Why We Need a Code of Ethics for the Web

[JMH]

In our "right-click Save Image As" world, no one's content is safe from theft. Just ask Matthew Inman, author of the immensely popular if occasionally not-safe-for-work Web comic, The Oatmeal.

Last June, Inman wrote a blog post complaining about how most of his website had been scraped and reposted on FunnyJunk.com, one of hundreds of sites aimed at 12-year-olds who spend all day posting "lolz" on the Webbernets instead of doing something more wholesome -- like shoplifting. He accused FunnyJunk of rampant copyright fraud and provided literally thousands of examples to prove his point.

This blog post initiated a war between Inman and FunnyJunk's horde of pre-adolescent malcontents. Inman's main complaint? Not that FunnyJunk reposted his content but that it stripped his name from his drawings and failed to link back to his site.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/257563/why_we_need_a_code_of_ethics_for_the_web.html#tk.rss_news

 

[zigzag3143]

Very timely topic. Good find.

 

[Corrine]

The problem is that ethical people are already following a code of ethics. Unethical people will continue as they are -- using and abusing anything or anyone in their path.

 

[jcgriff2]

No doubt that those without ethics continue with "business as usual" -- as we ourselves have recently seen.

However, these unethical people and their minions must know the day of reckoning is near as they have hit a wall unlike any other that simply will not go down.

 

[jcgriff2]

The unethical people continue despite being forewarned.

It's amazing to me how stupid these people are considering their fate and that of their business are solely in their hands.

They simply don't realize how fortunate they are until the FBI or INTERPOL comes to their door.

Knock it off.

 

[Corrine]

I am very curious about why some forum owners feel as they "own" the volunteers who provide help on their forums.

 

[Corrine]

How can a forum owner who violates the sanctity of the private forum be trusted? How unethical!

 

[zigzag3143]

It seems to be more widespread than we first estimated. Perhaps power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. SN is a breath of fresh air.

US

 

[jcgriff2]

​

In addition to ethical behavior, simple common sense and general common courtesy by site owners involving the actual caring of the volunteers that contribute their free time should be law.

Imagine for a moment a hypothetical situation (of course.... ) involving an asinine site owner that is so self-centered (or perhaps paranoid..?) and changes board settings to deny permission to the general public (non-registered members) to view a volunteer's public profile page.

One may wish to visit a user profile in a "Guest capacity" (even though they may in fact be a registered member), because they wish privacy/ anonymity (i.e., don’t want their every movement tracked) while reviewing a volunteer's information, posts, VMs, etc... possibly related to an award that a volunteer has been nominated for.

In this hypothetical situation, the Guest is greeted by an "Access Denied -- You do not have permission to view this page" type message and perhaps just moves on to a much friendlier, open forum where it is more convenient to look for other potential award candidates.

Meanwhile, the volunteer(s) at the site(s) with the EYES-ONLY/CONFIDENTIAL user profiles may possibly end up being passed over for consideration of an award they very much deserve.

Very sad indeed should this hypothetical situation ever come to fruition as it would simply enhance the notion that some site owners consider volunteers to be nothing more than expendable commodities.

Here at Sysnative Forums, I can say without reservation that we (Admins) serve at the volunteer’s pleasure; not vice-versa.

I hope you all are enjoying your weekend.

Kind Regards. . .

John

 

[Deejay100six]

I sometimes show my ignorance by misunderstanding the subject matter of a thread. Excuse me if I'm doing just that here but here is my interpretation of what I think is being discussed.

The OP reminds me of a site I came across once where I saw many thousands of posts about tech related material where all of the posts were copy/pasted from other sites. There were only one or two people making those posts. I sometimes think that it would be good if it were possible to have some kind of internet policing to stop people from doing that. Sadly, I know that will probably never happen.

The last post made by John reminds me of a site where I have been actively involved since its inception. The site owner has disabled the users ability to view "who is online" and also to be able to see who is viewing a particular thread. I just think this is crazy and yes, I think, a little bit paranoid.

Another thing that really irritates me are the people that tick that box that says, "hide my online status this session". I won't speculate as to why I think these people do that for risk of offending them but hey, if you just posted on the forum a couple of minutes ago, of course I know you are logged on. I'd be interested to hear anyone's reasoning for this practice as I know there are one or two people here who do that, if not here, on other forum sites.

Going back to the OP, I must admit that I have never understood the need for copyright in certain situations. For instance, if I write an article for a site, I might make a screenshot to illustrate my point. It maybe took me all of 5 minutes to create the screenshot so its not really a big deal and why would it be wrong for someone to copy it? I just don't get it.

 

[AceInfinity]

I sometimes show my ignorance by misunderstanding the subject matter of a thread. Excuse me if I'm doing just that here but here is my interpretation of what I think is being discussed.

The OP reminds me of a site I came across once where I saw many thousands of posts about tech related material where all of the posts were copy/pasted from other sites. There were only one or two people making those posts. I sometimes think that it would be good if it were possible to have some kind of internet policing to stop people from doing that. Sadly, I know that will probably never happen.

