Ethical use of view source?

[Freeman]

Is it ok to or ethical to view a web pages script and take what you want from it? I found a site with some really cool scripts that I want to use and wonder if I should. What would you do? JF

[Sikky]

why dont you ask the author and credit him afterwards.

[chovy]

exactly....simply cut-n-pasting someone else's code into your own because you can't write your own, or don't have the time would be unethical.

[Twey]

Personally, I'd say this was a victimless crime -- the author isn't losing anything by your taking the scripts, so there shouldn't be anything unethical about it. Unfortunately, the philosophical arena is somewhat divided in this area, and the legal opinion, at least in Britain (see Operation Spanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner)), is that victimless crimes are still unethical (and thus, illegal).

Of course, it's the author's views that matter the most (although the RIAA might disagree :)). Email him and ask if he'd mind.

[djr33]

Source code, like content, is copyrighted by default, by US, and other (British, it seems) country's copyright law.

You cannot just copy it.

I like looking at source for examples of things, like, for example, a particular tag that I'm not used to... I can see what it does.

So... learning from source is great.

But just copying isn't.

Anything that is obviously/noticably copied is bad. For example, if you're just copying a link tag, there's no issue, even though it IS technically copyrighted.

[thetestingsite]

Me personally, if i see a website that has some types of code (that can be viewed in source) and I don't know how to do it, I will copy, and post it on my home computer simply to learn by it. Then after learning, I would make a modified copy of it using "from-scratch" coding methods to make a similar finished product (if that makes sense). I would not put a code that I "stole" from a website on a publically viewable site. Just not right in my book. (Just my two cents worth)

[djr33]

Exactly.

Learning from examples = ok.
Copying directly to your site = not ok.

Note that "learning" doesn't mean memorizing/retyping ;)

[Freeman]

I am not copying it directly to my site. I would take the navigation. If and when I do copy it, it will take me probably a few days to get it to do what I want it to do. I would find a script here in dynamic but I could find one that does what I need it to. If they can't really tell that it was from there site, even legally they couldn't really do anything. I don't think its unethical. I think that if it was horribly important to them they would at least put in the source that they want you to ask them before you can use it. I personally don't care if someone takes my scripts that I write for their own use. JF

[boxxertrumps]

exactly....simply cut-n-pasting someone else's code into your own because you can't write your own


Thats for Myspace users.

[mwinter]

If they can't really tell that it was from there site, even legally they couldn't really do anything.

Are you trying to rationalise theft?



I don't think its unethical.

Your opinion doesn't really matter: it is unethical to steal someone else's work.



I think that if it was horribly important to them they would at least put in the source that they want you to ask them before you can use it.

Why? Surely the default position should be that no-one can take something from someone else unless they are given explicit permission.



I personally don't care if someone takes my scripts that I write for their own use.

Good for you. Other people do care.

Mike

[djr33]

This is the same debate as downloading copyrighted music. Can you do it? Yes. Is it legal? No. Is it moral? Depends on your viewpoint, and that's not related to the law anyway (except very indirectly through voting perhaps).

The thing is... it's implied and legally copyrighted be DEFAULT.

If you paint a picture, it's copyrighted. 'cause you made it.

You can choose to give up that copyright. That's fine. Open source is great. But it's purposefully that way.... source code is by default protected, even if you could access it.

[BLiZZaRD]

I think that if it was horribly important to them they would at least put in the source that they want you to ask them before you can use it.

So by that rationale, I should go put a sticker or post-it note on all my electronics and each dvd and computer saying "It is NOT okay for you to steal this. You do NOT have my permission to remove this from my home!" ?? Like the thief cares?

[djr33]

Freeman, if you want to steal, go for it. Then take the consequences.
This isn't a logic puzzle. It's law.
The law doesn't stop you from doing things.
Your conscience should do that, as well as the deterrence of not wanting to be caught and punished by the law.

Copyright law VERY clearly states that anything you create in terms of art, text, etc. is your own intellectual property and cannot be reused/etc without permission. Included within that is webpage's source code.

Does that make sense? Maybe. Doesn't matter, though.

We've answered your question.



And, seriously, claiming that since they didn't put a disclaimer there means you can take it is WRONG legally and logically. Just because a DVD in the store doesn't say "don't steal me" (on the box anyway), doesn't mean you should.
I saw a candy bar the other day... it didn't have a "don't steal me or I'll be mad" label, but I paid for it anyway.

The only use for warnings like that are to inform stupid people that it's copyrighted and as a deterrent, but not as a security measure or needed action.

[jscheuer1]

Ask permission. In most cases you will find that it is either in the public domain already or cheap to license. If it is not, it is not worth stealing as, there is probably a free or credit-ware alternative available if you look around for one.

[djr33]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Twey]

Your opinion doesn't really matter: it is unethical to steal someone else's work.As I said above, when said person isn't suffering from that action, it's what's known in ethical circles as a "victimless crime," and viewpoints differ considerably. I sit on the opposite side of the fence on this one, but to say it is or isn't unethical is impossible.
And, seriously, claiming that since they didn't put a disclaimer there means you can take it is WRONG legally and logically. Just because a DVD in the store doesn't say "don't steal me" (on the box anyway), doesn't mean you should.The DVD is a physical object. It can't be compared to digital "theft" (hence why the word is an inaccurate description) because in order for the thief to benefit from taking it, the current owner must lost possession of it. To me, it seems that this is the reason it's unethical; if the current owner doesn't lose the code, there's nothing wrong with copying it. The opposite approach would seem to imply that there's something intrinsically wrong with simply getting something for nothing, a sentiment with which I don't agree (it makes prize draws without entry fees morally wrong, for a start).

