests regarding them.
Woeful try.
By posting it on your blog, you've placed it in the public domain and forfeitted any right to copyright protection. "Lawyer", eh?
Utter rubbish.
Australia is a bit behind in this regard, though, we're still on 50 years (which just covers him) while the US congress got ahead of themselves and gave disney an extra 20 years in the late 90s. I'm sure we'll match the 70 year protection period soon enough, though.
Actually, Jeremy, we have matched the 70 year period. See the present version of the Copyright Act, linked to in my post.
You want people to see the photos, don't you?
Request that people give you credit for the photo.
They can see it here, or they can ask me permission. If I refuse it, or if I contact them and ask them to remove it, they can take it down.
ps personal abuse? Banned, thgrant.
What a hypocrite. You talk about having copy right of a photo, yet you show a pic of Rowan Atkinson as Black Adder!
Deleted and banned. More personal abuse from the Blairite trolls.
Edited By Siteowner
I think maybe some folks are getting this wrong - look at the clarifier top right of the page:
"Must I Clarify?
If a post here is not political argument or commentary, it's probably ironic. Don't take it too seriously."
This copyright stuff is obviously irony. Don’t take it too seriously.
You talk about having copy right of a photo, yet you show a pic of Rowan Atkinson as Black Adder!
And if the BBC objected and asked me to remove it, I would.
I think it's unlikely that they'd be concerned, however.
ps Hello, Blairite bat-wing monkeys! Please feel free to rack off again. Your mighty Blairite master might be having a slow weekend, but presumably he'll move onto actual news shortly.
pps "JABL" - ha, ha. Look, the wing-nuts think you know what you're talking about! Good for you, "son".
You're having a lend. It's a cute cat, but why would anyone want to use your photo?
Edited By Siteowner. Easy way to get banned? - personal abuse AND an attempt to identify me, in one comment!
Back in young times, I made the error of linking ineptly to an image hosted by lefty blogger Rob Corr. By "ineptly", I mean I did so in a fashion that ate into his bandwidth.
Stupid me. Rob helpfully explained the technicalities of bandwidth theft, and the mistake was never repeated.
So what's your excuse for stealing bandwidth from News Ltd and a resource guide to the handicapped? And Fairfax? And a bunch of other sites?
He doesn't know yet. He's writing the writ now... against the internet. He's going to sue the interet.
So what's your excuse for stealing bandwidth from News Ltd and a resource guide to the handicapped?
Isn't that the same thing?
That's actually funny, Bridget. Respect.
Personal Abuse. Banned.
Edited By Siteowner
I suggest that nobody drawing breath would care when or where Mr Lefty's cat pics are reproduced - and I doubt Mr Lefty would ordinarily care much himself. But in this context, his protestations about image copyright were made to someone who has waged a personally-motivated campaign at Mr Lefty for the past four months. Iain Hall's vendetta has involved constant posting and repitition of Mr Lefty's real name on a variety of blogs - for no good reason; re-posting of the content of Mr Lefty's blogs - for no good reason; and the location and publication of pictures of Mr Lefty - again for no good reason. Even the most fervert Blairites have noted Hall's bizarre fascination and told him to get a life (refer to the comments at http://timblair.net/ee/index.php...ntified_lefty/)
So, Tim Blair - who either reads Iain Hall's incoherent and vindictive blog or was fed this non-story by Hall himself - has made much of Mr Lefty's angry demand, without acknowledging that it was made in response to a sustained and ongoing vendetta by someone of questionable motives and/or rationality. A good journalist would include the background - then again, Blair's post was not journalist but simply a garden-variety troll. Either way, it makes him and his coven apologists for Hall's antics which are, at best, weird or, at worst, tantamount to harrasment.
Funny that you would have an (apparently?) serious post about copyright infringement as it relates to personal snapshots of your cat and the legal ramifications thereof - while simultaneously hotlinking to multiple photos. Hotlinking, besides being in terribly bad form, actually IS theft. When you hotlink an image on your site, it shows up there, but you use someone else's money to pay for the bandwidth.
And when you say "I don't think the BBC will care" - you're really saying "I don't think the BBC will notice".
And not only that, but the time on the clock on your site is HOPELESSLY wrong.
I always suspected lefties didn't know what time it is, but now I have PROOF
Hotlinking, besides being in terribly bad form, actually IS theft.
REALLY, now.
