Bandwidth Stealing on a WW website

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jake Jarvis wrote:

> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>

Your not breaking the law. Not as long as you just provide links.
One idea; Instead of linking directly to the plans, why not link to
the sites main page? I doubt they would have a problem with that.

The problem with "Hot Linking" as you are doing is that some people
get confused and think the material is yours. Just link to the main
site and you should be fine.

Oh, I just have to do this :)
http://www.ulrickwoodworks.com

- --
http://www.macphreak.org/gpgkey.pub
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAA/CYI7EhyMtFJOQRAlsdAJ0U6lxsfjYP+s6GJrb6AHyoCIsqcQCglhwH
7dJKaixN+rod5kRIvKY66C8=
=ZeXw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

bgross wrote:

> why provide links to the mainpage instead of the plans themselves? If the
> page was created properly their adds would still launch even with a direct
> link to the plans.
>

That would work as well. As long as you don't bypass the adverts by
direct linking to specific files then that would be fine.

- --
http://www.macphreak.org/gpgkey.pub
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFABU9WI7EhyMtFJOQRAo5AAJ9dbJabupWusbgwAtZQ1fE2HckUBACffvzn
PgZxVFhvv4wdeLdhcEbFo/8=
=W4Ex
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jake Jarvis asks:

>
>I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
>signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
>approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
>input, please.
>
>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
>non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
>Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
>anything in return.

I don't know if there's a law against it or not, and if I had a site for
someont to link to, in most cases, I'd be happy to have it happen,
but...commercial sites tend to like to be asked about that, maybe make a trade
as you link them, they link you, etc. Lots of non-commerical sites, too.

>I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
>breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
>everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
>as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.

As I said, I don't know of a specific law, but it is different from saving as
an URL in your folder because your site is up for public view all the time,
while your folder is private.

Charlie Self
If God had wanted me to touch my toes he would have put them higher on my body.

http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html

Silvan <[email protected]> writes:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > I don't know if there's a law against it or not, and if I had a site for
> > someont to link to, in most cases, I'd be happy to have it happen,
> > but...commercial sites tend to like to be asked about that, maybe make a
> > trade as you link them, they link you, etc. Lots of non-commerical sites,
> > too.
>
> Some places will have some kind of "if you link, please link to the top
> page" type of thing to avoid people linking to machine-generated pages. I
> haven't ever actually noticed anyone asking people not to link to their
> sites.
>
> Or perhaps what the OP is referring to in a rather vague way is a situation
> where he has linked to some page three pages into a site, and has thus lead
> followers of his link to detour around the opening graphics and banner ads.
> "Stealing" money by encouraging people to circumvent these revenue
> generators.

The linker may be doing a service by linking directly to the
page of interest. There are sites that are so badly organized
that sending someone to the sites' main page will leave the
surfer baffled as to how to find the page of interest.

> Well, in that case, I would change links on my site to point to the
> money-earning page on request from the site owner, on a case by case basis.
> I would do this as a matter of courtesy, in recognition of the fact that
> quality webspace is expensive, and someone has to pay for it, but not out
> of fear of legal reprisal.
>
> I don't see where there's a @$%#$!%#$!% thing anybody can do to stop me from
> throwing up links wherever I want. A equals HREF quote http://blah de
> frickin blah. If that isn't free speech, I don't know what is. This is
> still America, for a few more years anyway.

"Jake Jarvis" wrote ...
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.

Bandwidth theft is when you offer access to a file stored on a web or FTP
site that is linked from one of your web pages where the target is
downloaded directly from the other location but the person downloading has
no idea of this. For example, on my web site I offer a free download of a
piece of shareware software. Another individual in the past put up a web
site also offering the same download from his site. However, when people
downloaded from his site, his code directed them to my directory, without
their knowledge, and he used my monthly download allowance to provide this
software without giving any hint as to where the file was actually stored,
and without giving the visitor a chance to view my pages.

Now, if he had simply linked to my software page, he would have been guilty
only of furthering the goals of the internet - a free exchange of
information. That's what we all want. Instead, he offered the software
under the guise of being the originator of the download but saved himself
the cost of paying for the bandwidth by making me do it for him. That is
wrong.

