
{"id":817,"date":"2007-12-19T08:03:03","date_gmt":"2007-12-19T16:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/2007\/12\/19\/more-on-the-dvorakorg-mess\/"},"modified":"2007-12-23T12:56:36","modified_gmt":"2007-12-23T20:56:36","slug":"more-on-the-dvorakorg-mess","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/2007\/12\/19\/more-on-the-dvorakorg-mess\/","title":{"rendered":"More on the Dvorak.org Mess"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><i>Confused about link etiquette? <a href=\"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/2007\/12\/21\/guide-to-link-etiquette\/\" target=\"_blank\">Check this handy primer<\/a><\/i>.<br \/>\n<br \/>\nNow that the image is removed, I feel better. But, in responses from Mr. Dvorak last night there&#8217;s still a sense that he &#8220;doesn&#8217;t get it&#8221; &#8211; I&#8217;m of two minds about sharing the correspondence &#8211; sunshine is the best deodorant is my default position &#8211; but threats of legal action by Mr. Dvorak are making me consider what I want to share. In the end, I can&#8217;t see that it makes any difference so I&#8217;m going to share. This is the note I sent directly to Mr. Dvorak last night:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nSubject: Do you know this is going on?<\/p>\n<p>Hi John,<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;ve been reading your work for years, so I was surprised to see what has transpired today on your blog, dvorak.org.<\/p>\n<p>Here&#8217;s the summary:  https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/2007\/12\/18\/dvorak-steals-copyrighted-work\/<\/p>\n<p>Do you have any comment about this? It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to me and I&#8217;d like to get it sorted out. This can be a net good thing I&#8217;d think for the community. I&#8217;m not asking for anything other than discussion around this issue and a statement about how dvorak.org will handle such matters going forward.<\/p>\n<p>Thanks,<br \/>\nMike Harding<br \/>\nxxx xxx xxxx (phone number edited out)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nSubject: Re: Do you know this is going on?<\/p>\n<p>OK.. it was deep linked which is totally legal as linking to any URL is<br \/>\nlegal. We took it down as is our policy on request. But this is a legal<br \/>\npractice..go after Huffington if you want a big fish. She makes money<br \/>\ndoing it. Why is this a big deal to you?<\/p>\n<p>When are you the gatekeeper of what is allowable on the web? Why is this a<br \/>\n&#8220;big deal&#8221; to you. Why do you demand to know? I&#8217;d like to know that<br \/>\nmyself.<\/p>\n<p>What you are suggesting is that LINKS THEMSELVES ARE not acceptable!!! And<br \/>\nthat the web as it is structured is wrong! Tripod and other sites that<br \/>\nrefuse deep linking put in code to prevent it. This is the way the web<br \/>\nworks. Too many people have suggested that such images be downloaded and<br \/>\nthen served from the sites using the images to &#8220;save bandwidth.&#8221; This, in<br \/>\nfact, is stealing. Linking to an image and then having the image appear is<br \/>\nnot. Ask a lawyer. I spent a lot of time with Larry Lessig (Creative<br \/>\nCommons) discussing this. Have you? I am only doing what is legal. I would<br \/>\ndo it other ways if the other ways were not stealing.<\/p>\n<p>Being accused of stealing, by the way, IS actionable and libelous. Unless<br \/>\nactual theft is involved. This seriously pisses me off. Who is this prick<br \/>\nwho calls me a thief? I&#8217;d like to know.<\/p>\n<p>You can push this for whatever reason&#8230;but you are personally risking the<br \/>\ncomplete ruination of the web. Think about it.<\/p>\n<p>And people take our original images in the same way and we do not complain<br \/>\nabout it. If we didn&#8217;t like it we would block it with a few lines of<br \/>\nsimple code.<\/p>\n<p>How will we handle such matters going forward? We will link to other sites<br \/>\nfor their posts which is what blogs do. We will add images as necessary.<br \/>\nWe will contribute to the pool of images as necessary and hope people use<br \/>\nour images too as this is supposed to be a web and a community of links.<\/p>\n<p>Where does the notion that linking is bad actually stem from? And what is<br \/>\nthe rationale?<\/p>\n<p>If it should be illegal then change the law and kill linking on the<br \/>\nInternet. That&#8217;s where this thinking leads. Even if there is some<br \/>\nunwritten courtesy (we complied and took down the image) it still leads to<br \/>\nthe end of linking.<\/p>\n<p>And, I should mention. The image was found on Google. Should they be<br \/>\ncalled thieves too? It was there. So is that bad too? Seriously. I&#8217;d like<br \/>\nto know.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Not exactly the response that I would have liked, but a response none-the-less. It&#8217;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&#8217;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.<br \/>\n<br \/>\nNot 10 minutes later by timestamp, I got a second message from Mr. Dvorak:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nSubject: just a note<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;ll be talking to mine. I do not like being called a criminal when I am following the law.<\/p>\n<p>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.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This is clearly not the response I hoped to see and it tells me that Mr. Dvorak doesn&#8217;t understand the core issue at hand here. It&#8217;s unfortunate that it may come to this, but I am prepared to defend my rights and what I&#8217;ve written. For completeness, my responses to Mr. Dvorak are available below:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nSubject: Re: Do you know this is going on?<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Dvorak,<\/p>\n<p>First off, thanks for your response. Frankly, it was more than I was expecting. Here are the issues as I see them:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Hotlinking is annoying, it is not illegal<br \/>\n&#8211; Suggesting that linking stop as you do in your response is ludicrous, it would kill the web<br \/>\n&#8211; Appropriating a copyrighted image, an image that I created, without attribution is theft (it might have been fuzzy while hot linked, but it&#8217;s crystal clear when the image is downloaded locally after the image owner defends his rights to the image.)<br \/>\n&#8211; You may have found it on Google, no worries, but you&#8217;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&#8217;m sure if you knew about it you would be upset at a minimum.)<\/p>\n<p>What I&#8217;d like to hear from you is the following is that dvorak.org:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; shouldn&#8217;t have hotlinked<br \/>\n&#8211; should have provided attribution for the image, at a minimum<br \/>\n&#8211; 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<\/p>\n<p>In your response you seem to be under the impression I&#8217;m looking for something more tangible like money. I&#8217;m not. This is a matter of principle defending little guys like me from having their work appropriated by and represented as their own.<\/p>\n<p>With respect to the title of my blog entry, I can understand that it is upsetting. But I give you the definition of theft:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; the act of taking something from someone unlawfully<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;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.<\/p>\n<p>Now, do I really think dvorak.org got up in the morning and said &#8220;hmm, what little obscure web publisher can I rip off this morning?&#8221; 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.<\/p>\n<p>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?<\/p>\n<p>Regards,<br \/>\nMike Harding\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>And my response to the legal threat is as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nSubject: Re: just a note<\/p>\n<p>John,<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Thanks,<br \/>\nMike<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Sharing on the net is a good thing, it&#8217;s what makes it great. But, when people are creating original content, it shouldn&#8217;t be appropriated for other&#8217;s use for profit. It&#8217;s a rampant abuse that is easily fixed by simple courtesy. This is about a principle and it&#8217;s one worth fighting for (and yes, it will and should even protect Mr. Dvorak&#8217;s work.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;s still a sense that he &#8220;doesn&#8217;t get it&#8221; &#8211; I&#8217;m of two minds about sharing the correspondence &#8211; sunshine is the best deodorant is my default position &#8211; but [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/817"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/montaraventures.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}