The last post made by John reminds me of a site where I have been actively involved since its inception. The site owner has disabled the users ability to view "who is online" and also to be able to see who is viewing a particular thread. I just think this is crazy and yes, I think, a little bit paranoid.

Another thing that really irritates me are the people that tick that box that says, "hide my online status this session". I won't speculate as to why I think these people do that for risk of offending them but hey, if you just posted on the forum a couple of minutes ago, of course I know you are logged on. I'd be interested to hear anyone's reasoning for this practice as I know there are one or two people here who do that, if not here, on other forum sites.

Going back to the OP, I must admit that I have never understood the need for copyright in certain situations. For instance, if I write an article for a site, I might make a screenshot to illustrate my point. It maybe took me all of 5 minutes to create the screenshot so its not really a big deal and why would it be wrong for someone to copy it? I just don't get it.

Without credit to the original person I could see where it's kind of frustrating, it may take a minute to take a screenshot, but to get to that point, depending on what you're taking a screenshot of, how long does it take you to finally get to that point? What if I was debugging, and reversing a very complex piece of malware, and say writing a blog report to inform users of what this piece of malware does? Sometimes reversing the files that hold such malicious code takes hours and days. As it may be packed, obfuscated, or encrypted some other way, etc...

If I took a picture of a beautify sunrise, you can get in some trouble for copying that, but do people know the kind of work that goes on in the background for some computer screenshots as well? To be able to take a screenshot of certain things, it's a lot more work than most people know, because less people are knowledgeable in the technical world, in comparison to everyday "real" (material-based) stuff, or whatever you want to call it. People know about the sun, and that you may have to wait until the weather is just right, and the right time of that nice day to take a good picture, but it's really not too different in terms of some technical screenshots.

Sure I could take a picture of my desktop, who cares, if someone copies that, but in my opinion it's still kind of their image. Instead of having to deal with the rules here and deciding where to place that fine line that determines overstepping the boundaries or not, why just not make things consistent? If people have a copyright on the image, or even written evidence that it is their work, then you should ask for permission and follow their written permission in terms of the conditions it takes for you to use their image, otherwise, free game :)

If I didn't want an image to be taken, I would probably put something on the image and mark it. If the mark was removed to be placed elsewhere without my permission then in my opinion, that's overstepping a boundary.

~Ace

 

[Cookieman]

An interesting thread from top to bottom! I do think Ace is right in suggesting that if you do not want an image taken then place some sort of watermark on it.

Another thing that really irritates me are the people that tick that box that says, "hide my online status this session"

And I have been guilty of that myself previously in the past. The reason I used to have my status set to such, was because of my role within malware removal. At times I would not have the time to set out a full reply to a fix, but I would have a browse at the last posting to see where things stood. If a user who's post I was reading was also online then they would tend to expect a full reply there and then, where due to my timescale or whatever I was doing at that time it was not possible. If the op had seen my online status then they could then take this as ignorance towards them when this simply was not the case. If my actions have offended you in any way in the past then I do publicly apologise. No offence was intended.

Perhaps power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. SN is a breath of fresh air.

I can't agree more. As a forum, I find sysnative a fresh breath of air and the attitude of its members & creators to others is very friendly, alongside the openness it operates with.

Credit to all where it is due. Kudos

:thumbsup2:

 

[Deejay100six]

If my actions have offended you in any way in the past then I do publicly apologise. No offence was intended.

None was ever taken, Steve. Not offended, just irritated because I could never quite comprehend the reason behind it and never quite got around to asking. Now you've said it, makes a lot of sense. :smile9:

 

[niemiro]

If my actions have offended you in any way in the past then I do publicly apologise. No offence was intended.

None was ever taken, Steve. Not offended, just irritated because I could never quite comprehend the reason behind it and never quite got around to asking. Now you've said it, makes a lot of sense. :smile9:

There are other reasons too. Admins, MVPs, and other well known members can get very many PMs. Some people, when they want assistance with something, sometimes send PMs to whoever is currently online, rather than whoever is most appropriate. Or they send PMs both to someone online and the more appropriate offline person. Or they expect someone who is currently online to be able to respond to a PM right now. Or even just "I saw you online!!!" PMs. Or as Cookieman said, they expect an online person to respond to their thread. Signing in invisibly can keep the flood at bay for those who receive many PMs.

 

[jcgriff2]

There are other reasons too. Admins, MVPs, and other well known members can get very many PMs.
.. Or they expect someone who is currently online to be able to respond to a PM right now.

..Or even just "I saw you online!!!" PMs. Or as Cookieman said, they expect an online person to respond to their thread.

Signing in invisibly can keep the flood at bay for those who receive many PMs.

Yes - the exact reasons I do so at times, e.g., ACP work.

Also if the kids are home & active - one may need a ride; I'm then gone for 15 or 20 min, but still logged on and would appear "online".

It absolutely has nothing to do with hiding from anyone. That would defeat our purpose!

As in any line of work, the office door gets closed occasionally for a specific, legitimate purpose.