I wouldn't worry about it. It sounds as if you are providing a directional
service for which this other person should be thankful - you are increasing
their traffic. If you were linking to an inside frame without the benefit
of their navigation bars they might suggest you use an alternate URL but
accusing you of bandwidth theft is improper as, from what you have written,
you have not done anything of the sort.

--

Cheers,
Howard

----------------------------------------------------------
Working wood in New Jersey - [email protected]
Visit me in the woodshop - www.inthewoodshop.org

Swingman said:

>"http_referer" is not through "reading the peoples cookies" ... you know
>that as well as I do.

Hey, I agreed with you concerning the 'reading cookies' bit, I was
just pointing out that for statistic analysis, many sites use
http_referrer - even though not secure.

>Besides, NEVER trust any browser passed variables .. they're too easy to
>spoof. :)

I certainly wouldn't trust them for anything important, but how
important could knowing OS, browser and referring URL be? ;-)
Most web surfers don't bother spoofing, and they can reveal minutely
interesting trends (at best).

Shoot, is there anything you don't dabble in? <g>


Greg G.

This is one of the craziest questions I've ever seen! Who's telling you
this? Do they not understand the concept of the web? Look I work for a
publications company. We have several very popular Magazines. They are
trade publications, controlled circulation. And we have several very
popular sites that get a lot of traffic for our industry. With thousands of
pages of information. All free. And traffic, is always a good thing. Sure
we have banner advertisers on the sites, but sometimes people fins us
through a search engine like Google, and bypass them. Not a problem, That's
the way of the web. Not to mention if they didn't find out site that way,
they might not have found it at all. So what would you rather have, traffic
or a dead site.

Then there's the concept of qualified traffic. Which simply means they the
people finding your site are the people you wan looking at your site. If
the site is about woodworking, are woodworkers getting there. If your
offering free woodworking plans it's no help to your advertisers if people
who do a search for free plans on Google, are actually looking for house
plans. Those are not quality users. But if someone puts a link on this
group to a woodworking site, there's a good chance that someone going to it
from this group is a quality user.

I know of no law on this subject. If you were copying content and putting
it on your personal page, that's one thing, but this is just plan crazy
talk.


"Jake Jarvis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>
> --
> Jake
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell
> happened.

I can't see a problem saying, for such and such, go here. Obviously
they are reading the peoples cookies and seeing what directed the
viewers to the mystery webpages. Unless you are behind some kind of
denial of service attack. I take it you are not using anything
trademarked on your site. But I suppose just take it off as it isn't
worth the hassle. Who was it?

Jake Jarvis wrote:

>I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
>signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
>approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
>input, please.
>
>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
>non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
>Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
>anything in return.
>I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
>breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
>everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
>as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
>All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>
>
>

I looked at your free plans page and it is very nice. And you obviously
qualified the plans somewhat. Perhaps if you left the link there but
only in plain text. Say go there, for this. Then you are not linking but
providing directions to people. Who was it?????? What webpage does the
owner not want us to see??? But take down the contact information to
just a hotmail account or something.

Jake Jarvis wrote:

>I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
>signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
>approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
>input, please.
>
>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
>non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
>Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
>anything in return.
>I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
>breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
>everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
>as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
>All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>
>
>

Greg wrote:

>Swingman said:
>
>
>
>>ible way, Jose ... stick to something you know about.
>>
>>
That's helpful. Why the grandstanding? Children watching?

Greg wrote:

>Actually, while not directly 'reading' cookies, most browsers DO offer
>up referring URL, operating system, and browser type info.
>
>
>
>
Well I thought it could be done somehow. Where is there a law written
that you cannot do this. Or did Jake sign some agreement. They are just
trying to scare him with the theft word. It's the people that use the
link that are using the bandwidth. Jake's link is on his bandwidth.

If this website is so concerned can't they rig the page so if you don't
have a cookie picked up from their intro page, you can't view a plans
page? It seems we all only dabble in it. Any consensus, without the
escalation.

I want to know who it is? If they really said this to Jake he is not
compelled to keep it secret.

J

Thanks for the update, I appreciate it. And it was educational too! Not
enough people are so conscientious.



