this was mentioned over at 3dcommune but I thought it should be mentioned here as well. http://home.hetnet.nl/~galaxym59/index5.html that's the link if anyone reconises their freebies on there sending an email to the isp would help. note to newbies : please do not download anything from the site mentioned. Rob

Thanks for the info, c1rcle. I see in the 3Dcommune forum that measures are already by sending copyright infringement complaints to their ISP. I also noted that the site in question is a member of the Renderosity Webring (member no 1401). Is there a way for Renderosity to throw them out of the webring?

Aya, he's got a lot. I see things from (what I believe to be) Sams3d... Lannie's and 3dExtra...

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.

Attached Link: http://www.brycemania.de

... and I see some models of my own page.

I wrote him a mail to delete the direct links to the zip-files. Hope this will be help.

. <====== 'nough said. Sorry for the 'bot notification. Have a good day.

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

Did anyone stop and consider that just maybe English is not his native language and he doesn't even know what he's doing is wrong? I only had that thought because the site is in German, maybe he's 14

Going back into lurk mode, things haven't changed

whether he doesnt know he is wrong or not isnt exactly relevant at the point, he is still wrong. The only way to make him aware of that problem is correct him, at which I say BURN. Besides, if your savvy enough to make a sight and direct link to files, you should be smart enough to know that your not supposed to do it.

Yes, I see some of ours are also there, Markus, where did you email him, I can't seem to find his address, could you assist...thanks - Sharen

You can contact him PRIVATELY first. You don't have to embarass/humiliate someone as a first choice of action.

That is fine but how do I contact him....which I would do anyway, just want to contact him. Sharen

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12387&Form.ShowMessage=802104

There's a thread in "HTML & Web Scripting" on this, some possibly useful info in there. (attached)

@ movida: Its not german, it`s dutch. @SAMS3D: If you go the index site: http://home.hetnet.nl/~galaxym59/ you will find a gif for e-mails.

Thank you very much, I just emailed him....do you think he speaks english? Will he understand what I said, I wonder? Sharen

He gives a pic of the model, a link to the model, a link to the website that hosts the model. He is giving credit (and advertising) to the source for the model. He is doing nothing but increasing your website traffic. I honestly feel you guys are going off half cocked and will probably get his isp mad at him when he is only helping you. Jeez........ copyright infringement is if he uses your artwork and claims it to be his. If you didn't want your links advertised you shouldn't a put em on the web. I have no idea who this kid is, but I just realized how big a joik you guys can be.

sorry Markus, I'm not that familiar with languages. I just felt bad for the guy (at this point anyway). Thanks for the correction s

I don't feel at all sorry for him and I'm sure he knows it's wrong. Tired of people making excuses for thieves, next someone will pop up with "oh he was abused as a kid and can't help himself". Marque

Hey Markus....Rutger Hauer is Dutch isn't he? OMG!!!!! Maybe I was at Rugter Hauers' site....sigh....

I saw an image in the poser gallery the other day that said "The texture is Vicky, The model is so and so, the room is a download by Daz, the coffee pot is by so and so, the blah blah blah" ... nobody claimed copyright infringement because 1. the guy gave credit where it was due, 2. the guy obviously couldn't model on his own and his concept of poser art was in how all these things were put together. Nobody claimed that guy was a thief. Giving credit for sources is not stealing. Even in the case of poser 'artists' who use nothing but downloaded items and never model (if you can call that art) they are NOT stealing. And neither is this kid.

Chad100670: Links to your website aren't always a good thing. Sometimes you want the links to generate traffic, but in other cases it's just a hobby and the owner doesn't want to pay for all that bandwidth that results from "hotlinking." That increased transfer can get VERY expensive.