On the gripping hand, one could say that the "thief" is indirectly doing harm by taking business from the designer. There are two problems with that, as I see it. Firstly, that makes any form of competition between business owners unethical, which is counter-intuitive (and to this the "harm by omission of benefit" reductio ad absurdum applies: by this logic, refusing to hand over your wallet to the shady man who asks for it is as bad as stealing his wallet, since either way he ends up with one wallet less than the alternative outcome); secondly, a web designer is hired to design a page, not to simply type out a standard page from memory. The client doesn't pay for a chunk of code; she/he/it pays for a design suited precisely to her/his/its needs.

[mwinter]

As I said above, when said person isn't suffering from that action, it's what's known in ethical circles as a "victimless crime,"

How do you propose to know that?

Say someone releases the source code of a CMS for educational purposes. The CMS was used for developing that person's personal site, but there's no information about licensing that code for use elsewhere. Does taking it constitute "victimless"? The author may not perceive public interest in the code - there are lots of other CMS around, and this was custom-made - therefore making no effort to sell it. However, that doesn't mean that the code isn't worthy of recompense. The author has been swindled, just unknowingly.



The DVD is a physical object. It can't be compared to digital "theft" (hence why the word is an inaccurate description) because in order for the thief to benefit from taking it, the current owner must lost possession of it.

It may not be theft in the sense of British criminal law, but it is surely an infringement upon copyright.



To me, it seems that this is the reason it's unethical; if the current owner doesn't lose the code, there's nothing wrong with copying it. The opposite approach would seem to imply that there's something intrinsically wrong with simply getting something for nothing, a sentiment with which I don't agree (it makes prize draws without entry fees morally wrong, for a start).

There's a difference between offering something for nothing, and taking it. Waiving rights to control or compensation is only something that the author (or, more accurately, the copyright holder) can do.



On the gripping hand, one could say that the "thief" is indirectly doing harm by taking business from the designer. There are two problems with that, as I see it. Firstly, that makes any form of competition between business owners unethical, ...

The intent of competition is to win business by offering a better product (for some value of "better"). A thief doesn't succeed on the basis of hard work or creativity, but by deception - the product isn't even theirs to offer.



secondly, a web designer is hired to design a page, not to simply type out a standard page from memory.

Unjustly crediting the work of someone else to oneself improves one's image, taking business from others. The thief, in this case, would still need to be a relatively competent designer to avoid being fired, but the job would not have been earned if the copied work was a deciding factor.

Mike

[Twey]

How do you propose to know that?Of course, the consequences of one's actions can never be fully understood. In my opinion, the moral qualities of an act are judged by the intentions of the perpetrator with regards to the distance into the pool s/he can see.
The CMS was used for developing that person's personal site, but there's no information about licensing that code for use elsewhere. Does taking it constitute "victimless"? The author may not perceive public interest in the code - there are lots of other CMS around, and this was custom-made - therefore making no effort to sell it. However, that doesn't mean that the code isn't worthy of recompense. The author has been swindled, just unknowingly.Certainly it does. If one buys a newspaper in a shop, it could have some special quality of the paper or ink that means it will survive after all the other newspapers of its kind have long decayed to nothing, and be worth many times its original value. Does one, anticipating this, consider the person buying the paper next to it, who would otherwise have bought that newspaper? Is one committing an immoral act because there is the chance that one is unknowingly depriving another of a profit, who doesn't know of the possibility?
It may not be theft in the sense of British criminal law, but it is surely an infringement upon copyright.Indeed. It is illegal, certainly; I was merely proposing that it shouldn't be.
There's a difference between offering something for nothing, and taking it. Waiving rights to control or compensation is only something that the author (or, more accurately, the copyright holder) can do.We take things from other people all the time. If we inhale the scent of a beautiful field of flowers, for example, we benefit from taking that air, though through no hard work of our own. It isn't ours to take, since the field belongs to someone else, legally, and has almost certainly been tended by that person for many long hours. However, since the person will not be harmed by our inhaling of that air -- in fact, will almost certainly not even notice its absence -- we think nothing of it, not even considering it taking, although we haven't obtained the owner's explicit permission to smell the flowers.
The intent of competition is to win business by offering a better product (for some value of "better"). A thief doesn't succeed on the basis of hard work or creativity, but by deception - the product isn't even theirs to offer.A model, likewise, bases a career on good looks, though s/he hasn't worked to obtain them (in some few remaining cases, at least). Also, there is little deception involved in our particular scenario; the "thief" never tells the author of the code anything but the truth, and, were s/he a moral person, would likely happily admit to having taken the code, probably even including credit to the original author (and stop using it if so requested by the original author, who is presumed to know better whether s/he is being harmed by the "thief's" use of his/her code).

[jscheuer1]

Sometimes you just have to stop and smell the flowers.

