From: wally@wally.world.net
On 13/4/05 13:38, in article BE81FE7F.118DF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
"Snit" wrote:
> "Wally" stated in post
> BE81A76A.9A34%wally@wally.world.net on 4/12/05 1:25 AM:
>
>>>> I didn't realize you made any browsing restriction as public as the
posting
>>>> of the url was!.....you did didn't you?
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean.
>>
>> It's simple, if you post an url to a portion of a site and it is only that
>> portion that you want accessed it would be prudent to inform people of that
>> fact, bearing in mind of course that you would have to be pretty naive to
>> think that such instructions would be adhered to, but at least that would
>> add some weight to the complaints that you now bring, no matter how absurd
>> they may be, so did you include restrictions on viewing when you invited
>> visitors?
>
> I disagree with your premise.
Never doubted that you would!
>
> If I invite a neighbor into my house, that does not imply permission to
> check my dresser drawers for what they may find.
Firstly of course I would suspect that you know your neighbor so the need to
leave such an invitation in a public place doesn't really apply but anyway
what if you left a sign outside your house inviting you neighbor to visit?,
clearly you would have no control over who visited and where they went, it
would be incumbent on you to safeguard your property failure to do so is
your problem, not much good complaining afterwards!
>>
>>> I posted url's to some pages... the person in question went to other pages
>>> that were not linked from them... in fact, the person went to every page
>>> that could be found, and did so repeatedly to most.
>>
>> I still don't see the problem , I too have visited sites from a particular
>> link, found it of interest, and subsequently trimmed the url to see if other
>> parts of that complex are as interesting, if the owner of that site didn't
>> want visitors or at least only wanted select people viewing select parts,
>> there are ways and means I am sure of achieving that end, another example
>> is Acquisition p2p, that has a feature that allows the host to be browsed,
>> if you don't want people to have that ability then steps have to be taken to
>> prevent it, if you don't then it is hardly reasonable to complain when
>> people use the function, you must surely have been aware that that which you
>> are now complaining about was possible, in fact given your relationship with
>> some posters it must have been obvious that it 'would' happen.
>
> Sure it would happen - there are obsessive whackos that will do just about
> anything to learn about me.
All the more reason to safeguard that which you do not wish to be accessed!
>>> Also grabbed images off
>>> of some of the pages, modified them, and then reposted them on another
site.
>>
>> Again I don't doubt it, most images originated on some web site or other why
>> did you think that you would be immune?
>
> What makes you think of immunity? Not sure how you jumped to there.
Nice one Sherlock..... "not affected by a given influence;"
> I am talking about what is reasonable, not what is possible. I was fully
> aware that it was possible for someone to be unreasonable... and they were.
Therefore it was reasonably to expect that which you now complain about
would happen, and yet you failed to take steps to prevent it.
>
>> Had someone managed to add to your site, sure I would agree with you 100%,
>> but to download from it that which is downloadable...I see no problem!
>> As to the images themselves did any copyright protection apply?
>
> I believe any image one makes has an implies copyright
Rather negates the need for 'copyright' don't you think?
>- but I do not knows the laws for certain.
I can tell! ;)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