And it's also nice to ask permission first. Marque

chad100670 - just so you know he DOES NOT give a link to our web site, he DOES NOT give a link to the model and he gives a copy of our picture, which isn't that great, because it is a copy of a gif. But just so you know we got not credit at all. So what do we do know? Sharen

I mean what do we do now? Sharen

Just to set the record straight I haven't named him just his site, & he deserves to be shamed anyway. He's linking directly to the files without permission which is wrong, it only takes a quick trip to the nearest translation site with a readme for him to be able to understand he is seriously going to get his ass kicked for doing what he's doing. Rob

Some cheese with that whine Rob? If I had a server I'd mirror his site just to ............ never mind, I'm out of this arguement. The kid aint doin nothing wrong. (sic)

A nice bit of Brie thanks chad :p

lmao! :-)

Sharen get in touch either with him or his ISP, if the latter our past experiences have shown the isp will close the site about 5 minutes after they read your email......Steve

Wouldn't it be simpler for Sharen to just rename the file on her server? His link would be dead and you wouldn't be playing 'tattle tale'

Yeh i guess it would but then again why should he get away with ripping her off.....Steve

Well... I was planning an INDEX site that listed the models available (by category or subject) and refered the user to the main page of that website. I was counting on the merchants and people who put things up for download to give me permission and a list of their inventory. This to counter-act or to complete (depends on your pt of view)the Poser Paradise idea. So that if someone is looking for ,lets say: an umbrella, he can go to the index site and search for "umbrella" and get a listing of all the models available (commercial or non-commercial) and use the link beside the listing to get to the main page of the site where the model can be found. No pictures of any of the models would be provided, and no adverts allowed. I'm going to have to rethink this.

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

Q it sounds good what you're suggesting, but this guy is linking direct to the files themselves. Rob

Yes, thank you Steve, if I don't here from him soon, I will go and speak with the server. And chad100670 let me ask you a question, let's say as the creator of the model we decide that the free models have become to many, and we decide to archive them and then sell them at a later date, how are we suppose to make up for the loss if someone has taken our models and put them on their site for anyone to use. You see this has already happened to us, and we would really prefer that if someone wants to host our models that are free, we decide which ones and then mark them so that those are now at a loss to us and go out to everyone, never any changes to them or updates etc. Do you see why we would prefer to have them at least ask us first? Sharen

Yup, few people will object if you link to their main page, it's the direct linking they might have a problem with.

Q just wondering how you're going to keep up to date with it all tho, just looking at the freestuff here on rosity, there's a new item every few minutes.

If I give away something, it becomes the property of the person I gave it to. period. If I sell a painting to you I don't complain about where you hang it. I don't complain about who you show it to, or sell it to, or give it to. If you want to keep something as yours, don't give it away. If you want to control who gets it, send it to that person directly, don't post it on the web. Do I complain when one of my drawings or paintings gets posted to a newsgroup or a website? only if someone erases my signature and puts their own in. (hasn't happened yet) Do you also complain about how your models are used? let's say someone uses your model in an obscene image.. in an image that you would be totally opposed to.. do you have any say so in that? no, because you gave it away. Also, why cut the guys throat because one model's owner is peeved? perhaps there are ten people whose models appear on that page who appreciate the link..... perhaps not..... but should the guys entire website be taken down when you could easily remove that one model from your end. You guys remind me of the commercially obsessed individuals who want to charge for porn that is and has been free and floating around on the net for years. If I downloaded an image 50 times from newsgroups since 1995 I certainly don't want to pay some webmaster or avs to see it again. hrrrmmmph. If it bothers you that your model is floating around the net 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!

jchimim is correct, I would have not problem with him linking to our site. Chad100670 to answer your question (statement) to the best of my ability, Daz gives a free model away everyweek, then the next week it is pulled and then sold, why because it belongs to them and they have that right. I am saying is those who come to our site and take a model we offer for free, of course they have the right to do what they want with it, and we never said there were any restrictions to that, but if WE choose to take some of OUR free models away at a later time, after it has been around for others to take, WE have that right, and if WE decided to then archive them and then sell them that also is OUR right, but if someone has them on their site, like ours are on his site, and he did not ask permission, then WE now have lost our rights to do with our models what we will. All he had to do was ask us before he took them, we have given other's the right to have them on their sites after we were politely asked. He has not asked. Sharen

And an artist or owner DOES have the right to determine how intelectual property is used. If you don't believe that, buy a DVD movie, copy it, then start selling the copies.

and alson, you say "Also, why cut the guys throat because one model's owner is peeved?" I don't recall cutting his throat, as a merchant I feel by contacting him directly was the right approch, I will wait till I hear from him and then him and I will discuss it privatly. Sharen What this gentleman did was incorrect, you don't do things like this without asking.

