chad, Free & Public Domain are two completely different things. There are only 2 ways something can be considered Public Domain... 1st) 75 years have passed since the creator's death (& even then trademark restrictions may apply) or 2nd) The creator must specifically state "I relinquish all rights to this work & place it into the public domain" or words to that effect. Copyright cannot be lost through neglect, it must be given away.

Thanks cooler, I was just going to post that same response... And Chad, if you read the readme files that are included in the freestuff, you will see that in fact there are restrictions to it's use. One of them is redistribution without express permission. I have only seen maybe one or two freestuff items that state expressely that it can be considered public domain...but permission does have to be given by the creator of the work. If that person had come to some of these people and said "hey can I host your freestuff on my site, using my bandwidth and servers" then I'm sure some would have said okay, no problem. But he has not done that. What he did was not only supply links to the site, but direct linking to the product, bypassing his server and using someone else's bandwidth. And that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Why is that so hard for you to see, because possibly it's not your money or your bandwidth? Pendy

Cooler, basically I agree with you. But, based on the Ripper case, you can also add another paragraph to that legal definition: The Doc (Ripper case) was found guilty of selling his ripping software. The buyer was also guilty. However, when The Doc published the code on the internet, or sold it on T-shirts, the code itself was considered public domain. It was therefore not illegal to purchase the T-shirt, and compile the code to rip a dvd. In the same way, when a US Senator, a few years ago, revealed a State secret on TV by mistake, reporters were allowed by law to repeat and even investigate the facts that were mistakingly revealed. It was deemed : in the public domain. With respect, I think that that's what Chad is referencing here. It very much depends on how the product (information) is initially distributed... Not an easy subject. Q

Chad - you really need to look into copyright law a little more closely. If I create something and offer it for download it is mine. I decide whether it can be used commercially or non-commercially, whether it can be re-distributed at any place other than my own site and whether it can be sold. If anyone does not like the restrictions that I place on my creative property - they don't have to download. Any artwork that I create is mine. I post it at my web site and it is my decision whether it is posted at any other web sites. No one has the right to post my artwork any place else without my prior permission. As for direct-linking to files that is a definite no-no. How many free sites have either folded or switched to a subscription site because of bandwidth problems in the past two years? A website does not get any 'hits' if you direct link to a file so your point that the guy is driving traffic to your site is baloney. And he's stealing bandwidth. And some people PAY for the bandwidth they use. It's just plain wrong. What this person is doing is driving people to his/her site without having created anything himself. He or she is getting the hits and not the people who actually created the items he offered for download. It is wrong and illegal both here in the US and abroad.

quixote, Neither of those cases would be considered an addendum to rules governing Public Domain. I'm not familiar with the 1st case but unless the author based his code on, freely available preexisting code or specifically gave up his rights it still wouldn't be considered Public Domain.. The 2nd case would be considered 'fair use' in which portions of a work (in this case the Senators statement) can be quoted for purposes of 'education, parody, or satire'

Jade: "wrong and illegal" without the web site owner's permission. Sorry to nit-pik...

I do not know if it is illegal - he links to files which are open available on the internet. What he does is surely impolite, but hardly illegal. Deep Linking is only illegal if he links to password protected or otherwise private files. Move the files, he will get the message soon.

Cooler: Read the decision. The judge defined the term and this is now considered a definition of public domain. The Film distributors won the case but lost the war. The doc read the decision and inferred, correctly, that if he could not sell his ripping soft, he could release the code in the public domain. And sell the code legally. The distributors kept their rights, but they meant nothing in the end. They had shot their bolt. In the second case, (I was involved in the same type of case and won based on a PD argument), the way that information makes its way into PD is vital to any case. Believe me. And it can indirectly affect proprietary rights. I don't agree with the decision in the Ripper case, but that's now the precedent.

He's not deep-linking to text or a web page - he is direct-linking to a file containing something that was created and is owned by someone else. Whoopee he sometimes gives the person who created it credit. That's not enough - he should ask for permission from the person who created it - and if he doesn't have that permission - he shouldn't link to the file. The polite thing to do is to link to the page that contains the particular file but not to the file itself.

jade - I do not dispute that the Dutch guy would have been more in line with netiquette had he asked permission. That is what I would have done in his place. In principle there is no difference between a 3d model, a photograph and a piece of writing. They are all the result of an creative proces requiring skills, talent and effort. Thus my point about deep linking still holds - whether it is to a newspaper article, to a picture or to a "free" 3d model. I just want us to be discussing the real thing. This is no question of copyright. It is a question of netiquette. And that covers the bandwith question as well. And then I'd like - perhaps at another time - to have a general discussion with you guys on the principal question of whether deep linking is OK or not, and on the general issue of copyright.

Just because something is not illegal does not make it right. Right and wrong are not usually dictated by the law. Something could be wrong or considered wrong and it be legal. Same as something that could be right could be considered illegal by the law. Whether it is legal or not, he is direct linking and it is considered wrong. And even more so when it causing a burden on the original website owner.

