From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 14/4/05 3:58, in article BE82C7FA.11A6E%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE836D33.9CAC%wally@wally.world.net on 4/13/05 9:44 AM:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> 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!   
   >   
   > Fair enough - now, can you support it?   
      
      
   Uuummmmm! What exactly would you like supported?   
      
   1) "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,"   ........that's just plain common sense!   
      
   Or   
      
   " bearing in mind of course that you would have to be pretty naive to   
   think that such instructions would be adhered to," ....that too is obvious!   
      
   or   
      
   " but at least that would add some weight to the complaints that you now   
   bring, no matter how absurd they may be," .....it's true, you would not look   
   as silly as you now do!   
      
   Or   
      
   " so did you include restrictions on viewing when you invited visitors?"   
   Did you not notice that that was a question? You wish me to support a   
   question!   
      
   Blowing smoke is fine Snit but it doesn't work very well when you are using   
   it without any thought at all!   
      
    >>> 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 have had neighborhood BBQ's at my house.  I have let people enter my house   
   > to use the restroom.   
      
   " to use the restroom" do you understand the term restrictions? In your   
   analogy you have determined those ie..." to use the restroom" I asked you   
   above if you specified such restrictions " so did you include restrictions   
   on viewing when you invited visitors?" you have not answered so I assume you   
   did not, if you are going to use analogies at least try and have them   
   remotely resemble the topic at hand!   
      
   >  If I caught one of them going through my possessions   
   > in my bedroom - or wherever - you better believe I would have a problem with   
   > it.   
      
   You would indeed have a problem especially it the alleged offender could   
   show that you had invited such behavior....in the case of your site,   
   behavior such as modifying images of you, without stipulating any   
   restrictions (ooop's there's that word again) as to where those images were   
   to be obtained from.   
      
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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!   
   >   
   > Why?  You seem to be implying I should not have such sites on the web... I   
   > have every right... I just have to accept that there will be some obsessive   
   > weirdos who will data mine them.   
      
   There you go! There's your difficulty, you know it's going to happen, you   
   know you should accept it is going to happen, but you complain when the   
   inevitable does happen! ...go figure!   
      
   >  I do not have to accept that there will be people stealing my images,   
   modifying them, and then re-posting them.   
      
   I am afraid you do have to accept it, especially as seems to be the case you   
   invited such behavior, without any thought as to where these images may be   
   obtained from, very remiss of you, especially in light of your recent   
   complaints.   
      
   > There are laws, at least in the US, about such things.   
      
   Then perhaps you can indicate one that pertains to this very scenario?   
   I am quite confident that somewhere it will indicate that sufficient steps   
   would have needed to have been taken to indicate such downloading was at the   
   very least frowned upon, in the absence of legitimate copyright of course,   
   neither aspect seems to apply to your images.   
      
   >   
   > Likely I would have to show monetary damages and it would not be worth   
   > pursuing... but copyright infringement is not OK.   
      
   In the absence of explicit copyright, I believe your invitation to modify   
   images without specifically placing your images off limits would negate any   
   implied copyright assuming of course such a thing even exists.   
      
   >>>>>  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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)