Hotlinking isn't "theft". It can be a problem in a commercial context - but in that situation, it's very easy for the original owner to take steps to stop the use of his/her images. Somehow, I don't think any of my hotlinking bothered the persons concerned in the slightest.
I'd certainly prefer someone hotlinked to an image of mine - in which case I retain control - than stole it and saved it on their site as if it were theirs.
Hotlinking is a fundamental part of blogging, and it's not a problem, so long as it's done in good faith. We all do it. It is clearly distinguishable from someone maliciously taking personal photographs and using them as part of a campaign of harassment.
The fact of the matter is that if someone wanted to reproduce my photos, then, as long as they credited me (and at least hotlinking makes it clear who the original owner is), I wouldn't usually mind. On this occasion, I minded the person in question stealing them because I didn't wish them to appear on his vicious little hate site.
Personal Abuse. Banned.
Edited By Siteowner
Hey look I just banned myself by using the copy and paste thingie.
Does that mean I infringed copyright too?
:-P
This is fun.
-- Nora
No, it just makes you look silly. And bored.
How come some people get "Banned for attempting to name other posters", but Bridgit Greed remains unbanned even after she names Iain Hall and Tim Blair?
Are there different rules depending on who you name?
I am a complete fool who can only write personal abuse. Sadly, I have now been banned.
Edited By Siteowner
Mr lefty says
Hotlinking isn't "theft". It can be a problem in a commercial context - but in that situation, it's very easy for the original owner to take steps to stop the use of his/her images. Somehow, I don't think any of my hotlinking bothered the persons concerned in the slightest.
I says
well actually it is. You certainly have a professional responsibility, more so than us plebs to see the law is upheld.
Not only do you thieve other people's bandwidth, you call into question others doing so making it also a moral question. You obviously see the errors of their ways but you are unprepared to accept your own.
You consider it serious that other people steal bandwidth, but you excuse yourself.
This is really band form.
How come some people get "Banned for attempting to name other posters", but Bridgit Greed remains unbanned even after she names Iain Hall and Tim Blair?
Are there different rules depending on who you name?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Iain Hall and Tim Blair both post and comment under their real names. Duh.
Not only do you thieve other people's bandwidth, you call into question others doing so making it also a moral question. You obviously see the errors of their ways but you are unprepared to accept your own.
THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME AS "HOTLINKING". I don't have some "professional responsibility" to uphold your made-up laws.
You consider it serious that other people steal bandwidth...
I said that where?
Mr. Lefty
Who owns the bandwidth?
Mr Leftys says:
"It can be a problem in a commercial context - but in that situation, it's very easy for the original owner to take steps to stop the use of his/her images. "
What do you actually mean by the word "problem". Aren't you actually inferring legal problems here, Mr. Lefty, in regards to onwership?
You may also want to explain why certain "strongly worded" statements were taken out at Boltwatch?
You're right Mr Lefty, I was bored.
Kisses,
-- Nora
Christ, settle down, "Mr Righty". One comment at a time, eh?
What do you actually mean by the word "problem". Aren't you actually inferring legal problems here, Mr. Lefty, in regards to onwership?
No.
You may also want to explain why certain "strongly worded" statements were taken out at Boltwatch?
What are you talking about?
Explain "no".
You may also want to explain why certain "strongly worded" statements were taken out at Boltwatch?
What are you talking about?
Didn't you take down statements made at Boltwatch after Bolt protested certain accusations? Why did you do that?
lefty: THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME AS "HOTLINKING". I don't have some "professional responsibility" to uphold your made-up laws.
Now I'm no lawyer, and you keep telling us that you are, but if you read the heraldsun copyright, you will notice the following:
4. Users may download and view the material or print a copy of material on this site for personal, non-commercial use provided you do not modify the copy from how it appears on this site (including any copyright notice). All rights not expressly granted under these terms of use are reserved.
YOU are using material from the site that is changed from the original copy, hence violating this clause. It is one thing to provide a link to an image (eg: of Bolt), yet another thing altogether to place an image tag on your site that pulls up the image.
But like I said, I'm no lawyer...
Now I'm no lawyer, and you keep telling us that you are
Well, there's your first mistake, right there.
*I* don't keep telling you anything of the sort. Certain creepy other parties might be claiming such about MrLefty; I'm certainly not.
YOU are using material from the site that is changed from the original copy
No, I'm not - and if there were an issue, it'd be between me and News Ltd, anyway.