Jake Jarvis wrote:

>Thanks to all who replied to my question. What I have found out is,
>there has been a case ruled on by U.S. District Court Judge in
>California. A snipit from www.chillingeffects.org says............
>
>Question: Is "deep linking" illegal?
>
>Answer: "Deep linking" refers to the creation of hyperlinks to a page
>other than a website's homepage. For example, instead of pointing a link
>at http://www.chillingeffects.org, this site's "homepage," another site
>might link directly to the linking FAQ at
>http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq .
>
>Some website owners complain that deep links "steal" traffic to their
>homepages or disrupt the intended flow of their websites. In particular,
>Ticketmaster has argued that other sites should not be permitted to send
>browsers directly to Ticketmaster event listings. Ticketmaster settled
>its claim against Microsoft and lost a suit against Tickets.com over
>deep linking.
>
>From Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com opinion:
>Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the
>Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is
>involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular
>genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what
>is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get
>reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.
>
>So far, courts have found that deep links to web pages were neither a
>copyright infringement nor a trespass.
>
>So, I guess we're OK.
>
>Just to reply to a couple of the post.
> I have, and will continue to remove any link that the web site
>owner request. This is done without any hesitation.
> My site has frames, so I have the links set up to open in a "new"
>window so there will be no mistake what site you are on.
> There are no files of any kind "hot-linked". Any thing downloaded
>from one of the sites is from them, not me.
>
>Again, thanks for all the replies. As usual, this group can be counted
>on for help. Oh yeah, I did put my URL back into my signature.
>
>
>Jake Jarvis
>http://www.justwoodworking.com
>______________________________________________________________________
>Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell
>happened.
>
>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:30:48 -0600, Jake Jarvis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
>signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
>approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
>input, please.
>
>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
>non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
>Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
>anything in return.
>I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
>breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
>everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
>as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
>All comments welcomed and appreciated.


The only problem I've heard about is when a website will contain a
link to a Download on someone else's site -- making it possible to
download a file or files without actually visiting the original site.
THAT is bandwidth stealing -- you are essentially offering downloads
from your website, but someone else is providing the server, storage,
and bandwidth. This does not sound like what you are doing, however.
Just about every woodworking website I know of has links to other
woodworking sites.

tt

Jake Jarvis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.

I don't see any problem with this at all. The internet is all about
linking, and unless you're embedding their images on your webpage, or
trying to pass their content as yours, or linking to a secured area of
their website, there's nothing wrong with it, and I don't believe
there's anything they can do about it.

How do they expect people to get to their website if another website
isn't linked to it? Am I just supposed to guess their URL?
Ridiculous.

"Jules" wrote in message
>snip

> Obviously
> they are reading the peoples cookies and seeing what directed the
> viewers to the mystery webpages.

No possible way, Jose ... stick to something you know about.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/12/04

<Greg G.> wrote in message

> Brumbies? Do you mean wild Australian horses?
> Buffalo? Now you're dating yourself... <g>

Thought I was kidding didn't you? You betcha ... but they were rideable, for
the most part, and were used, along with a small fleet of Land Rovers, to
hunt wild water buffalo in Arnhem Land and Cape York peninsula area in the
early 60's. The guy I worked for exported the meat to the US for pet food
... don't get me started. ;>)

BTW, I am still looking a for a BIG planer.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/12/04

Thanks to all who replied to my question. What I have found out is,
there has been a case ruled on by U.S. District Court Judge in
California. A snipit from www.chillingeffects.org says............

Question: Is "deep linking" illegal?

Answer: "Deep linking" refers to the creation of hyperlinks to a page
other than a website's homepage. For example, instead of pointing a link
at http://www.chillingeffects.org, this site's "homepage," another site
might link directly to the linking FAQ at
http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq .

Some website owners complain that deep links "steal" traffic to their
homepages or disrupt the intended flow of their websites. In particular,
Ticketmaster has argued that other sites should not be permitted to send
browsers directly to Ticketmaster event listings. Ticketmaster settled
its claim against Microsoft and lost a suit against Tickets.com over
deep linking.

From Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com opinion:
Further, hyperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the
Copyright Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is
involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular
genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what
is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to get
reference to particular items, albeit faster and more efficiently.

