Photo Credit: Discovery Channel Store
Perhaps you’re struggling with your last minute gift list, or you’re looking for the perfect gift for that person who has everything. Well, why not give them some electronic bugs! They’re pretty cool and certainly would be a discussion piece. I came across these while looking through the Discovery Channel Store last night…Creepy! Crawly! Neat!

If ever you wanted to understand why the industry continues to develop coal plants, even though the negative impact is clear for all to understand, look at the chart above. You’ll notice that coal produces the most energy per unit, at a low cost per unit, and is relatively cheap from a capital cost perspective to build. With clean coal restrictions, the capital cost increases pretty radically (about 3x) but the energy output per unit and fuel cost still remain attractive.

A wind row ought to be added to this chart, but the standard unit was a little tricky to calculate. If anyone has good ideas about how to represent that aspect, please leave a comment.

Confused about link etiquette? Check this handy primer.

Now that the image is removed, I feel better. But, in responses from Mr. Dvorak last night there’s still a sense that he “doesn’t get it” – I’m of two minds about sharing the correspondence – sunshine is the best deodorant is my default position – but threats of legal action by Mr. Dvorak are making me consider what I want to share. In the end, I can’t see that it makes any difference so I’m going to share. This is the note I sent directly to Mr. Dvorak last night:

Subject: Do you know this is going on?

Hi John,

I’ve been reading your work for years, so I was surprised to see what has transpired today on your blog, dvorak.org.

Here’s the summary: https://montaraventures.com/blog/2007/12/18/dvorak-steals-copyrighted-work/

Do you have any comment about this? It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to me and I’d like to get it sorted out. This can be a net good thing I’d think for the community. I’m not asking for anything other than discussion around this issue and a statement about how dvorak.org will handle such matters going forward.

Thanks,
Mike Harding
xxx xxx xxxx (phone number edited out)

I was a little surprised to receive a response, in fact, I got two responses. The first is this one directly to my note, it is as follows unedited:

Subject: Re: Do you know this is going on?

OK.. it was deep linked which is totally legal as linking to any URL is
legal. We took it down as is our policy on request. But this is a legal
practice..go after Huffington if you want a big fish. She makes money
doing it. Why is this a big deal to you?

When are you the gatekeeper of what is allowable on the web? Why is this a
“big deal” to you. Why do you demand to know? I’d like to know that
myself.

What you are suggesting is that LINKS THEMSELVES ARE not acceptable!!! And
that the web as it is structured is wrong! Tripod and other sites that
refuse deep linking put in code to prevent it. This is the way the web
works. Too many people have suggested that such images be downloaded and
then served from the sites using the images to “save bandwidth.” This, in
fact, is stealing. Linking to an image and then having the image appear is
not. Ask a lawyer. I spent a lot of time with Larry Lessig (Creative
Commons) discussing this. Have you? I am only doing what is legal. I would
do it other ways if the other ways were not stealing.

Being accused of stealing, by the way, IS actionable and libelous. Unless
actual theft is involved. This seriously pisses me off. Who is this prick
who calls me a thief? I’d like to know.

You can push this for whatever reason…but you are personally risking the
complete ruination of the web. Think about it.

And people take our original images in the same way and we do not complain
about it. If we didn’t like it we would block it with a few lines of
simple code.

How will we handle such matters going forward? We will link to other sites
for their posts which is what blogs do. We will add images as necessary.
We will contribute to the pool of images as necessary and hope people use
our images too as this is supposed to be a web and a community of links.

Where does the notion that linking is bad actually stem from? And what is
the rationale?

If it should be illegal then change the law and kill linking on the
Internet. That’s where this thinking leads. Even if there is some
unwritten courtesy (we complied and took down the image) it still leads to
the end of linking.

And, I should mention. The image was found on Google. Should they be
called thieves too? It was there. So is that bad too? Seriously. I’d like
to know.

Not exactly the response that I would have liked, but a response none-the-less. It’s troubling to me that Mr. Dvorak is missing the core issue completely. I created something that was used on dvorak.org without attribution or permission. When I objected to that use, my objection was removed and the image was downloaded locally and modified to hide creator and source. A second objection to the use was deleted and finally, the image was taken down (thank you.) I don’t know, but my suspicion is, that if I Googled a subject that returned a John C. Dvorak article that I copied, pasted into my own blog, and passed it off as my own that Mr. Dvorak would have a problem with that.

Not 10 minutes later by timestamp, I got a second message from Mr. Dvorak:

Subject: just a note

Dear Mike. Hot linking is not illegal. Linking is not illegal. Generally speaking sites that do not want to share pics use code to prevent it. Tripod, for example.

Calling someone a thief is libelous if no crime was committed. File charges if you think otherwise. Talk to your lawyer as soon as you can. Seriously. I’ll be talking to mine. I do not like being called a criminal when I am following the law.

From my perspective we took off the other image as requested. That was just a courtesy. Calling me (or anyone else) a criminal in a public forum on the Internet was not a good thing to do as it is a serious and slanderous declaration that is intolerable.

This is clearly not the response I hoped to see and it tells me that Mr. Dvorak doesn’t understand the core issue at hand here. It’s unfortunate that it may come to this, but I am prepared to defend my rights and what I’ve written. For completeness, my responses to Mr. Dvorak are available below:

Subject: Re: Do you know this is going on?

Mr. Dvorak,

First off, thanks for your response. Frankly, it was more than I was expecting. Here are the issues as I see them:

– Hotlinking is annoying, it is not illegal
– Suggesting that linking stop as you do in your response is ludicrous, it would kill the web
– Appropriating a copyrighted image, an image that I created, without attribution is theft (it might have been fuzzy while hot linked, but it’s crystal clear when the image is downloaded locally after the image owner defends his rights to the image.)
– You may have found it on Google, no worries, but you’ll notice it says that the images may be protected by copyright. (As a point of clarity on this, if I Googled a PC-related story you wrote and it came back on Google. I copied the text and represented it as my own on my little podunk blog, I’m sure if you knew about it you would be upset at a minimum.)