[djr33]

Twey, yes, it's different than an object, but the example of a DVD is right. If you mailed $.10 to the company, could you be morally correct in taking their piece of plastic (DVD) that just happens to also have data on it they wish to keep?
Or, perhaps, downloading music is fine.
Or, perhaps, copying the data off the above DVD is fine, as long as you return it. (Let's say it was a rental.)

[Twey]

If you mailed $.10 to the company, could you be morally correct in taking their piece of plastic (DVD) that just happens to also have data on it they wish to keep?No: the DVD costs more than that to produce, and it's still theft since the exchange was against the will of the previous owner.
Or, perhaps, downloading music is fine.Certainly. In fact, I seem to recall a case quite recently in which several artists rebelled against the RIAA insisting that their music couldn't be shared for free online.
Or, perhaps, copying the data off the above DVD is fine, as long as you return it. (Let's say it was a rental.)Again, I see no reason why not. Nobody is being hurt; somebody along the line may be being deprived of a profit, but that's not the same as taking the value of the profit from that person.

[mwinter]

Of course, the consequences of one's actions can never be fully understood.

And in keeping with the law, one avoids obvious risk.



In my opinion, the moral qualities of an act are judged by the intentions of the perpetrator with regards to the distance into the pool s/he can see.

By taking something that does not belong to oneself without permission, one is making a moral statement: "I do not care for the rights, property, or feelings of the owner." That is not a moral act. If one did care, then one would ask first and then respect the author's wishes presented in the response.





The CMS was used for developing that person's personal site, but there's no information about licensing that code for use elsewhere. Does taking it constitute "victimless"? The author may not perceive public interest in the code - there are lots of other CMS around, and this was custom-made - therefore making no effort to sell it. However, that doesn't mean that the code isn't worthy of recompense.

Certainly it does.

The author's work has been used without permission - an illegal act. The criminal did so knowing that using it was not the intent of the author - hardly ethical behaviour. As a result, the author has been deprived of compensation for his own efforts, and further copies may result from the initial act compounding the loss.

A victimless crime requires that the rights of another have not been violated or threatened. An author has the right to control the distribution and reproduction of his works, just as he has the right to receive payment for the acquisition or use of said work by others. Freely licensing the use of a website of the viewing of software source code does not waive all rights of control.



If one buys a newspaper in a shop, it could have some special quality of the paper or ink that means it will survive after all the other newspapers of its kind have long decayed to nothing, and be worth many times its original value. Does one, anticipating this, consider the person buying the paper next to it, who would otherwise have bought that newspaper?

Newspapers aren't sold for their longevity. More importantly, they are sold at the value determined by the publishers; a price that allows them to recoup the cost of production. Customers see value is in the content, not the material.



Is one committing an immoral act because there is the chance that one is unknowingly depriving another of a profit, who doesn't know of the possibility?

There is no "unknown" in the case I presented: the perpetrator doesn't have permission from the author to take the work, whereas the customer does have permission to buy the paper. In fact purchasing the paper is desired, from a business perspective.



We take things from other people all the time. If we inhale the scent of a beautiful field of flowers, for example, we benefit from taking that air, though through no hard work of our own.

That is ludicrous: one cannot control the air one breathes. However, one can control one's actions regarding the unlawful taking of intellectual property. Smelling air from a public highway can never be illegal or immoral - trespassing to do the same would be a different matter.





The intent of competition is to win business by offering a better product (for some value of "better"). A thief doesn't succeed on the basis of hard work or creativity, but by deception - the product isn't even theirs to offer.

A model, likewise, bases a career on good looks, though s/he hasn't worked to obtain them (in some few remaining cases, at least).

Your point? Hard work wasn't the argument, above, deception was. The only deception in modelling can conceivably come from cosmetics. In that regard, those models have to work harder and at extra cost and risk to those that are naturally beautiful.



Also, there is little deception involved in our particular scenario; the "thief" never tells the author of the code anything but the truth,

The criminal never tells the author anything. Telling the author something would involve asking permission.



and, were s/he a moral person, would likely happily admit to having taken the code, ...

If one is a moral person, one wouldn't steal in the first place.

Mike

[Twey]