Didn't you take down statements made at Boltwatch after Bolt protested certain accusations? Why did you do that?
I don't believe I did anything of the sort. Can you give an example, mate?
(I know Bolt made that claim on his forum, and I asked him what he was talking about - and he never responded! Fancy that.)
Explain "no"
The opposite of "Yes", deary.
Didn't you take down statements made at Boltwatch after Bolt protested certain accusations? Why did you do that?
I don't believe I did anything of the sort. Can you give an example, mate?
(I know Bolt made that claim on his forum, and I asked him what he was talking about - and he never responded! Fancy that.)
I'm sorry... which part of "take the copy, dissect it, remove parts, rearrange, place in different context" is NOT changing the copy?
If I'm hotlinking to a News Ltd image, how am I changing it? Placing a tag linking to it isn't "changing it" any more than I'm "changing it" by loading the News Ltd website on a different computer.
Oh - are you talking about the text I quote? Well, obviously I quote parts of it and not the entire thing. That's what criticism is, as opposed to plagiarism. You're not trying to suggest I can't quote the relevant bits, are you? That's the whole point of section 40-whatever.
Firstly.. I'll address the point you made earlier:
Me: Now I'm no lawyer, and you keep telling us that you are
Lefty: Well, there's your first mistake, right there
*careless reference by blog owner noted*
No doubt if I bothered, I could find many more instances (possibly all old-news since your warning off, I concede)
Next, I'm not accusing you of altering text or images, but you are displaying images (eg: of Bolt) by linking to them in a different context, which I think can be seen as violating the clause I pointed out earlier.
Edited By Siteowner
Didn't you take down statements made at Boltwatch after Bolt protested certain accusations? Why did you do that?
I don't believe I did anything of the sort. Can you give an example, mate?
(I know Bolt made that claim on his forum, and I asked him what he was talking about - and he never responded! Fancy that.)
Well, I can't really prove it now if has been taken down can I?
No, but you'd think Bolt would've been able to prove it, if it were true.
Thanks Duncan for pointing out that reference. I will amend it, promptly. Because this blog is not about what I may or may not do for a living.
" No, but you'd think Bolt would've been able to prove it, if it were true."
Ok! So challenge bolt to prove it by writing to him and asking the question. Then publish the correspondence on your site.
It would be nice to prove it to us, wouldn't it, lefty?
I would have thought this was the biggest story you could get on Bolt- that he falsely accused you of changing articles. Go for it, if it is not true what he says! Go on!
Ok! So challenge bolt to prove it by writing to him and asking the question. Then publish the correspondence on your site.
Um, he made the claim. You made the claim. It's not up to me to prove a negative.
I would have thought this was the biggest story you could get on Bolt- that he falsely accused you of changing articles.
I fear you misunderstand the point of BoltWatch. The point of BoltWatch is to respond to his wacky page in the Hun, because, well, and this is the bizarre thing - some people think what he writes makes sense. So, when the column seems to call for a response, it'll go up on BoltWatch.
Sometimes, when he writes something particularly silly in his forum, we respond to that, too. But it's bad enough dealing with what he puts out there. Why on earth would I be trying to get "big stories" on him?
*shudder*
When he made his wacky allegation, I responded to it at BoltWatch, and asked him what he was talking about. He didn't respond. I think that says all that really needed to be said about his claim.
Hmmm, funny, that - a simple google of hotlinking brings up about 1.2 million sites - many with the words "stealing bandwidth" and "bandwidth theft" in them. The most often cited example to explain bandwidth theft is if your neighbor were to run an extension cord from your electrical outlets into his house. Most of these sites contain opening grafs like:
***
Hotlink protection - prevent bandwidth theft
Bandwidth theft, also known as "hotlinking" is the term used to describe the practice of an unauthorized party linking to content such as images and video on another person's site for display on their own pages. This means that every time the page loads on the site using hotlinking, the legitimate owner of the content pays for the bandwidth.
***
or this:
***
The result of hotlinking is that the offending site is able to present it's [sic] pages without paying for the bandwidth needed to serve up the stolen content. The victim site ends up paying the bandwidth expense for serving up the files without gaining any page views. That is why webmasters will call someone doing this a leech or bandwidth bandit.
Many webmasters would not mind if an image were copied and hosted by another site. Especially, if permission was sought in advance. The objection in the case of hotlinking is to paying bandwidth bills to benefit a leech.