What I’d like to hear from you is the following is that dvorak.org:

– shouldn’t have hotlinked
– should have provided attribution for the image, at a minimum
– we have a policy that images we find and use will at a minimum provide attribution to the source site and if protected by copyright, will be used by permission

In your response you seem to be under the impression I’m looking for something more tangible like money. I’m not. This is a matter of principle defending little guys like me from having their work appropriated by and represented as their own.

With respect to the title of my blog entry, I can understand that it is upsetting. But I give you the definition of theft:

– the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

The facts of this situation show that your site took a copyrighted image that I created without permission. When apprised of this, downloaded said image and modified it while deleting the comments protesting the use. It’s true, the image is now replaced, thank you. That has been replaced by a rude comment responding to my third comment left on the matter.

Now, do I really think dvorak.org got up in the morning and said “hmm, what little obscure web publisher can I rip off this morning?” No, you did a story on something and found a clever image and linked it. Something that happens millions of times a day. But when confronted with the issue, the response was bad. And it was particularly bad for a professional journalist.

So, we can continue to be argumentative about this or we can make this a learning experience and let it drop. What would you like to do?

Regards,
Mike Harding

And my response to the legal threat is as follows:

Subject: Re: just a note

John,

That would be unfortunate for both of us. Do what you need to do, but be advised, a simple response outlined in my prior note will put the matter to rest for me. It may not for you. I stand by what I wrote.

Thanks,
Mike

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Sharing on the net is a good thing, it’s what makes it great. But, when people are creating original content, it shouldn’t be appropriated for other’s use for profit. It’s a rampant abuse that is easily fixed by simple courtesy. This is about a principle and it’s one worth fighting for (and yes, it will and should even protect Mr. Dvorak’s work.)

Confused about link etiquette? Check this handy primer.

Here’s the scene of the crime on John Dvorak’s (PC Magazine) blog.

I’m glad they liked my work, but wished they would have a) given attribution and b) not had the audacity to use my bandwidth in the commission of the theft. Come John, you’re in the biz, you know better than this. BTW, here is the original entry that the image appeared in from August, 2007…

For the record, if they’d even asked me, I would have given consent. It’s not like my email address is hard to find.

Updated 5:30 PT: I was mildly irritated by this today and left a comment. Now I’m pissed. They’ve modified the image, are still using it without permission, and have deleted my comment protesting the action. ValleyWag now has posted on the matter – Thanks!

What’s next Dvorak? I posted another comment – the next contact from me will be more “formal.” Your move…

Updated 7:00 PT: Dvorak.org has now stopped using my image. But, I haven’t heard anything from them directly. No apology, nothing. And, they’ve deleted a second comment on the matter which is even more disturbing. I’ll post screenshots of my comments a little later. Disappointing. I’ll be looking for an entry where they fess up and apologize. It’s the internet, these things are cached and don’t go away. I’m thinking a letter to John’s editor is in order. After all, the difference between mere bloggers and highly paid and widely read journalists is supposed to be ethics.

Timeline

9:30 – I notice my server getting buried by requests from dvorak.org. I check out the source, they’ve hotlinked an image that I created for a story in August. No attribution. Shortly thereafter, I modify the image on my site to have a footer that says “Used without Permission. Created by Mike Harding. Hosted by https://montaraventures.com/blog”

9:57 – I post this comment:



I’m offline for awhile to deal with life, when I visit the entry again at 4:00pm my comment has been deleted. This is what I see:


Now, no attribution, hosted from their site, and the footer I added earlier removed. Outright Theft!

16:00 – I leave the following comment:

19:00 – I check back, the image is now taken down, and my second comment has been deleted. They’re now trying to “erase” the evidence. Alas, caches and screenshots make that darned near impossible. I post this comment which I fully expect to be deleted the next time I check:

I’ve also written an email directly to Mr. Dvorak asking him if he even knows this is happening (which he may not since a number of people seem to be involved in the site.)

Now, a reasonable person might say, “What do you want?” They’ve taken down the image, it’s done. Yes, but, if it’s happening to me, it’s happening to others. I want an acknowledgement, explanation, apology, and a statement of policy that it won’t happen again (not to me – to other IP creators.) I’m patiently waiting.

Update: Dec 19: I’ve gotten two responses from Mr. Dvorak, both of which I’ll share in an upcoming entry. One threatening legal action for slander by calling him a thief in the title of this entry and one as a defensive tome saying hotlinking is not illegal (and he’s right it’s not, it’s annoying, but legal) – the issue is the appropriation of the image without attribution multiple times. Which does amount to theft.

Update: Dec 19 – 16:30: Dvorak has answered on his blog. I’ve retorted here since comments are closed on dvorak.org.

Update: Dec 19 – 18:30:I now consider this issue closed. I believe this was a mistake on the part of dvorak.org and I apologize to Mr. Dvorak for the pejorative title of this entry. See the comment thread of this entry if you’re interested in the resolution. The larger discussion is still interesting I think and insightful opinions (i.e., not Norm who commented below) are welcome.

Submit to StumbleUpon or give thumbs up.

Life is Good at Goldman Sachs. Wrap your head around this: Goldman Sachs employs 30,522 people globally. Their salaries and bonuses this year were $20,500,000,000 (that’s $20.5B) meaning that if the wealth were spread around evenly (it’s not) that would come to $661,400 per staff member. That’s up 23% from last year.

So, if you’re “talented”, you now know where the money is… (you know, because talent goes where the money is…) Good luck!

Get the full story at CNN.com.