So far, courts have found that deep links to web pages were neither a
copyright infringement nor a trespass.

So, I guess we're OK.

Just to reply to a couple of the post.
I have, and will continue to remove any link that the web site
owner request. This is done without any hesitation.
My site has frames, so I have the links set up to open in a "new"
window so there will be no mistake what site you are on.
There are no files of any kind "hot-linked". Any thing downloaded
from one of the sites is from them, not me.

Again, thanks for all the replies. As usual, this group can be counted
on for help. Oh yeah, I did put my URL back into my signature.


Jake Jarvis
http://www.justwoodworking.com
______________________________________________________________________
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell
happened.

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you're linking to some large corporate's site and they don't like
> it, then this isn't stealing, it's terrorism.
> http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm
> Hey, it's your president, you fix it.
>
> Don't go anywhere near music, or you may have flak-jacketed
> record-industry goons arrest you:
> http://theregister.co.uk/content/28/34835.html
>

Could you find any less reputatble sources to back up your claims? I doubt
it.

Frank

"Jake Jarvis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing?

Who is making the accusation? Is it someone that SELLS plans and does not
want to see links to free ones? I do not see how it can be interpreted as
stealing when all you are doing is providing a set of directions. Not much
different than saying the information you want is in the library, row 6, top
shelf. Is this not what Google and other search engines do and look for
commercial gain?

Most people encourage the sharing of links, thus the different "rings" that
people join and link their sites to so they can increase traffic.

Let the accuser show you in the law where theft is taking place. IMO, if
that is trued, the internet will make drastic changes once the Supreme Court
rules on it.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

In news:[email protected],
Jake Jarvis <[email protected]> typed:
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's
> address showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing?
> This is on a non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans
> and Industry Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and
> not requiring anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the
> URL as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.



First, IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

Next. Howard described "bandwidth stealing" very well (at least it's
consistant with my own definition). However, on the broader subject of
"breaking the law", if you are really concerned you need to ask a lawyer
whose specializes in this field. Free does not mean "public domain". The
source(s) you're linking too may have copyright and your method of linking
may violate this.

Finally. In general, you should ask permission to link to someone else's
website. If they refuse, or ask after the fact to be removed, you should
honor the request (IMO)

<gabriel> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > IMHO this means precisely nill. My objection is that for some reason
> > entertainers are given credibility for no reason other than they are
well
>
> You miss the point. The point is that this is a person who has a
documented
> history of not being an outspoken supporter of xxxxxx issue. Then
something
> happens that mekes this person change. That is all.
>

I got the point. My point is that there are a lot of people out there who
previously didn't have an opinion who now think that the administration
should do whatever it feels necessary (BTW, I don't think this - it is just
an example). My point is that inexplicably, entertainers' opinions are
given more credibility than mine for example.

Frank

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Rickie Lee Jones ? A musician who has been almost entirely apolitical
> throughout her career, but now feels sufficiently outraged by the
> excesses of Bush's martial law to start protesting.
>

IMHO this means precisely nill. My objection is that for some reason
entertainers are given credibility for no reason other than they are well
known. This phenomenon has always puzzled me. Much like Jane Fonda
promoting communism in the Vietnam war. You just have to wonder sometimes.

> As for the Register, then what do you mean ? They're the industry
> standard news site for the UK tech industry (in a way that "The
> Industry Standard" never was).
>

I have no problem with the Register, but my question after reading both
counts of the story is this: What are you afraid of? The subject of the
story was breaking the law and he got off with a warning from someone who
wasn't even an authority figure. Apparently he only cost the recording
industry $624 a year. Is this nothing to worry about? If so, I will give
you my address and you can send me $624 a year because I think it is
significant. The law is the law.

And to play the Register's little game of meaningless mathematics, try this
one.
If one person can scam the RIAA out of $624 a year and everyone in America
did this, the RIAA would be out $624 x 280 million = $174,720,000,000.
Should they be entitled to sue for this?

Frank

"http_referer" is not through "reading the peoples cookies" ... you know
that as well as I do.