Graybeard, There are actually two issues at work here. Copyright & theft of services. When I create a model automatically I am granted a copyright. This gives me the power to determine how, when, & where that file is distributed. By direct linking, without permission, to that file he is abrogating my ability to do just that. Now because I self-host my free models this means that I'm paying for the bandwidth necessary for people to download them. By this user hot linking directly to the file I am, in effect subsidizing his website. It would be no different if I were to run an extension cord into my neighbors house & steal his electricity to run my computer.

Hi all, I am Dutch and he only wanna help Dutch people that don't understand English.He looks for people who can translate English tutorials in to Dutch. And yes he wants to increase your traffic. If you would like to have it translated IM me and I will translate it for you. VCD PS. I have nothing to do with the website, this is the second time that I've seen it.

'It would be no different if I were to run an extension cord into my neighbors house & steal his electricity to run my computer' Damn right, cooler! I bet if I were to link to DAZ's free model of the week on my site, they'd put a stop to it pretty quick! I've been in Holland several times and I find the Dutch to be some of the nicest people in the world. But I've met very, very few who DON'T speak English. They even have BBC as one of their channels. I'm sure the guy knows what he's doing. He may not know it's wrong...that's a different story. All it takes (hopefully) is someone to point it out. It may not be technically theft, but it's about as near as you can get to it. mac

cooler, I am really not trying to be inflamatory, but you have a bit of a contradiction in your view. If deep linking steals your bandwith, then the obvious solution is to let the Dutch guy host a copy of your models. Actually, the more, who host them, the happier for your bill from your ISP. This is obviously not what you mean. By posting a downloadable model on your homepage, you can set rules for its use: for non-commercial, for commercial use etc. and indeed most modellers do just that. But as long as you have it freely downloadable on your page, a deep link with a clear reference to the origins is according to the sources I have quoted above probably not an infringement (at least not of US law) Copying the model and passing it of as ones own would be. As far as the copyright laws goes, there is no difference between a piece of software, a 3d model and a newspaper article. The real issue lies somewhere else. The real issue is about decent behaviour and politeness. Even if I maintain that you cannot legally protect stuff from deep links, I would hate it if the many fine modellers took their stuff off line. I for one do not know what I would have done without Kozaburo's hair to mention one fine example. So what we need to do is to maintain some moral principles inside the community. Among those is the one about asking before you link to a specific model. Who knows, maybe the modeller would let you post it (thus avoiding the bandwidth issue completely). It is on this background I proposed people to write the guy in the Netherlands and talk the matter over with him. On the general issue, I do believe that deep links and making reaources available to other people is what keeps the internet alive, The 3d community is a great example of just that.

It's an abuse and should be stopped. Should he be brought down (his site through his ISP), that's a bit much perhaps. But I haven't been victimized here.

I think he should be brought down or at least those pages in question should be until he changes the links to just the sites and not directly to the model to be downloaded. Once that is changed then everything should be okay from that point forward. Graybeard, I'm not trying to be inflammatory here either, and whether there is a law against this or not is not the point. The point is that pretty much anyone that has been around the community for any period of time knows that you do not link directly to a file on a different site for downloading. This is also NOT a "community" rule. It's an internet rule period. It involves not only 3d, but also any site that has any graphics for download for free etc. You will see it pasted all over their sites "do not link directly to these images, it's bandwidth theft if you do" there are plenty of warnings everywhere about this, not just the 3d community, so he can plead ignorant if he wants, but I see that the stuff is still there. He needs to take it down. So if you all want to debate the "is this legal or not" that's fine, in the meantime people are going to get their sites closed because of bandwidth overage, or get hit with bills that they cannot pay, because of what he is doing. It's WRONG...who gives a rat's behind if it's legal...it's still WRONG. So something needs to be done about it. Pendy

Graybeard, I don't see it as an either or position. Why does my diaspproval of his linking directly to my files necessarily mean that I should then turn a blind eye to his distributing an actual copy? All that does is change the offense from one of theft of services to one of blatant copyright infringement. If you take a look at the page, nowhere am I acknowledged as the creator of the model. In fact it's not even necessary to see where the files are hosted in order to d/l it. Just as a side note I decided to make an exception in this case & have sent two emails to the contact address listed on the webpage & am still waiting for an answer. oh and pendarian... here's a rat's behind for you, feel free to give it to anyone on any subject :-)

Thanks pal!!!! I'm sure it'll come in useful :) Even tho' I have no stuff there is there somewhere that I can write to help you all out on this? Pendy

OK - let's see if we can't close this discussion. What brought me to the inkwell in the first place was a wish to bring a few more aspects into the debate. I think I may have succeded in doing this - allthough I am not quite sure... You can not have read me to say that I do not respect anyone, who makes resources available on the net. On the contrary I have a high regard for that, be it in the world of 3d, in journalism or wherever else it may be the case. I am a proponent of openness and decency. This decency applies in all areas of the world - online or off. I believe that our mutual respect for one another is the ultimate rule for the net. This also applies to how we deal with those, who transgress the written and unwritten rules. They too should be treated with decency. Matters should be dealt with promptly, but with a chance to correct the mistake made. In that light, cooler, let me say that I appreciate that you and other people have written to the guy in question. Should he not withdraw his links to pages and models when requested, he is acting unacceptably and I believe one should tell him that and eventually inform his ISP. The internet is not an "anything goes" place. Some rules are legal - some social. But the internet should remain a very liberal place - otherwise it looses its best qualities.