And in keeping with the law, one avoids obvious risk.Obvious risk, yes. In our CMS example, neither the "thief" nor the original author of the CMS are aware that money could be made; thus, the risk is not obvious.
By taking something that does not belong to oneself without permission, one is making a moral statement: "I do not care for the rights, property, or feelings of the owner."Indeed, but as I said, when the owner is not deprived of the thing, it can hardly be classed as taking.
The author's work has been used without permission - an illegal act.Legality was not the issue. We've already concluded that it is illegal; I don't dispute this.
The criminal did so knowing that using it was not the intent of the author - hardly ethical behaviour.No, I quote:
there's no information about licensing that code for use elsewhere.Nothing necessarily even implies that the author would object to the code being used elsewhere.
As a result, the author has been deprived of compensation for his own efforts, and further copies may result from the initial act compounding the loss.Deprived how? The author never intended to make a profit from the code; he designed and created it for his own use. This original purpose has been fulfilled, and the author doesn't lose that benefit if somebody else uses it as well.
An author has the right to control the distribution and reproduction of his works, just as he has the right to receive payment for the acquisition or use of said work by others. Freely licensing the use of a website of the viewing of software source code does not waive all rights of control.Would it, then, be better if the "thief" were instead to rewrite the code from scratch to achieve the same effect? Surely the consequences would be the same; thus, copying and pasting causes no greater harm. The code itself is not where the value of the program lies. As such, no, I don't believe the author has the right to withhold the right to copy it from another, especially since it would be quite impossible for the other to avoid having his/her design influenced by it anyway. This seems to me as pointless as holding a large-print book open in front of somebody's eyes and insisting that he/she doesn't read it.
Newspapers aren't sold for their longevity. More importantly, they are sold at the value determined by the publishers; a price that allows them to recoup the cost of production. Customers see value is in the content, not the material.I wasn't speaking of the cost to the producers, but to the man next to the customer who would otherwise have bought that newspaper, and who is being "swindled" out of a vast profit without the knowledge of either himself or the other customer.
That is ludicrousThis was the intention. It is perceived as ludicrous because one doesn't even consider this case a moral issue.
one cannot control the air one breathes.I apologise: perhaps I was overly vague. I was referring to a case in which the perpetrator goes out of her way to breathe the air, not someone who accidentally inhales it on her way past. Now that you mention it, however, it does work that way as well: should our "thief," having seen the code, set out to design her own CMS, it's almost certain that his design would be influenced, either consciously or unconsciously, by the code she has seen.
Your point? Hard work wasn't the argument, above, deception was.I was unsure as to which you referred, so addressed both.
The only deception in modelling can conceivably come from cosmetics. In that regard, those models have to work harder and at extra cost and risk to those that are naturally beautiful.Here you imply the reverse of your above statement, suggesting that the fact that the models worked hard mitigates (at least somewhat) the deception that was their goal.
The criminal never tells the author anything. Telling the author something would involve asking permission.Indeed so.
If one is a moral person, one wouldn't steal in the first place.Assuming that such an action is indeed theft, which rather renders this statement pointless.

[mwinter]

By taking something that does not belong to oneself without permission, one is making a moral statement: "I do not care for the rights, property, or feelings of the owner."

Indeed, but as I said, when the owner is not deprived of the thing, it can hardly be classed as taking.

The word "taking" in my statement above can be substituted for "using". It is still a violation of the author's rights if done without permission or in a way that was not licensed.





The criminal did so knowing that using it was not the intent of the author - hardly ethical behaviour.

No, I quote:


there's no information about licensing that code for use elsewhere.

Nothing necessarily even implies that the author would object to the code being used elsewhere.

It is the default position. If there was no statement, then the code cannot be used.

To take a simplistic, but accurate, example, I wouldn't use your pencil sharpener without asking first. I wouldn't deprive you of it even if I did use it - you'd have it back when I was done - but it's not mine, so I don't have the right to use it unless you say I can. The fact that code doesn't always exist as a physical thing doesn't make it any less the property of the author.



Deprived how? The author never intended to make a profit from the code; he designed and created it for his own use. This original purpose has been fulfilled, and the author doesn't lose that benefit if somebody else uses it as well.

Since when does a product need to begin as a commercial endeavour for it to deserve protection?



Would it, then, be better if the "thief" were instead to rewrite the code from scratch to achieve the same effect?

Of course. One doesn't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea. Producing a competing product independently of another is that pillar of capitalism, competition. However, the "independent" part is important.



Surely the consequences would be the same; thus, copying and pasting causes no greater harm.

The author doesn't receive payment, no, but their work isn't used without consent, either.



The code itself is not where the value of the program lies.

For the consumer, no. A program is bought for what it can do. However, for another author, the code is valuable.



As such, no, I don't believe the author has the right to withhold the right to copy it from another, especially since it would be quite impossible for the other to avoid having his/her design influenced by it anyway.

Being influenced and copying from that source is a completely different thing.



This seems to me as pointless as holding a large-print book open in front of somebody's eyes and insisting that he/she doesn't read it.

No-one is forcing anyone else to copy a protected work. It is a choice to do so.





Newspapers aren't sold for their longevity. More importantly, they are sold at the value determined by the publishers; a price that allows them to recoup the cost of production. Customers see value is in the content, not the material.

I wasn't speaking of the cost to the producers, but to the man next to the customer who would otherwise have bought that newspaper, and who is being "swindled" out of a vast profit without the knowledge of either himself or the other customer.

As I wrote, the value to the customer is the content. Even so, the next customer had the same opportunity, he was just too late to come across it. The first person didn't do anything wrong: she bought the paper just as the second would have. They both had the right and opportunity to do. A person doesn't have the right to use or take the property of another without permission.



This was the intention. It is perceived as ludicrous because one doesn't even consider this case a moral issue.

No, it is ludicrous (in the form in which I understood it) because you are expecting someone to justify something over which they have no control. What forces someone to copy a book then redistribute it?



I apologise: perhaps I was overly vague. I was referring to a case in which the perpetrator goes out of her way to breathe the air, not someone who accidentally inhales it on her way past.

Even then, it's still ludicrous: the farmer/landscaper/gardener doesn't own the air, nor does it fall within the purview of copyright.





Your point? Hard work wasn't the argument, above, deception was.

...


The only deception in modelling can conceivably come from cosmetics. In that regard, those models have to work harder and at extra cost and risk to those that are naturally beautiful.