Oh by the way, sorry for the incorrect spelling of some words, poor example. Sharen

I also have seen some of my work displayed on sites without my permission. I figured it was public domain. However when I was told that one of my photographs was being used as a background for a pornsite, I had him shut down in less than a week. You do control some aspects of how your work is displayed. There is a moral aspect to this sort of thing. Rob, Anything that is hosted on a website, not in freestuff (it after all has its own search engine)could be referenced on the Index site. The creator would need only email me with the details. I would try and update once a day. I hadn't considered the increase trafic that this might bring to a hobbyest and the possible $ question. I'm going to have to rethink this and perhaps wait and see what the Poser Paradise idea is all about. If merchants are interested in this sort of free service they can IM me. Don't expect a fancy site. This should be a quick access and on to buiseness type of thing. Anyways, we'll see. Take care. Q PS: Sharen I agree with your point of view.

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

Chad as far as i can see this isn't about a person giving a model away (which i disagree with you about too) its about a person linking to another site and stealing bandwidth which cost money....lets try and put this into perspective, if a person puts a model up for free on his website and he/she has a 1GB limit per month then has to pay for every MB beyond that then the more sites linking to the files the more its going to cost..Steve

It falls under internet protical. You don't direct link to people's pictures or files because everyone knows it drains their bandwidth. You link to their site. As much as people would like to think the internet is rule free... it's not.

Yup, hosting companies may charge as much as $20 per gig if you exceed, and $5-$10 is not uncommon.

Wow - what a discussion. It makes me feel that I need to comment, and I'd like to start doing so by mentioning a parallel case. A Danish News-service was successfully brought to court by the Danish Association of Newspaper Publishers. The case concerned exactly the same thing we discuss here: Deep links. The news-service operated on a subscriber basis, providing a search service, which gave the customers a direct access to those pages in the newspapers sites which had their interest. It is important to be aware that the service only linked to public pages of the newspapers, not subscriber-only. The newspapers on their side demanded that the news service be prohbibted from posting any deep links to their news sites as it potentially decreased advertising revenue. The newspapers won the case with the argument that the newsservice was making money through their deep links. If the newsservice had been free of charge, the deep linking would, by implication, have been OK. However, this was not specifically stated. At the same time, a ruling in an American court has established that, according to American copyright law, deep linking is OK. This ruling concerned two businesses, Ticketmaster and Ticket.com. The former contended that Ticket.com was doing something illegal by deep linking to Ticketmasters site, but they lost the case. These are the links to the Danish case: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,51887,00.html http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/776542.asp#BODY and to the Travelmaster case: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html It seems clear from these two rulings that deep links to other webpages are definitely OK if you are not making money on the venture. It might even be OK if you are running a business. Now to our Dutch webpage: What he is doing is essentially deep links. He is not claiming copyright. He clearly states the name of the provider in most cases. The only place I can see a problem is on the texture pages, where the origin can be a bit unclear. He could have asked if the linking was OK, but he is, by all indications, not doing anything illegal. There is another aspect of this deep-link discussion, which is of much more principal nature, and that concerns the very nature of free information on the internet. I have in this post used 3 deep links. If you glance through this forum, you will find almost exclusively deep links. I daresay that if I had asked for a model of a mailbox, someone would most likely have answered me with a deep link. If deep links become illegal, we can only link to the main page of any site, and information will slowly grind to a halt. Now that is a worrysome prospect in my not so very humble opinion. Those of you, who are miffed about your models appearing on the dutch site or are afraid of your bandwidth, write to the guy and ask him to remove them. Judging from the character of the site, he will most probably be happy to comply. But unless you specifically state in your pages that deep links are not acceptable, I cannot see any infringement issues in this business at all.

