topic icons
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Why is this an issue? I get the performance argument. I hadn't noticed it personally, but I haven't been on much in the last week. The huge hissy-fit over "I don't like it so you need to run your organization the way I think it should be done" is a bit much. When YOU start paying for the bandwidth, do what you think is best and take the liability of your decision. Until then, offer a suggestion politely and then take a seat.
I made my reply because @scottalanmiller started randomly grabbing images for topic icons from all over the place.
Scott contends that it is not theft. I contend that it is theft.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
Correct and copyright was what he was discussing. He changed his tactic to bandwidth later when one after another his arguments were shown to be false, made up or nonsensical. Bandwidth was his last ditch effort to come up with some reason to make it sound like it was wrong.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Scott contends that it is not theft. I contend that it is theft.
To be clear, you mean bandwidth theft, not image theft, correct? Because theft would imply the copyright case we just said this wasn't related to.
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
Correct and copyright was what he was discussing. He changed his tactic to bandwidth later when one after another his arguments were shown to be false, made up or nonsensical. Bandwidth was his last ditch effort to come up with some reason to make it sound like it was wrong.
No, go back to the top of the thread. it was reply 12 and it was directly asked.
-
@anonymous said:
@art_of_shred So this isn't a community it's a dictatorship. That's very disappointing.
That makes me sad to be on the same side as you..
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
Correct and copyright was what he was discussing. He changed his tactic to bandwidth later when one after another his arguments were shown to be false, made up or nonsensical. Bandwidth was his last ditch effort to come up with some reason to make it sound like it was wrong.
No, go back to the top of the thread. it was reply 12 and it was directly asked.
Sort of, he asked a few things including the location and the payment for the bandwidth. He was, I believe, trying to ascertain something but never clarified what even after being asked to do so.
-
@anonymous said:
@art_of_shred So this isn't a community it's a dictatorship. That's very disappointing.
Well, do you feel that everyone should pay equally to run the site? That's what that implies. What I hear when you say this is that you either want a site run by committee, which we know does not work well. Or that you want to be the dictator, because that's what would make you happy here, right?
A decision has to be made, and even got what you wanted, but you aren't happy with that you got what you wanted changed (it was what you wanted, right?) but are unhappy that it had to be approved by the people who pay the bills?
I feel that this is very hypocritical. What is the actual results that would satisfy you? Assuming no discussion around right or wrong... what is the end result you were hoping to achieve or hope to achieve? I see no means of satisfying you. Maybe I am just missing something. But if you state your intentions, at least maybe we'd have some idea what you are trying to get to happen.
-
For those that want a site "run as a democracy", and I'm not saying that I'd vote that way or not, but for discussion sake... how would that work? Clearly it seems that @JaredBusch should have a large "voting stake" due to the degree of contribution. But what about someone who joined yesterday? What about someone who joins just to vote? And how do we know that votes are meant to be to the benefit of the community?
I'm honestly curious as I've been involved in these discussions in other communities and have never seen a democratic control system function at all. There is no honest voting mechanism for one, and no membership "lock in" like normal democracies have.
there might be a great was to do this, I'm just not sure what it is.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@art_of_shred said:
When YOU start paying for the bandwidth....
I might be willing to do that. How much does it cost?
LOL, well that's an appreciated response
We are not metered, there is currently no discrete bandwidth cost. It is part of the hosting and storage agreements.
-
How does having a organized group of people running a site make this any different than any other community? Do you think for a second that (another large community that many of you know) is going to hand the reins of the entire community over to the posters? There is a manager and moderators, and they each have their roles. They are employees of the company, not a random group of folks who put something together that functions as a collective commune. Why don't you try being rational for a second? I can tell you for certain that we're a whole lot more concerned with what our members want than other communities that shall go unnamed. It's a business model, not a knitting circle. Everyone benefits from all of our interactions, but that doesn't make Joe Poster an owner, nor should it. That's just ludicrous. Someone thought this up, built it, finances it, has to moderate it, etc., but you feel like you have ownership rights to the platform? You are welcome to contribute and to benefit from the contributions of others, and that's where the value is. Those who actually do put in long hours keeping everything working smoothly are very interested in what the community members think in terms of making things better, etc., but that's not the same as you having some kind of authoritative voting rights.