***
Interestingly, many of these websites also describe how the "non-existent" crime of bandwidth theft also frequently results in copyright violations - as people who hotlink rarely ask permission (now where have I encountered that scenario before?).
So it's your view that using someone else's resources, that they pay for, without their permission is not theft?
Of course, if you really want to protect your images, then just use a .htaccess file and be done with it.
mr lefty does not want to prevent people using his cat photo. he just wants us to waste our time talking about how stupid he is. after all, any attention is good attention. i say liberate the cat & give it a good home where it will not be exploited by mr lefty. down with miaouist cat abusers
Shouldn't an "Update" appear at the end of an unchanged blog post? You've removed everything that instigated the discussion, and attempted to make all of the comments irrelevant by toning down your language.
A better heading than "UPDATE" might be "Complete Rewrite".
Just a suggestion, of course.
Would it be OK by you if I hotlinked to your cat pictures? I'm sure you can afford the bandwidth.
The only good view of a cat is through a telescopic sight, just as one squeezes the trigger.
The do taste OK (just like rabbit).
Why people bang on about these feral vermin, reponsible for the total devastation of Australia's small marsupials and ground-nesting birds is beyond me.
Release cat influenza and put a bounty on the survivors. They have to be exterminated in the wild on this continent. If people want dangerous vermin like cats as pets, licence and register them just like firearms, with all of-em desexed except from registered breeders. Minimum cost to own one say a couple of thousand plus a thousand a year in licence fees.
We might just save the last of our small natives by doing this.
MarkL
Canberra
Would it be OK by you if I hotlinked to your cat pictures? I'm sure you can afford the bandwidth.
Thanks for asking. For what purpose, Tim?
ps Wow, MarkL. How charmingly psychotic. (You'll be glad to know that ours is an indoor cat - except when we're outside with her - so she won't be doing anything to native wildlife.)
Mr Lefty,
Jeez, now your rewriting comments: your original comment told Blair he couldn't hotlink. Think before you put stuff up, young fella.
Shouldn't an "Update" appear at the end of an unchanged blog post? You've removed everything that instigated the discussion, and attempted to make all of the comments irrelevant by toning down your language.
I haven't toned it down, I've just removed three paragraphs or so giving a basic rundown in Copyright Law For Dummies. I've removed it because it's not my role to give such advice, and I have very little interest in debating copyright with the armchair "lawyers" over at Blairville.
But look on the bright side - it gives you Blairites a bit more of an opportunity to continue pretending that the post included some sort of "threats", despite this clearly not being the case. See, when people could actually read my original post, it just made those of you making those claims look like utter imbeciles.
But now that it's gone, you can make up all sorts of crazy stuff that you can claim I might originally have said! (And I'm sure you will.)
So why would you remove the stuff if it is going to make the other side look better. Lefty, your excuse is too funny.
I like this site, do you mind if some of us on after the deluge? You have banned so many commenters that is too hilarious for words.
Lefty
get a sense of humor. Some the stuff in the comments section at Blair's site about you is too hilarious words.
tell the truth now.
The very thing you did when you got out of bed after the three hours sleep (tossing and turing all night) was to switch on the comp and check out Blair's site. You looked at the comment countr saw it had up by 40 cemmnets or so and that little heart of yours started to flutter a little.
c'mon. tell me I'm wrong here?
So why would you remove the stuff if it is going to make the other side look better
For the reason I gave (it was a bit dry and boring, and in retrospect I didn't really want to leave it there). Or maybe I just wanted to give you guys a little bit of rope (an opportunity to make even more crazy claims about me) with which to hang yourselves. Hmm.
Some the stuff in the comments section at Blair's site about you is too hilarious words
Most of it is just witlessly spiteful. Which bits did you find "hilarious"?
I did enjoy Iain Hall's tattle-tale email to the BBC, though. What a guy! Is he as much a hero over at Blair-land as he thinks he is?
The very thing you did when you got out of bed after the three hours sleep (tossing and turing all night) was to switch on the comp and check out Blair's site. You looked at the comment countr saw it had up by 40 cemmnets or so and that little heart of yours started to flutter a little.
c'mon. tell me I'm wrong here?
Sorry, mate. I slept perfectly well. When I did eventually get up (it's Sunday, after all), I did indeed check the computer - when one of the larger blogs in the country is directing a swarm of vicious knuckle-draggers to your blog, there's a bit of housekeeping to do after they leave. You know, cleaning up the droppings, that sort of thing.