I guess the only thing that really bothers me is that when my bandwidth is stretched to it's limit, my web server shuts me down, then I can't open up again until I pay the extra amount or wait it out. So it will affect me directly, I don't think that is fair. Sharen PS: like I said I will speak with him directly and privatly and then it will be over for today.

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! The battle cry of the uneducated. The internet allows us to exchange information with the greatest of ease, but it does not allow for the FREE exchange of that information unless the copyright owner allows for it. The creator has the right to say how, when and in what for their creations may be shared, sold or transmitted. If they don't want person x offering their files for download on person x's pages that is their right. Nothing about the internet changes that, except for the greedy or immoral nature of the people RECIEVING that information. As for bandwidth theft. Two years ago it wasn't a big deal as bandwidth was essentially free. Now providers keep track of how much is used and a cost is assigned. Many ISP's are currently considering charging the user, for the bandwidth they use. For those of us who have been paying for the bandwidth on the sites we host, we have the right to control who may use the bandwidth we pay for.

I Knew the site . its one of the only in Dutch language . And I always saw it as links to other sites (yours in this case) I didnt notice the problem in the first place aswell. Maybe because here almost all webspace is free. So linking and give credit is usually enough. It would have been politer to ask first though. Regards Myske

Well, putting up a link to a site is one thing...but linking directly to files within that site is bandwidth stealing plain and simple. If he truly wanted to drive traffic to their sites, he would have just used a link, it looks like he wants the traffic to stay on his site, so he links directly to the files so no one has to visit the other sites, and doesn't have to worry about his bandwidth getting used for the downloads. Sorry, that's just plain wrong. Pendy

chad100670, there is nothing wrong with him showing the models and then giving a link to the website, but he is direct linking to the files which has always been considered bandwidth stealing unless he had permission from the owner of the site. Cannot blame them as I would be upset too. This bypasses their website and ends up being a free fileserver for him. Hope he is able to be stopped. This is the kind of thing that causes alot of good modellers who give their stuff for free to stop doing so.

Battlecry of the uneducated? I have a degree. Copyright owner? Nope. When someone gives away a work, it is considered in the public domain. It would be a different case if the model were stolen from a site, but the models are given away, i.e. placed in public domain. Giving away a model and placing it in the "Free Stuff" category of downloads is making a clear statement that it is public domain. You insist on complaining about bandwidth... would you be happier if he actually placed the model on HIS site for download? No? Then bandwidth is not your issue. You are only using that as a crutch. As for the arguement.. "what if I want to offer it for free this week and sell it next week?"... Well, you gave it away. By placing it in the public domain you can sure as heck sell it, but you can't claim exclusive rights to something you gave up exclusive rights to. Daz gives away their free models... but when they pull them off their site and offer them on CD they don't expect you to delete your copy that you downloaded for free, and then run out and ask you to erase the image of their model from all of your renderings. Do they? It's simple, if you want to sell something, sell it. If you want exclusive rights to something, don't label it "FREE STUFF!" - As far as the news example above - Fair Use laws should cover that in the United States - Newspapers regularly run stories written by other papers without permission and are basically immune from copyright laws. Newspapers also can run anyone's photograph without their permission in reporting, as long as their stories are not slander or libel. It's an extension of Freedom of the Press (First and Fourteenth amendments of the US constitution) If I do a painting or take a photograph that I don't want passed around on the net, I take the common sense approach and don't post it. I think the "Battlecry of the uneducated" is more likely some phrase originating in some pro-censorship thought legislating fiasco such as moralityinmedia or in our current republican-led Orwellian administrations proclivity to legislate free thought, free trade, and free exchange of information.

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

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

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.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

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.

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

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.

Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hazard
S Mallarmé

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.

...... Kendra

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

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

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 :)

...faith, trust and pixiedust

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

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

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