Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 00:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980504000437.20104M-100000@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <19980504050129.52485@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > Ah, so you _do_ have a respect for copyright at some level. Neat - it > means there is some way to evoke your feelings ;-) No, my feelings are evoked when someone tries label me something that I'm not. > You're employing a crack (that's ijb) to avoid paying for (that's viewing > ads) the production of software/content. You may or may not be inside the > law - that's not something that I'm qualified to determine. Just because the system is broken and they account for 'hits' via the HTTP GET of a graphic image doesn't make me a criminal when I don't load the image with the page. HTTP/HTML does not require that I load images at all. > However, it is fairly clear that what you're doing deprive the rightful > owner/creator of their payment - which is what is the point of piracy. > It might not feel like it, but in practice it has the exact same > results. You don't have to like it, but I can't see any reason to > retract my statement :-( Again, I don't see how I'm at fault when you (the seller of ad space) fail to accurately track usage. If TV and Radio stations sold advertising the way you do nobody would advertise as the statement 'we -think- your add will be played 5 times a day but aren't quite sure.' would be highly offensive to the people buying advertising space from you. What you (the seller of advertising space) need to do is find a better way of accounting for the content of the HTML you are spewing to the browser and count the number of times you send an <IMG> tag of a particular URL instead of the number of times that url is accessed. > Porobably. It was used against people selling blue boxes at one time, > and I believe it was attempted employed against Craig (but I might > remember wrongly here). You remember poorly. Black boxes and Red boxes were more of a problem. > I'm not in any way a practicing lawyer (as if you didn't know that ;-). > I attempt to be a practicing ethical human being; I don't even always > pass that test... Striving for upright ethis is indeed a good goal though passing the buck and requiring a particular behavior in order to remain ethical in light ofsomeone's dishonesty as an advertising provider is another. If you are not informing your clients of how many tiems you requested a browser load their ad you are guilty of fraud. Put that in your ethical pipe and smoke it. :) (I really do enjoy these lively arguements; please don't take any aparent hostility as a personal attack. I really do have a great deal of respect for you and the work you've done for FreeBSD.) /* Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life winter@jurai.net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53 */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980504000437.20104M-100000>