-
While I love discussion around here please remember something. This is a company. I started this because my team and I saw a need. There was never any plan to have it be something that continually cost me money out of pocket for no reason for years. It is not a nor will never be a publicly owned company. It is a for Profit company. I am hoping to hire a community manager (I promise you will all love this person) soon. I hope to double the server capacity, or even maybe more than that, soon. I hope to hire a developer to work on the platform to make it even better soon.
But I also am not willing to compromise on the overall reason why this community is here. A FREE community for IT Pro's. I am not going to charge people for posting. Once you charge for that than it becomes less of an accessible resource for all.
Once we turn this into something where everyone has a say than it also becomes less useful. I would have to hire someone to oversee the opinions of all here. That person will then have to figure out how to keep everyone happy all the time, HA! That isn’t even close to possible. Then someone who might not even really be an IT Pro could come in demand we change something, leave and then we are left holding the bag on something that doesn’t even make sense.Do I want input from all of you on what you would want to see? YES!! Do I want you all to enjoy hanging out here? YES! Do I want to make sure things run smoothly? YES!
-
@JaredBusch said:
@art_of_shred said:
Why is this an issue? I get the performance argument. I hadn't noticed it personally, but I haven't been on much in the last week. The huge hissy-fit over "I don't like it so you need to run your organization the way I think it should be done" is a bit much. When YOU start paying for the bandwidth, do what you think is best and take the liability of your decision. Until then, offer a suggestion politely and then take a seat.
I made my reply because @scottalanmiller started randomly grabbing images for topic icons from all over the place.
Scott contends that it is not theft. I contend that it is theft.
Sorry @JaredBusch , I was actually not directing that at yourself. I'm staying out of the legal discussion, as I don't feel informed enough to weigh in on it.
-
@anonymous Of course we care about the users. I don't see how 1 or 2 people not getting their way and having a tantrum about it has anything to do with treating users poorly. No one asked you to help pay, and that's not how this works. So, you disagree with how something is done. Absolutely feel free to post your opinion on the topic; there is nothing saying that you shouldn't, and we want to hear every user's opinion. But, understand that you don't dictate how things are done. State your opinion and let it go. When you just keep harping on it and making demands about how things are run, you are stepping over the bounds of what your place is in the bigger picture. Absolutely have an opinion, but present it appropriately.
-
@anonymous said:
I think your upset because your paying the bills to keep this place running and having images means increased cost to you.
No, that is honestly not the issue at all. That might become the issue someday, of course. But right now it is no issue at all. The issues are around system management and being prepared for long term growth and supportability.
The top thing we need right now, in regards to this issue, is the Cloud Files plugin to be updated to work with the current platform. I'm going to look into that, hopefully it is something that I can get working.
Honestly this has been a good discussion because it highighted a few things like performance issues that we had not seen and concerns around the perception of the image hosting company that we had chosen to use. Those aren't cost items, there is cost involved but it is minor. Bigger issues are getting everything to run smoothly and reliably.
-
This post is deleted! -
The big reasons that we don't want to use local image storage is because it causes issues with things like clustering. If we have a cluster of, say, five application servers they will need access to the same images, basically instantly, all of the time. That means we have to copy them to those machines or share them in complex ways with NFS or something else. We don't have an infrastructure to do that efficiently and should not, it's just not our wheelhouse.
So offloading that to someone who is especially good at it, like Rackspace which leverages Akamai is a big deal. No issue paying for that, and we are, it's just getting it all to work smoothly. We want static image handling to be separated from the application processing architecture to allow for fluid growth with the intent of handling very large traffic.
-
@anonymous said:
@Minion-Queen said:
While I love discussion around here please remember something. This is a company.
Niagara Technology Group you mean?
She means Grove Social.