Besides, NEVER trust any browser passed variables .. they're too easy to
spoof. :)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/12/04


<Greg G.> wrote in message
> Swingman said:
>
> >"Jules" wrote in message
> >>snip
> >
> >> Obviously
> >> they are reading the peoples cookies and seeing what directed the
> >> viewers to the mystery webpages.
> >
> >No possible way, Jose ... stick to something you know about.
>
> Actually, while not directly 'reading' cookies, most browsers DO offer
> up referring URL, operating system, and browser type info.

Charlie Self wrote:

> I don't know if there's a law against it or not, and if I had a site for
> someont to link to, in most cases, I'd be happy to have it happen,
> but...commercial sites tend to like to be asked about that, maybe make a
> trade as you link them, they link you, etc. Lots of non-commerical sites,
> too.

Some places will have some kind of "if you link, please link to the top
page" type of thing to avoid people linking to machine-generated pages. I
haven't ever actually noticed anyone asking people not to link to their
sites.

Or perhaps what the OP is referring to in a rather vague way is a situation
where he has linked to some page three pages into a site, and has thus lead
followers of his link to detour around the opening graphics and banner ads.
"Stealing" money by encouraging people to circumvent these revenue
generators.

Well, in that case, I would change links on my site to point to the
money-earning page on request from the site owner, on a case by case basis.
I would do this as a matter of courtesy, in recognition of the fact that
quality webspace is expensive, and someone has to pay for it, but not out
of fear of legal reprisal.

I don't see where there's a @$%#$!%#$!% thing anybody can do to stop me from
throwing up links wherever I want. A equals HREF quote http://blah de
frickin blah. If that isn't free speech, I don't know what is. This is
still America, for a few more years anyway.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

why provide links to the mainpage instead of the plans themselves? If the
page was created properly their adds would still launch even with a direct
link to the plans.

"xpurple" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jake Jarvis wrote:
>
> > I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> > signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> > approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> > input, please.
> >
> > If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> > articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> > showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> > non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> > Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> > anything in return.
> > I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> > breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> > everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> > as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
> >
> > All comments welcomed and appreciated.
> >
>
> Your not breaking the law. Not as long as you just provide links.
> One idea; Instead of linking directly to the plans, why not link to
> the sites main page? I doubt they would have a problem with that.
>
> The problem with "Hot Linking" as you are doing is that some people
> get confused and think the material is yours. Just link to the main
> site and you should be fine.
>
> Oh, I just have to do this :)
> http://www.ulrickwoodworks.com
>
> - --
> http://www.macphreak.org/gpgkey.pub
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
> iD8DBQFAA/CYI7EhyMtFJOQRAlsdAJ0U6lxsfjYP+s6GJrb6AHyoCIsqcQCglhwH
> 7dJKaixN+rod5kRIvKY66C8=
> =ZeXw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:30:48 -0600, Jake Jarvis <[email protected]>
wrote:

|I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
|signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
|approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
|input, please.
|
|If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
|articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
|showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
|non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
|Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
|anything in return.
|I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
|breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
|everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
|as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
|
|All comments welcomed and appreciated.

You've gotten a lot of good advice on the potential legalities that I
won't expand upon. However, as a practical matter, what are they
going to do to you if you don't comply?

I'll give a couple of examples where I was the "victim" so to speak
and yet am helpless to do much about it.

1) I wrote a technical paper that was published in an amateur radio
publication. With their permission, I put a copy on my web site,
along with some further information. I recently saw another paper
that cited me as a reference and gave a link to my paper *on someone
else's web site.* Not a link mind you; the actual pdf file. I email
him and asked what the hell was going on and got zero response. What
can I do about it? Nothing. Technically the publisher could go after
him for copyright violation but we are in the US and he is in Canada.


2) I described gadget in another article that was published in a now
defunct ham radio publication. Shortly after publication I was
flooded with letters requesting that I make a kit of parts and circuit
boards available. I fronted several $K to do this only to discover
that in the next issue there was a ad for a new kit company and their
first offering was "my" design. Oh, the owner of the new company?
Why it was the editor of the magazine. What could I do about it from
a legal standpoint? Nothing. (I sold all of my stuff and more BTW
since I wasn't trying to make a profit. I hope I burned his ass.)