 

[huckleberrypie]

Reminds me of the YTMND-Ebaumsworld feud back some time ago. A used on YTMND posted a GIF of Lindsay Lohan, only to be stolen by users from Ebaums.

Same goes with a certain Indonesian kid whose name I won't disclose. We have a recurring problem with him as he kept on stealing Downfall parodies from my channel and several others, and despite numerous attempts to tell him to stop doing so, he kept on continuing his habit as if nothing happened. Adding to the insult is that he has next to no command of English, and his inexplicable and incoherent posts made him quite a nuisance.

 

[DreadStarX]

I'm an ethical person, but I'm also unethical as well.


On my Job corp center here, I'm known as "The PK" to some, because I have vast collection of "media" (Safer word than warez ). But, I do link back to or give credit to the original creators.


When I used to design websites for people, I used to host their image on my server, and include ALL the links/searches/images I used. If the image was modified, I put how it was modified.


I've had quite a few people rip my stuff off before, i.e. the works below;



The first one, I took the idea from YouTube, but made it into my own 'design' so to speak. The second one, I got hella bored, and just threw in nearly every filter I had, swapped things around, and mashed the bevels into something that looked good.


Mind you, I've found BOTH of these images on other peoples website. I even caught someone trying to sell the original website as their own. What were they selling? A PNG Image with my Source Code, all of my CSS/HTML Scripts were there, the PHP/SQL weren't.


But what the OP said, and the quote about Inman, I agree with. IF you're going to use someone elses work, at least contact them and ask!

- Thomas

Oh yeah, and if anyone wants that PSD, let me know. I'll dig it out. :) The coding is non-existent due to MegaUpload going down, and the FBI nuking all the drives.

 

[Corrine]

I'm an ethical person, but I'm also unethical as well.

On my Job corp center here, I'm known as "The PK" to some, because I have vast collection of "media" (Safer word than warez ). But, I do link back to or give credit to the original creators.

Just as long as you're ethical here. We don't support any form of pirating. Since you know what it is like to be ripped off, you certainly can understand why. After all, whether it is an individual's time spent on creating freeware or a vendor application or product that people have spent a great deal of money on developing, testing, marketing, distribution, and education it is stealing.

 

[DreadStarX]

I'm an ethical person, but I'm also unethical as well.

On my Job corp center here, I'm known as "The PK" to some, because I have vast collection of "media" (Safer word than warez ). But, I do link back to or give credit to the original creators.

Just as long as you're ethical here. We don't support any form of pirating. Since you know what it is like to be ripped off, you certainly can understand why. After all, whether it is an individual's time spent on creating freeware or a vendor application or product that people have spent a great deal of money on developing, testing, marketing, distribution, and education it is stealing.

I do my best to try something, and if I like it, I'll buy it. I mentioned this in another section of the forums. I used to pirate everything I could get my hands on, but I soon realized that wasn't the path to go down. My most recent acquisition was the Five Finger Deatch Punch album; The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell. I downloaded it, and instantly fell in love, so I bought the full album. There are very few things I won't purchase, i.e. Adobe CS6 Master Collection. Its nearly $5,000 for the full MC, bit absurd when it costs less to buy all the individual ones you'll actually use.


But when it comes to SN, EF, & SF, I'm legit! I won't share, advertise, or encourage it. My support is 100% legit, and will always be that way. If someone can't afford it, I'll suggest another option; i.e. Linux / Unix.

Anyways, that was a bit off topic I grew up being told "Honesty is the best truth, lying only makes your life harder." The things cute girls say!

 

[AceInfinity]

I'm an ethical person, but I'm also unethical as well.

On my Job corp center here, I'm known as "The PK" to some, because I have vast collection of "media" (Safer word than warez ). But, I do link back to or give credit to the original creators.

Just as long as you're ethical here. We don't support any form of pirating. Since you know what it is like to be ripped off, you certainly can understand why. After all, whether it is an individual's time spent on creating freeware or a vendor application or product that people have spent a great deal of money on developing, testing, marketing, distribution, and education it is stealing.

I do my best to try something, and if I like it, I'll buy it. I mentioned this in another section of the forums. I used to pirate everything I could get my hands on, but I soon realized that wasn't the path to go down. My most recent acquisition was the Five Finger Deatch Punch album; The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell. I downloaded it, and instantly fell in love, so I bought the full album. There are very few things I won't purchase, i.e. Adobe CS6 Master Collection. Its nearly $5,000 for the full MC, bit absurd when it costs less to buy all the individual ones you'll actually use.


But when it comes to SN, EF, & SF, I'm legit! I won't share, advertise, or encourage it. My support is 100% legit, and will always be that way. If someone can't afford it, I'll suggest another option; i.e. Linux / Unix.

Anyways, that was a bit off topic I grew up being told "Honesty is the best truth, lying only makes your life harder." The things cute girls say!

What about IDA Pro if you are an advanced software developer like myself? :) It's roughly upwards of about $10,000 or perhaps more; one program, not an entire suite at all.