Here you imply the reverse of your above statement, suggesting that the fact that the models worked hard mitigates (at least somewhat) the deception that was their goal.

I suppose, though that isn't the same as justification. There is a price to success in that case, but the same cannot be said for a successful thief.

Mike

[mburt]

... I just spent an eternity trying to read the last four threads :p.
I think that it is like stealing - same as music downloads. It's just as well to ask the author if in fact he/she wrote it, and if so, for permission.

[Twey]

It is still a violation of the author's rights if done without permission or in a way that was not licensed.I disagree.
It is the default position. If there was no statement, then the code cannot be used.This appears to be the assumption from which you work, but I don't see why it should be so.
I wouldn't use your pencil sharpener without asking first. I wouldn't deprive you of it even if I did use it - you'd have it back when I was done - but it's not mine, so I don't have the right to use it unless you say I can.Here, too, I would disagree. The example in question isn't entirely accurate (if I were to wish to use the pencil sharpener at the same time as you did, complications would occur; also, the pencil sharpener may only be used a finite though large number of times before the blade wears down), but complications aside I would see no problem with this scenario. Since using the pencil sharpener isn't harming or inconveniencing its owner in any way, I see no reason not to use it.
Since when does a product need to begin as a commercial endeavour for it to deserve protection?If the author doesn't consider it worth protecting, then there's no reason to protect it, in much the same way that somebody who uses something found in someone else's rubbish shouldn't need to pay or ask permission to use it.
One doesn't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea. Producing a competing product independently of another is that pillar of capitalism, competition. However, the "independent" part is important.Why so? Presuming that the end result is exactly the same, the only thing that differs between writing the program from scratch and copying and pasting the code is the amount of effort the perpetrator puts into the activity.
For the consumer, no. A program is bought for what it can do. However, for another author, the code is valuable.This is so. However, the ultimate consumer will not be another author; the only value the program has to that author would be what's received in trading it with the customer, who doesn't care about the code.
Being influenced and copying from that source is a completely different thing.Not at all. It is the same thing, merely on a different level: rather than copying the whole code, the "thief" would only copy, say, a certain method of accomplishing something.
As I wrote, the value to the customer is the content. Even so, the next customer had the same opportunity, he was just too late to come across it. The first person didn't do anything wrong: she bought the paper just as the second would have.In our CMS situation, this applies too: the "thief" uses the code just as the author not only would have done, but actually did, thus suffering far less harm than the second customer: this is why comparison to physical objects is fairly useless when considering intellectual property.
A person doesn't have the right to use or take the property of another without permission.Again, this relies on your assumption that an intangible and infinitely divisible thing can be property.
No, it is ludicrous (in the form in which I understood it) because you are expecting someone to justify something over which they have no control. What forces someone to copy a book then redistribute it?Everything a person perceives has an effect upon them, at either a conscious or an unconscious level. If the latter, it is impossible to inadvertently copy at least some of the author's ideas, since the thief will be completely unaware that he/she is doing so.
the farmer/landscaper/gardener doesn't own the air, nor does it fall within the purview of copyright.I have the feeling you are judging this case only by the law. The (let us say) gardener put a lot of time and effort into causing the scent. Why should it not be owned and copyrighted, if code is? How would you (independent of the law) define what can and can not be owned?
There is a price to success in [the case of the models], but the same cannot be said for a successful thief.Certainly there is. A thief, too, puts a lot of time and effort into performing a robbery, even without considering the intense emotional stress the action will no doubt cause him/her.

[jscheuer1]

Ask and ye shall receive.

[BLiZZaRD]

en mass it seems :)

[jscheuer1]

en mass it seems :)

LOL . . . and/or (in this particular thread and many others) massively.

[chechu]

Recently I found out that someone, thousands miles away from us, had copied an artwork of my wife's site (http://www.casariegoart.com), and had won a price with it. I was devestated, in a rage, but what could I do ? Even if all her works are copyright, there's still so little you can do.

Stealing is a crime, but what if the stolen good is placed on a platform that doesn't protect you against thiefs ? I compare the net with a huge market square with loads of people and codes. Whose code is which, who can copy what, who was first ? Everyone should know that whatever is on the net, can be copied, modified, used ...

Therefore I am in favour of sharing codes as we do in this forum. If you take it from another site, let the person know. But if the other person doesn't want you to do it, then I'd tell him to take a walk and still copy it.

Also: some companies charge a lot of money for codes, while you can get them for free using forums.

So, copying codes is not stealing, but it would be unethical to not let know the people you took it from. You can always (like DD) use comment tags in a code to refere to the writer. But was he really the writer ... ?

Actually, it is a question not be discussed, as opinions will differ. Count on your own common sense and feeling of honesty. Choose yourself !

[chechu]

To me there is a huge difference in copying codes so that the site looks the same, and copying a part of the code to f.ex. make the links turn up red on mouse-over. The first one can be linked to the other site; the second not.
The first one shouldn't be copied, because we are talking about design, creativity, emotions, thoughts (as a husband of an artist, I know what I am talking about). The second one is "just a piece of code".

In the first case, there must be a mutual agreement between both; in the second case not. F.ex. click here (http://www.plenso.be), and then here (http://www.casariegoart.com). Both have about the same design, but I copied the second from the first, with agreement from the first (a local webdesigner and provider). That's how it should be done. But in the second site, you will see lots of small codes I got from other sites, forums, etc.