So, unless you're up against Microsoft, GM or Wally World, what's
going to happen to you? Are they going to come to your town, hire a
lawyer and file suit? If you think so, then take the stuff down;
otherwise get a good night's sleep.

Test Tickle wrote:
>
> The only problem I've heard about is when a website will contain a
> link to a Download on someone else's site -- making it possible to
> download a file or files without actually visiting the original site.
> THAT is bandwidth stealing -- you are essentially offering (their) downloads
> from your website, ....




That makes sense.

So does the post about avoiding the sites ads by going
directly to a page.

Also, many sites 'value' is determined buy the number of
hits they get. That sites value is real important when it
comes to selling advertising. Each opened page counts as a
hit. If you subvert their hits by hot linking your driving
down their value.

An excellent example is NASCAR.com (About the most useless
frigging commercial web site I've seen). Theres no reason to
have to go through three or more levels to get to their
content. It may have changed, I don't open their pages often.

One method sites are using to stop direct linking to content
is Java. I've been through some sites where the root URL
never changes.



--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart.
(S. Clemens, A.K.A. Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure
ends the suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)

Linking, while it is the way of the web, is something you generally ask
permission to do ... or used to before the shoe merchants, ribbon clerks,
and aluminum Viagra siding salesman took over the web.

They are likely objecting because you are bypassing a part of their site
they want folks to see or enter by ... this is a VERY legitimate objection.
It is akin to telling folks to come into your place of business through the
outhouse door. Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute.

My bet is that they have no objection to links, so be polite and ask them
how they would prefer links to their site be effected.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/12/04


"Jake Jarvis" wrote in message
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>
> --
> Jake
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell
> happened.

The important ones do.

"Andy Jeffries" <[email protected]> wrote in message >

> Not everyone lives in the US...
>
>
> Andy

Swingman wrote:

> "http_referer" is not through "reading the peoples cookies" ... you know
> that as well as I do.
>
> Besides, NEVER trust any browser passed variables .. they're too easy to
> spoof. :)

Some browsers have built-in facilities for spoofing them. It is in this
fashion that I must visit Home Despot's web site, for example. It won't
talk to me unless it thinks I'm running either Nutscrape or Internet
Exploder, so I have Konqueror masquerade as Internet Exploder in order to
trick it into permitting me access. (The site works perfectly well after
this ruse.)

One more reason I like Lowe's better than Home Despot. Lowe's requires no
such trickery.

(Fortunately, Konqueror is pretty clever in this regard. It has a list of
what it needs to pretend to be at which sites, so this is all transparent
once initially configured on a per site basis.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

> IMHO this means precisely nill. My objection is that for some reason
> entertainers are given credibility for no reason other than they are well

You miss the point. The point is that this is a person who has a documented
history of not being an outspoken supporter of xxxxxx issue. Then something
happens that mekes this person change. That is all.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:40:28 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Could you find any less reputatble sources to back up your claims?

Well I could have referred you to a .gov site, but they're pretty
untrustworthy these days and I'm sure you can find them if you want.

Rickie Lee Jones ? A musician who has been almost entirely apolitical
throughout her career, but now feels sufficiently outraged by the
excesses of Bush's martial law to start protesting. That's not a bad
start for credibility, IMHO. It's also quite a good, readable and
accurate analysis of Last-Refuge-of-the-Scoundrel Acts 1 & 2.

As for the Register, then what do you mean ? They're the industry
standard news site for the UK tech industry (in a way that "The
Industry Standard" never was).

--
Do whales have krillfiles ?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:30:48 -0600, Jake Jarvis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing?

Dump the links, walk away, get on with your life.
if soeone else has their head up their ass, no need to make it ruin
_your_ day.


On the whole, I wish you'd post the relevant URLs, because it would
make the context a lot clearer.

If you're linking to some large corporate's site and they don't like
it, then this isn't stealing, it's terrorism.
http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm
Hey, it's your president, you fix it.

Don't go anywhere near music, or you may have flak-jacketed
record-industry goons arrest you:
http://theregister.co.uk/content/28/34835.html

It's not "stealing" (except in Washington) because the legal
definition of stealing is firmly based on the permanent deprivation of
a tangible asset. This is why phone phreaks et al needed to be
charging with "abstracting electricity" and similar contrived charges.