Not so much a "flutter", then: more a slightly bemused sigh.
But lefty
you seem angry with Ian for runnning a blog about you. I just read the blog and found it tamer than the stuff you write about Bolt.
I just turned on the disengenuous meter and its frothing up bullshit everywhere.
Thanks, Lefty now i have to clean it up before it engulfs the entire house.
fess up - you removed that stuff because it was crap legal argument & made you look extremely silly
I did enjoy Iain Hall's tattle-tale email to the BBC, though. What a guy! Is he as much a hero over at Blair-land as he thinks he is?
Nah, I think Iain is as much an embarrasment to them as he is an annoyance to us. Hall is like a senile church-organist: no matter how discordant or insane he sounds, he'll play wherever he thinks there's an audience. As soon as something is posted here he runs off and re-posts it over there in the hope of luring the bottom-feeders at timblair.net to his site or to yours. As can be seen in this thread, he only succeeds in trawling the dregs out of their hidey-holes - most reasonable Blairites (and there are some) would just laugh at Hall's obsessive crusade.
I just turned on the disengenuous meter and its frothing up bullshit everywhere.
I think you've got the sensor pointed the wrong way, Mr Righty - try facing it away from yourself.
Let me rewrite that for you:
Nah, I think Lefty is as much an embarrasment to them as he is an annoyance to us. Lefty is like a senile church-organist: no matter how discordant or insane he sounds, he'll play wherever he thinks there's an audience. As soon as something is posted on Bolt's site he runs off and re-posts it over there in the hope of luring the bottom-feeders at Everylefty.com to his site. As can be seen, lefty only succeeds in trawling the dregs out of their hidey-holes - most reasonable lefties (and there aren't any) would just laugh at Lefty's obsessive crusade.
Except that that makes no sense, because I don't do anything of the sort.
But then again, you think that that other blog is "tamer" than BoltWatch. You think that there's no difference between a blog with critical responses to the articles published in a major newspaper by a syndicated columnist; and a weirdo chasing a mere blogger around the Internet, spamming blogs to try to reveal that person's identity, and sending out tattle-tale emails at the drop of a hat. ("Mr Bolt! Mr Bolt! MrLefty disagreed with you again!")
So I'm not sure that we can rely on your judgment too much.
Lefty
Whether Bolt is a syndicated columist or not there is no difference that you write critical coments about Bolt and Ian does about you. Because Bolt has a larger audience than you, which obvious infutiates you, does not make a scrap of difference as you are both in the public arena.
If on the other hand, Ian was writing stuff about you that you had said down the pub to a friend- well that would be a differnet story.
As you are both in the public arena, both (you and Bolt) are playing in a different world.
If Ian's wrong, debate him. Don't character assasinate him. Go after him by using logic and argument, which I am sorry to say you have not done at this stage.
So you "i'm only a small blog, have pity on me" doesn't wash. You're not a victim. You're a player and Ian seems to have got the better hand because your playing the man and not the argument.
Mr Righty (or is that really one of our old 'friends', using a new nick?) I congratulate you on your new-found creative writing skills - well done.
The key difference between Boltwatch and Blair's site is that comments in support of Bolt's articles are tolerated on Boltwatch. I myself have occasionally agreed with the jist of Bolt's column, and have said so; I'm sure Mr Lefty would welcome other pro-Bolt posters. Sure, many may not agree with such posts and might actively say so - but what they don't do is Boltwatch to abuse you, comment on your appearance, speculate on your identity, etc. It's quite a well-mannered forum, in comparison to some of the nonsense that appears in the comment bank at timblair.net.
Mr Lefty has rules to ensure that Boltwatch doesn't degenerate into some kind of Internet warehouse wall where dysfunctional schoolchildren spray graffiti about people they don't like - sadly, sometimes people can't play by these rules and are banned, which is where this spat originated. As a result, we now have one disgruntled ex-Boltwatch poster, Iain Hall, running around playing Manuel to Andrew Bolt's Mr Fawlty. When it's all boiled down to tallow and tacks, this is about one person who was told to behave and has thrown a four-month tantrum.
Mr Righty, you've got to be kidding. All that guy does is "play the man"! His whole "I MUST REVEAL MR LEFTY'S IDENTITY" - which is, really, that entire blog - is "playing the man". I'm not going to debate him on my right to use a bloody pseudonym!