[chechu]

The internet is now a public place, so take what you can.
But be a gentleman ...

[jscheuer1]

chechu,

Sorry to hear about your wife's content being stolen. If you did want to pursue it, often just submitting proof of the theft to the awarding entity (you did mean prize not price, didn't you?) or to the host of the bogus site that is selling her material will get this to stop. If the amount of money involved is large, a lawsuit could well recover it and more.

However, when posting images to the web, it is best not to furnish such high resolution versions as could be sold and/or entered into contests.

[Twey]

The first one shouldn't be copied, because we are talking about design, creativity, emotions, thoughts (as a husband of an artist, I know what I am talking about). The second one is "just a piece of code".You're saying that copying the design would be expressing someone else's personality as your own. I like this argument, and I'll agree with it heartily. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to define where one begins and the other ends; for example, is the code for a menu bar "just a piece of code" or is it also an artistic expression?

[boxxertrumps]

this should be based on how much effort the designer put into that code.
a good guide would be:the more complex the code, the less you can take of it.

my site was created entirely from scratch, with the exception of some free php scripts, twey's directory compiler and iframe browser. all i have to do now is finish the way the menu looks/acts & make a proper header.

[chechu]

this should be based on how much effort the designer put into that code. A good guide would be:the more complex the code, the less you can take of it.


Don't agree. F.ex. as a beginning designer, all the codes in DD seem amazingly difficult and complex to me. But I'll take them all ...

What I meant is that a design where stuff specific to that site (banners, backgrounds, mostly img's) shouldn't be copied. Codes of menues: why not ?

[Twey]

I don't agree either. As chechu says, effort and complexity are relative; Mike, for example, could write a script in a few minutes that would take a beginner hours or even days. Also, you're falling into the trap of saying that the amount of effort (and thus, indirectly, money) put into something is what defines its value. It follows from this logic that smelling the flowers is immoral in my above scenario.
What I meant is that a design where stuff specific to that site (banners, backgrounds, mostly img's) shouldn't be copied. Codes of menues: why not ?If the menu was tailor-made for the site, then it's specific to the site too :)

[jscheuer1]

It would be nice though if, before smelling the flowers, we at least asked in our hearts for permission.

There really are two ways to deal with these sorts of situations. By law or by one's own scruples. Ultimately only one way as, choosing to deal with them via the law is a personal decision based upon one's scruples.

Be careful how you treat people on the way up. You are sure to meet them on the way down.

[Twey]

It would be nice though if, before smelling the flowers, we at least asked in our hearts for permission.This, though, is my point: we don't usually even consider it a moral issue.
There really are two ways to deal with these sorts of situations. By law or by one's own scruples. Ultimately only one way as, choosing to deal with them via the law is a personal decision based upon one's scruples.Not necessarily -- I don't know about you, but prison doesn't sound too attractive a career option to me, and fines don't particularly appeal either :) By default, out of sheer pragmatism, the law has the upper hand, although there are situations in which I would consider some laws so blatantly rigid and, in some cases, completely wrong, that I would risk that penalty to defy them.

[chechu]

Guys, we are getting really philosofical !
I surprises me a bit that people, known for their knowledge of codes and mathematical things, talk about moral and feelings.

But this discussion can be taken to endless speeches. When I see the difference in my two home countries (Argentina and Belgium), I can tell you that moral has different meanings, also law, and also the people supposed to take care of the law. So it really always depends on how you feel about something. How many crimes are done every day without getting punished ? Conscience ...

[Twey]

Guys, we are getting really philosofical !Philosophy is something of a hobby of mine, especially moral philosophy of late. Using the word "ethical" in a thread title is just inviting philosophical debate.
I surprises me a bit that people, known for their knowledge of codes and mathematical things, talk about moral and feelings.Why? You think we all ought to be mad scientists with no perspective and no thought for anything outside our work? :) Moral philosophy has applications everywhere; no matter one's specialism, it's always a good idea to be well versed in it. My teacher was a medical ethicist.
I can tell you that moral has different meaningsThis is true. One of the most interesting questions in philosophy (at least from my perspective) is how we know any of it. The final answer, of course, is probably that we don't. However, there are certain simple instinctual similarities in almost every living creature known to us, such as the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. These can serve as an Archimedian point to work out what's right and wrong on a very basic level, and from there principles can be logically developed according to each person's own separate instincts, the common attitude of the society to which they apply, or a mixture of both.

[Freeman]

this should be based on how much effort the designer put into that code.
a good guide would be:the more complex the code, the less you can take of it.




What may be an incredibly complex code to some might be the doodlings of others. And whether it is moral or not to take it is up to each person to decide on their own. I am sure that most would agree with me in that sacrificing people to a god would be a bad thing to do. That is because society at that time deemed it ok to do so. If you killed someone now days and claimed religion that would still put you in prison for it.