It may be a breach of copyright, except that you're presumably linking
to something that's freely available on their site, just not via the
route to it they'd like you to take.

If you exploit some mechanism on their site (and this can arguably be
applied to somethign as simple as de-framing some framed content) then
there's scope for an action under the DMCA.

If there's any attempt by your site to represent their content as
yours (perhaps a less than obvious link on your page to an
unattributed PDF), then this is a clear case of "passing off" under
ancient trademark laws.


Counter actions to all of these claims are possible, and a good basis
is the .htaccess defence (web search for Apache and .htaccess). It is
technically trivial to prevent access by any form of deep-linking that
the site objects to. A site that chooses _not_ to do this is thus in a
similar position to a shop that doesn't fit doorlocks, then complains
about stock theft. It's not a defence, but it does considerably weaken
their position.

If you're interested in any of these subjects, then a good place to
begin is by reading one of Lessig's books:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465039138/codesmiths-20>

If it's your site that suffers a deep-linking problem, then just use
.htaccess and fix it. Another reason not to deep-link unreasonably is
the embarassment of doing it, then finding your expected image
replaced automatically by something from goatse.cx (this is
increasingly used against eBay image pirates)

--
Do whales have krillfiles ?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:30:48 -0600, Jake Jarvis <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:

>I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
>signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
>approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
>input, please.

>If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
>articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
>showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
>non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
>Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
>anything in return.

If you are putting up a page of URLs on your site, you should
at least have asked the owners if it was OK. In most cases it
is happily agreed on because it brings more traffic to them.

If they're on a free site and you send too much traffic, it may
start to cost them some money, hence the permission aspect. It
is also frowned upon to put their site in your frames, hiding
their URL, but you state that you are not doing so.

Instead of linking and opening a new browser window, try a
straight link which takes your viewers off your site to the
actual URL. But if they want you to remove the link, it's
probably in your own best interest to do so.

URLs are public, captured URLs (where you have frames and do
not show their URL at all) are not and could be considered
theft.


>I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
>breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
>everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
>as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.

I asked a site owner to stop linking directly to one of my
graphics on my site so it showed on their page as their own.
They decided that using my work on their site was OK. I let
them know immediately after I looked at my stats page at the
end of the month. When they didn't respond to my request for
payment for the graphic (quick and easy out, eh?) immediately,
I notified their ISP of the theft and made sure they stopped
their client from continuing to do show my work as their own.

--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"Andy Jeffries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:15:56 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > Let the accuser show you in the law where theft is taking place. IMO,
if
> > that is trued, the internet will make drastic changes once the Supreme
> > Court rules on it.
>
> Or maybe the rest of the world will take the US Supreme Court to take a
> running jump!!!
>
> Not everyone lives in the US...
>

Right, because certainly a court decision by the Supreme Court would have no
effect whatsoever on the internet to the rest of the world.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:30:48 -0600, Jake Jarvis wrote:
>
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>

AFAIK there is not much case law about linking but there are some
generally accepted acceptable practices.

You can link to any homepage but linking to a URL below that (deep
linking) depends on what you are linking to and the nature of the site
you are linking to.

As a rule of thumb, put yourself in the position of the owner of the
site you are deep linking to. Would you be happy if somebody linked
directly to something on your site? If the answer is `yes' then go
ahead and do it, if `no' then don't do it. If you're not sure then
email webmaster@interesting_site.com and ask.

If they've asked you to cease & desist then ask them how they would
like you to link to their site but in the knowledge that there
probably isn't anything illegal with deep linking (AFAIK IANAL)

But in the interests of the 'net generally you should play nicely with
them, for one thing you don't want them bugging your hosting company
and one day you may be in the position where somebody might deep link
to your site.

I think there is an RFC and/or some info at W3C about linking
practices:

http://www.w3.org/

--

Frank

http://www.freebsd.org/

I'm not sure exactly which sites you might be talking about, but most "free
plans" sites that I've seen also have quite a few banner ads. By giving a
link directly to their plans, traffic from your site bypasses their ad
pages, reducing their revenue. Your site becomes better because people can
get directly to the content they want instead of having to browse through
pages of ads to get to the plans. That's why it would be considered
stealing. I have no idea if there is an actual legal issue, though. See if
you can provide a link to some of their main pages instead of the plans
themselves. This would increase their ad traffic, and you could still
provide the service to your visitors.

