Subject:
|
Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:45:29 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
584 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> > Dan:
> > I don't feel the least bit bad about using peoples bandwidth,
>
> Surely you don't mean this to be true in general, right? Else you are OK with
> spam, since, after all, it's just using up bandwidth, right?
Not in general, but by directing readers to interesting
material.
I wouldn't want people to _waste_ bandwidth, but I find that
when there is something good on the web, then as many people
as possible (of those who are interested) should see it.
> > and I would be using more of their bandwidth if I didn't link
> > directly to the relevant resource.
> >
> > The whole idea with publishing something on the web is that
> > people should read it. If I link to a resource I just help
> > the publisher getting more readers (and I would actually
> > expect him to think that it is nice - even though I hear that
> > being /.'ed can be a bit hard).
> But what if the publisher wants that particular resource to be presented in the
> fashion that the publisher wants. Why was it OK (even way way more than OK) for
> Todd to serve up the frowney face instead of a picture when people deep linked
> to the Pause DB? Sounds like you think it wasn't?
I definitely think it is ok that Todd serves the frowney
face in stead of a picture. And I do similar things myself.
As I have written elsewhere in this thread are images a
problem, and with the current technology, my arguments can't
reasonably be applied to them.
> I am not trying to pick a fight, exactly, but I *am* curious as to why you
> think it's OK to just wantonly help yourself to resources that you don't pay
> for in ways that the owner of then doesn't approve of.
<nitpick>
I am not helping _myself_ to the resources in question.
</nitpick>
Going back to web pages, which was what I thought I was
writing about...
The idea with HTML/WWW is that a HTML file is one resource
that should be able to be rendered and viewed alone, and
HTML includes all the necessary "tools" for including
credits and other details that copyright rules demand.
> > But until I see an example that demonstrates the opposite, I
> > will assume that deep linking always _is_ fine.
>
> See above. Lugnet images are not to be deep linked.
So I will (one more time) clarify that I don't think my
arguments applies to images (at least with the currently
implemented file formats).
> > .no.automatic.lugnet.sigs.yet
>
> 'Twould be nice 'wunnit?
Yup!
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL: http://hugin.ldraw.org/LEGO/Biler/ > --
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
| (...) Surely you don't mean this to be true in general, right? Else you are OK with spam, since, after all, it's just using up bandwidth, right? (...) But what if the publisher wants that particular resource to be presented in the fashion that the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