[Masterskinnie]

I am not copying it directly to my site. I would take the navigation. If and when I do copy it, it will take me probably a few days to get it to do what I want it to do. I would find a script here in dynamic but I could find one that does what I need it to. If they can't really tell that it was from there site, even legally they couldn't really do anything. I don't think its unethical. I think that if it was horribly important to them they would at least put in the source that they want you to ask them before you can use it. I personally don't care if someone takes my scripts that I write for their own use. JF

I do believe in such uses of view source As long as it is just one functional set of code. Maybe place a "thank you for" or "script from" to indicate the appreciation of the code. Javascript is to be free for anyone to use just like Linux. But you should give thanks for using someone elses

[Twey]

Yes, I agree with that. Taking credit for somebody else's work is not a good thing. It's one thing to smell the flowers, but quite another to pretend you own the field.

[Freeman]

Javascript is to be free for anyone to use just like Linux.
Then this solves this problem. If javascript is free for all to use, then a person writing it knows that what they are doing is free and they can't expect to get paid for it unless they make it specifically for you. Just like extensions for firefox, people make them, and put them out there for all to see and use. They don't expect to get paid for them, but they still keep writing them.

[Twey]

Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the problem :) Perhaps it should be free to use without express permission, and perhaps it shouldn't, but the fact remains that it isn't: international copyright law forbids it.

[djr33]

Here's a good summary of the whole issue:
If you do it in a way that cannot be traced, by paraphrasing (the code, at least in a sense) or learning by example, then you're fine... 1. they can't blame you, 2. you aren't copying.

If you just grab something off someone's site, then that's bad.

If you put credit for them, it's really stupid... then they can clearly say you stole it and so forth.

I'd suggest CONTACTING them.

[jscheuer1]

What goes around, comes around.

[djr33]

Well, under that logic, all copyright laws would be worthless and nothing would be protected. ;)


To clarify above--
"Crediting them is stupid" because that's basically saying "I stole it from [insert name here]." Giving credit is a good idea, and I'd suggest it, but not without permission. That's worse than just taking it.

[jscheuer1]

After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

[djr33]

Depending on your belief system.
Then again, I guess there are two general belief systems:
1. There is some sort of afterlife and your experience therein is reflective of how "good" a person you were, etc.
2. There isn't, so that means all there is is this, and really all that matters is what happens now.

Interesting.

:p

[jscheuer1]

Depending on your belief system.
Then again, I guess there are two general belief systems:
1. There is some sort of afterlife and your experience therein is reflective of how "good" a person you were, etc.

In which case we should ask permission because we don't want to end up in 'that place', all that matters is how we've treated each other.


2. There isn't, so that means all there is is this, and really all that matters is what happens now.

In which case, all that matters now, is how we've treated each other.

[djr33]

Well, all that would have ever mattered, so... yes.... now, but "then" as well in the sense that now is all there ever was. Or some such.

[jscheuer1]

It's always now.

[Twey]

John, you seem to be overstepping the whole discussion and arguing against it on the basis that it's immoral (implying that it would be mistreating the person).

[Freeman]

2. There isn't, so that means all there is is this, and really all that matters is what happens now.


Based on this, what does it matter what I do or anyone else does to anyone? once I am gone it won't matter, I am not going to be taking something that is horribly obvious, no one will remember me for it. And even that is decided by the person who it pertains to. If I don't think something is wrong and someone else does whats it matter once I am dead? The answer: it doesn't! As long as I am not directly hurting someone or limiting them on what they can do, who cares?

[djr33]

It doesn't "matter" but it's all there is, so therefore all that matters, as well as all that doesn't matter... but it IS everything, so if anything matters, that's it, so you better make this worth it. Or if you choose not to, that's what will have existed.

[jscheuer1]

The actions of a truly ethical individual do not vary as regards whether or not he or she believes in an afterlife.

[djr33]

But their ethics would be based upon their beliefs, which can certainly be intertwined with such.

[chechu]

As long as I am not directly hurting someone or limiting them on what they can do, who cares?

This is your point of view, but do you know the point of view of the victim ?

Maybe that person you copied a code from, had to work hours to obtain it, lost his wife because of his obsession to finish this, suffered of insomnia, and then one day he finds out. He freaks out, looses his faith in humanity, goes to a school where he had a bad childhood and shoots a few pupils ...
Veeerryyy exagerated, but posible ?

In this case it is better not to let the person know, but how do you know how he will react ? Again: conscience, if you believe in this world or the next.

[BLiZZaRD]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Ghandi.

:D

[codeexploiter]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind

True said by M.K.Gandhi

[Twey]

Maybe that person you copied a code from, had to work hours to obtain it, lost his wife because of his obsession to finish this, suffered of insomnia, and then one day he finds out. He freaks out, looses his faith in humanity, goes to a school where he had a bad childhood and shoots a few pupils ...We can't reasonably be expected to anticipate that, and so can't take moral responsibility.

[jscheuer1]

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Ghandi.

:D

True, and that is different than what goes around comes around. An eye for an eye (as it has come to be understood) is society and/or individuals taking matters into their own hands - enforcing the universal truth of what I think the original expression meant when it looks like to them that someone is getting over. Coders might be able to better relate to it (the universal truth at hand here) in this form:

Garbage in
Garbage out

[Freeman]

This is your point of view, but do you know the point of view of the victim ?


Whats it matter if I know the victim. I probably will never meet the person, never know them, never know who they are, where they come from, what happens afterward. And I doubt that he lost his wife in his work. If he did, he should be worrying about other things more then someone taking his script.

[BLiZZaRD]

I for one can't wait til the site is finished, so I can copy it and post my own site with new colors.