-MJ


"Jake Jarvis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm not advertising a site or company. I have removed the URL from my
> signature for this reason. This is a legitimate question. I have been
> approached to remove all of my links because I'm stealing. I need some
> input, please.
>
> If a web site has links to other sites for free plans, patterns,
> articles, etc, that are opened in a new window with that site's address
> showing in the address bar, does this constitute stealing? This is on a
> non-commercial site with links to 100's of Free Plans and Industry
> Links, of which all are of interest to woodworkers, and not requiring
> anything in return.
> I know there are many other sites doing the same thing. So, are we all
> breaking the law? Should we fight to maintain our sites or remove
> everything? I don't see where this is any different than saving the URL
> as a favorite in your "Favorites" folder.
>
> All comments welcomed and appreciated.
>
> --
> Jake
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell
> happened.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:46:50 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>IMHO this means precisely nill.

I agree. It means no credibility, but equally no lack of credibility.
Then I read the article and find it to be a pretty good first
introduction to why the Patriot Act is such an oppressive and shameful
act.

> My objection is that for some reason
>entertainers are given credibility for no reason other than they are well
>known.

This is always a risk, granted. But Rickie Lee Jones is hardly
Britney.

> The law is the law.

The law has always been the property of those most able to pay for it,
and this has been especially true in America.

Since some time in the 19th century, American government and law has
existed to support the aims of the biggest businesses. Sometimes it
has a little swing the other way (the anti-trust actions against the
oil companies) but it's generally the case that any business big
enough becomes either above the law, or is capable of bending the law
at its whim.

If you or I wear black assault vests, threaten someone with violent
"arrest" and remove their property, then it's called assault and
robbery. However the RIAA seem to be able to do this without any
redress or even the involvement of a court.

I saw a film tonight. There's now a trailer warning at the start,
threatening 10 year jail sentences for anyone taking photographs of
it. What's a typical sentence for violent assault in your locale ?

Try building a website that offers MP3s for download (several of my
friends have bands). Then take a look at your website and firewall
logs to see the interest the music publishing companies take. If your
title happens to overlap one of their artist's title, then look out
for the cease & desist letter about one of your own songs ! (and
titles aren't even copyrightable, let alone that fact that it's a
totally different song)

--
Do whales have krillfiles ?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:15:56 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Let the accuser show you in the law where theft is taking place. IMO, if
> that is trued, the internet will make drastic changes once the Supreme
> Court rules on it.

Or maybe the rest of the world will take the US Supreme Court to take a
running jump!!!

Not everyone lives in the US...


Andy

"Dabble"!!?? ... I don't "dabble", I _conquer_ ideas and concepts at every
opportunity and bend them to my will! ;>)

Besides, I haven't told you about the buffalo hunting, brumby wrangling,
bare-knuckle fist fighting days, and other careers ... yet. <g>

"Dabble" .. hummpph!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 1/12/04


<Greg G.> wrote in message

> Shoot, is there anything you don't dabble in? <g>

Swingman said:

>"Jules" wrote in message
>>snip
>
>> Obviously
>> they are reading the peoples cookies and seeing what directed the
>> viewers to the mystery webpages.
>
>No possible way, Jose ... stick to something you know about.

Actually, while not directly 'reading' cookies, most browsers DO offer
up referring URL, operating system, and browser type info.

FWIW,


Greg G.

Swingman said:

>"Dabble"!!?? ... I don't "dabble", I _conquer_ ideas and concepts at every
>opportunity and bend them to my will! ;>)

LMAO! Perhaps you should work for the Gubment on Nuclear (Nukular for
you Bushites...) Fusion projects. They could use a little help with
idea and concept bending...

>Besides, I haven't told you about the buffalo hunting, brumby wrangling,
>bare-knuckle fist fighting days, and other careers ... yet. <g>

Brumbies? Do you mean wild Australian horses?
Buffalo? Now you're dating yourself... <g>

>"Dabble" .. hummpph!

I figured that would get a rise outta ya... <G>


Greg G.