He follows me around and tries to piece things together about me - and reveal them publicly.
I have never done anything like that to Bolt, obviously. All I've done is comment on what he publishes in his newspaper column and on his forum. I don't spend hours chasing him around the internet. (In fact, it's a stretch bothering to comment on the two articles he does publish each week, which is why you'll note a fair few of the posts are by guest posters, not me.)
BoltWatch and that other site are so obviously different that I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
Aren't you critical of Bolt's work?
Ian is about you.
Ian hasn't hidden behind a moniker, you have. He has perfect right to expose who you are if he likes as there is no law against that.
I have read his blog and to be frank I find it tamer than yours. Of course that's personal opinion.
you write critical coments about Bolt and Ian does about you.
See, there's your difficulty. I write them about Bolt's articles. I couldn't care less about Bolt's personal/professional life.
The person to whom you refer, however...
Ian hasn't hidden behind a moniker, you have.
Wrong, actually - Ian has indeed "hidden behind a moniker" until someone discovered his identity late last year. Just as your current moniker is "Mr Righty" (the most recent of several, I'm guessing) and mine is "Bridgit Gread".
There's no shame in using a pseudonym on the Internet and I find it amazing that some of you suggest there is - while posting from psuedonyms. I wonder what your perspective would be if some unhinged blogger got a hold of your own identity and pictures of you, and plastered it about the place; I'm inclined to think it would be somewhat different.
Mr Lefty,
You have been known to play the man.
Yes, that post is as close to "playing the man" as I've ever got.
I'd say there's still a considerable difference between comparing the photos Bolt puts at the top of his column and web page (and still does) and what your friend does. I've certainly never tried to reveal anything about Bolt he isn't completely up-front about in his newspaper column.
Lefty
Your splitting hairs. This ain't a court case. It's about perception and your treatment of Bolt is no different than Ian's treatment of you.
Mr. Lefty
You got also get your story right. You whine that Ian has taken entire slbs of your "work" from your site which infers that his is criticising your "work". So which whine is correct. You whine about tag the man or tagging your work.
Lefty you don't have to answer as you not quite able in not getting facts in the way of the truth.
Mr Righty, please do keep posting - you're doing Mr Lefty's cause no end of good.
Nice cat
Lefty may have said this:
Well, it's his published photographs...
it's pointing out how silly it was for Bolt to have been pretending he was, what, ten years younger than he really is, by constantly having published - twice a week - a photograph of him that was clearly well out-of-date. That first photo must have been taken years ago. And why? Vanity? Seems a bit laughable.)
And, no. This blog isn't my job, and, despite delightfully spiteful attempts by people like you to try to link it with my job, I fully intend to keep the two separate.
MrLefty Homepage 02.19.06 - 8:12 am #
and today, Lefty writes this
See, there's your difficulty. I write them about Bolt's articles. I couldn't care less about Bolt's personal/professional life.
Mr. lefty, seriously are we on teh same planet, here?
You attack Ian for being personal when you aregue that your attacks on Botl aren't personal and then I find you attacking Bolt for the age of his pics.
Dude, what's wrong with this picture i am seeing, or should I say, is the medication not working for you?
Therefore by your standards, Ian is perfectly entitled to crack your head open as well, right?
Ah, as per update II, "completely miniscule" theft is OK. Got it.
No, mere hotlinking isn't theft. It's infringement, perhaps, but it's infringement that's close to fair use. Particularly where the person whose image is used doesn't mind.
It's a problem if someone insists on using material when the owner denies them permission, though. Which is what I was talking about in the post to which you objected.
Lefty,
You can dress it up however you want. Hotlinking is viewed as theft by people who do website design for a living - and it's problematic, especially when large numbers of people view the hotlinked content.
Just because you do it routinely and see nothing wrong with the practice doesn't make it right. And it's not "an integral part of blogging" - except by those who either don't know any better, or those who just don't care.
Neal, free use of images on the web is a large part of blogging (asking permission first being a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance), and objections are usually only drawn in the following instances -
1) When the hotlinking usage has an adverse effect on the image owner's bandwidth, etc;
2) When the offending user pretends to be the content creator or, worse, uses the content to harass the creator.
I was talking about a case of 2(b). None of those examples of hotlinking Tim complains about even raise 1, let alone 2. What Tim is complaining about isn't "theft" - it's a basic function of html.