Graybeard - I haven't looked at the links that you have provided yet, but I guarantee you that if that news service had been deep-linking to the subscriber-only pages of these newspapers, the court would have ruled differently. Yes, I could see where the courts would allow someone to direct-link to a public web page - even if they make money from providing this link. But I can't see where the courts would allow someone to direct-link to a file that is copyright, when that can cause the owner of the file to lose money. At least I hope that is so, because if it's not - we've seen the end of freebies on the internet. Who's going to set up a web-site and offer freebies if it's costing them money every month? They would have to go subscription - as so many great formerly free sites have done - just to pay for their bandwidth. The person who is direct-linking to other people's downloads may not be making any money from it - but he can in fact cause other people to lose money by having to pay for extra bandwidth without their getting any benefit from his links. It's just plain wrong and if it's not illegal (and I think it is) - then it damn well should be.

"Who's going to set up a web-site and offer freebies if it's costing them money every month?" MOST web site owners are paying money to give things away or otherwise share their interests. I'd bet the majority of web site owners here at 'rosity do it as part of their hobby, just like they spend a few bucks a month for Cable TV, or other indulgences. When some hotlinker drives their transfer from 5Gig a month up to an unexpected 10 Gig, and it costs them an extra $25-$50, they have the right to be pissed (American usage of the word.) When some hotlinker uses their hard work to draw attention to the hotlinker's site, especially without giving credit, the artist also has the right to be pissed.

"If it bothers you that your model is floating around the net you shouldn't have put it there to begin with."

Chad, don't complain when your car is stolen off the street because "you shouldn't have put it there to begin with".

"The internet is about "free exchange of information" ... and information includes 3d models. Don't publish something as a "free" item if it's not free!"

I've argued that people have enough common sense to understand that free doesn't mean "do with as they please", hopefully your very wrong statement is not a wide spread idea because offering something free of charge does not mean putting it into public domain.

I highly suggest you look the legallities of these things up before spouting opinion as fact.

Bandwidth cost money and no one has the right to steal it. I've dealt with bandwidth thieves by changing the graphics they were linking to and destroying the look of their site. One guy didn't know and got a laugh out of the whole thing. He learned something.
Files, even freely offered files, are not public domain. I wouldn't allow any of my files to be downloaded from any site that didn't have my permission.

I edited my .htaccess file sometime ago to put a stop to hotlinking. Every attempt to link to files on my webspace will end in a 403 Error message. You can't link directly to some directories too and images and zip files can't be downloaded from anywhere else than directly from my website.
That is exactly what is discussed in this thread in the HTML & Webscripting Forum and it is so easy to do.

Friederike

So how do you learn to do this Puntamaus? Sharen

Attached Link: http://wsabstract.com/howto/htaccess10.shtml

If you do a search at google for .htaccess there is a lot of tutorial files on how to do set up the file. I had to do this with my site since a couple of site were hotlinking to wallpapers on my site for their web backgrounds. :o You can protect the whole site, or just a single directory. Mada :)

Attached Link: http://www.htmlbasix.com/disablehotlinking.shtml

Sharen, .htaccess is specific to apache web servers, which you are running on. It's a hidden file, so will not show up on ftp clients (even though you can upload a file and rename it once there.) Another really good link for this is attached, they actually generate the script for you! If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

One more thing, there's also a .htaccess file in your main html directory. You DON'T wanna mess with that one. Just upload the new .htaccess to the directory with the files you want to protect.

One more thing, there's also a .htaccess file in your main html directory. You DON'T wanna mess with that one. Just upload the new .htaccess to the directory with the files you want to protect.

Sharen, there were informations about that in the FAQ of my webspace provider with links to other sites explaining how to do this. I had no idea about this stuff too but it is in fact really easy. I even made my own error pages that match my website. I put the .htaccess in my main directory as my provider told me and it works very well. If you follow the links supplied here you will find a lot of usefull infos. Friederike

Oh thanks so much, this looks great, gotta go read up now...thanks again. Sharen

I have send a mail in Dutch to them ( http://home.hetnet.nl/~galaxym59) , referring to this thread so they can consider your comments.

For those of you stil interested, I just received the following email.... "We already took the website offline, it wasn't our intention to do something illegal. We hope you will excuse us. It wont happen again. greetings, Galaxy Team"

I wonder if they will put it back up with just the links to the websites instead of direct file linking? Would anyone object to that if they took the time to ask? Glad it's been resolved for all of you that were effected :) Pendy