Tim links to a web designer at a "Buffy" site requesting that people save his images and host them themselves. I believe that solution is far more problemmatic than simply linking to the images - that's a lot closer to passing off and infringing use than simply directing someone's browser to the original site. I know that, provided that the hotlinking wasn't going to break my photo-hosting service, I'd much prefer that any use of my images be via hotlinking than copying.
But, and I doubt I'm alone here, I would object to them being used in a hostile fashion - which is what the original post was about.
Lefty
Why do you bother to engage in debate with these idiots? They are no more interested in accepting your arguments or amending their viewpoints due to your reasoning as you are due to theirs.
Have you actually read the crap that passes for 'debate' amongst the Blair gestapo? Do you not realise that their one goal in all of this is to rile you up, not to actually engage you in any form of sensible discussion?
They are morons, dutifully following the instructions of an even bigger moron with an extremely vicious streak.
They also have an enormous amount of time on their hands - they win a victory every time you spend your valuable time responding to them.
My advice - and I implore you to take it as soon as you can - is to give up on this endeavor. The rabid right are always willing to be more offensive, more persistent, and more ready to ban posters from their own sites - ergo they rule the blogging world and always will.
The longer you stay and fight, the poorer your quality of life becomes. Do yourself a favour my friend.
Why do you bother to engage in debate with these idiots?
Because I'm so very desperate for them to like me!
Nah, seriously, you make a good point.
The silly thing about this thread is that it's actually quite easy to prevent people from hotlinking if you so choose, see:
http://www.google.com.au/search?
...vent+hotlinking
Thus anyone who doesn't prevent it using technical means or by a direct request in a copyright or T&C type of document might be considered to have implicitly allowed it, barring the examples that MrLefty sights above. Hmm, that might be a bit strong, I dunno. It's certainly not a clear-cut case that any hotlinking is always bad as some here were claiming. And the notion that MrLefty would drive enough requests through to the Hun's server to make any sort of difference in their bandwidth bill is laughable.
I think you are all missing the point here. Cute kitten!
I've had a lot of cats over the years and can assure you that calico cats are particularly quirky. She should give you years of amusement. Pity her owner's a bit of a knob, though.
TFK
PS: No-one's allowed to use these words anywhere without my say-so, on pain of me getting really pissed off.
Ah, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Free use of images on the web, while certainly a part of blogging (even an integral one), has nothing to do with hotlinking.
You complain about your words being framed in an unfavorable light by those you disagree with. However, you are the one who removed your orignial post, and replaced it with the fluff piece we see before us now. There certainly was an implied threat in your original post. To remove that post, replace it with your current pap, and then complain that "Blairites" are misrepresenting your words is disingenuous, to say the least. Now, whether or not such a threat is appropriate is an entirely different matter. But to make a threat, disappear the post and replace it with another, and then claim that you never said what people say you said (or something) just makes you appear somewhat wonky.
"Implied threat", Neal?
The original is quoted by Beck over at rwdb.blogspot.com, and I think it's pretty clear that all I was doing was declaring that I didn't want my work copied. (The reason I changed my post is that, generally, when they're not stalking me, I don't mind people using my images, provided they attribute them correctly, link back to where they got them, don't use them maliciously. There was never the sort of wide-ranging threat Blair claims there was.)
Are you saying that every "all rights reserved" notice is exactly the same as A LEGAL THREAT?
Well, my field is veterinary medicine, not law - so I can't offer a "legal opinion" on whether an all rights reserved statement is a legal threat. It certainly is a warning of sorts - so does that constitute a threat?
You can offer all of the reasons (or is the word I'm looking for excuses?) you want for changing the post. Perhaps it's for the reasons you state. Perhaps it's because you said something you regret - only the Shadow knows for sure.
Hotlinking is just freeloading on bandwidth other people may very well have paid for. Don't do it. If you'd ever been hit with an excess bandwidth charge from your ISP you'd know why people get so pissed off by hotlinks.
It's also kind of dumb inasmuch you leave yourself open to image substition - goatse, abusive or ridiculing text etc etc.
In terms of copyright it's reproduction of the image. If the link is embedded in your page, you're reproducing the image. Where it's hosted makes no difference.
Either just take the image and take your chances, or link to the original page. Don't Hotlink.
Bloody hell, Lefty. It's been a while since I checked out the comments here, and this is what I find!
How can you be bothered responding to all this stuff?
Commenting by HaloScan