[Freeman]

That would be fine with me.

[BLiZZaRD]

I wasn't asking. I am just going to do it. I could care less what you think about it.

So, anyway... quit wasting time in here and hurry and finish my new site!

[mwinter]

It is still a violation of the author's rights if done without permission or in a way that was not licensed.

I disagree.

A reason would be nice.

How can you justify using something that doesn't belong to you? Forget about harm. What makes it right? If I create something, why should you be able to use it without my permission?





It is the default position. If there was no statement, then the code cannot be used.

This appears to be the assumption from which you work, but I don't see why it should be so.

It stems from general ownership. One should not presume that using something that doesn't belong to oneself is acceptable unless informed otherwise.





I wouldn't use your pencil sharpener without asking first. I wouldn't deprive you of it even if I did use it - you'd have it back when I was done - but it's not mine, so I don't have the right to use it unless you say I can.

The example in question isn't entirely accurate ...

It is for the intended purpose. The nature of the object is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't mine was the point.

You might consider that disallowing me the opportunity to use a pencil sharpener would be petty, and you might be right, but that would be your choice. It is not my business to decide what is appropriate for your things, it is yours alone. Bizarre, vindictive, selfish - whatever - it's your choice.

The same is true with software posted on the Web. It might be selfish to disallow free use, but you didn't write it so you have absolutely no say in how it should be used.





Since when does a product need to begin as a commercial endeavour for it to deserve protection?

If the author doesn't consider it worth protecting, then there's no reason to protect it,

The example in question, in case you forgot, is hypothetical source code that was released under free license for educational use only. In this case, protection does still exist: the code is copyrighted and therefore it can only be used under license. The author automatically retains all other rights. Granting that license doesn't relinquish control, nor should it be assumed that the author doesn't care because if that were the case, it would have been released into the public domain rather than in a limited way.



in much the same way that somebody who uses something found in someone else's rubbish shouldn't need to pay or ask permission to use it.

That's not the same at all: rubbish is discarded.





One doesn't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea. Producing a competing product independently of another is that pillar of capitalism, competition. However, the "independent" part is important.

Why so? Presuming that the end result is exactly the same, the only thing that differs between writing the program from scratch and copying and pasting the code is the amount of effort the perpetrator puts into the activity.

Exactly. In order for competition to be fair, it's hardly right to take a competitor's product, clone it with little or no effort, then sell it (probably at a lower price). The original producer may have spent millions on research in order to create it, yet the new-comer gets the benefit with nothing.





Being influenced and copying from that source is a completely different thing.

Not at all. It is the same thing, merely on a different level: rather than copying the whole code, the "thief" would only copy, say, a certain method of accomplishing something.

And that is different: method can be derived from independent effort. One can engineer a similar product from the idea, but it wouldn't be the same, succeeding or failing on its own merits.


From other posts in this thread, there also seems to be some misunderstanding of what is actually protected. Mark up and style sheet rules certainly cannot be protected. The content of elements may be, but not the tags or the structure itself. A lot of trivial scripts aren't, but something along the lines of Dean Edwards' IE7 and more convoluted menu scripts would be. The latter are original. Writing out the date and time value of a Date object isn't.






Javascript is to be free for anyone to use just like Linux.

Then this solves this problem.

No, it doesn't.



If javascript is free for all to use,

Every programming and scripting language I've ever encountered is free to use: the language specifications are available publicly and the only charge is usually for "materials" (paper, bandwidth, etc.), delivery, and sometimes support of further development (ISO, for example). Compliers or interpreters are also often freely available. However, that doesn't mean that software developed using those languages becomes free.

A programming language is a tool. A landscape garden doesn't become free just because you let the gardener borrow your shovel.



Just like extensions for firefox, people make them, and put them out there for all to see and use.

Which is a different thing entirely. The authors choose to release their work freely (though there may be a clause in the Firefox license that may make selling extensions impossible, anyway).

Mike

[chechu]

If I made a site now, using a lot of scripts that I found on DD (written by different coders), and I sell that site, then do I have to pay all these people that made these codes ? Question is: who made what ?

[jscheuer1]

If I made a site now, using a lot of scripts that I found on DD (written by different coders), and I sell that site, then do I have to pay all these people that made these codes ? Question is: who made what ?

According to DD's terms of use, not as long as the price you charged for the site only covers your work and not the scripts' value as, the scripts are free for all use as long as the credit remains intact.

If the site included licensed scripts though, you would be able to sell your work and your licences or, if you retained your licences, the new owner would need to obtain their own licences.

[chovy]

you shouldn't be climbing around in dumpsters.

[jscheuer1]

you shouldn't be climbing around in dumpsters.

Spoilsport :p

[chovy]

Sounds to me like whoever raised the question knew what the answer was before asking it - and was simply looking for an "it's ok, we all do it".

I am curious why they wouldn't just write their own code, if it's so easy and not worth paying or giving credit.

[jscheuer1]

I am curious why they wouldn't just write their own code, if it's so easy and not worth paying or giving credit.

Sounds like a good idea, why didn't they think of that?

[chovy]

not creative enough i guess.

[jscheuer1]

Probably just 'too busy' :)

[Masterskinnie]

A reason would be nice.

How can you justify using something that doesn't belong to you? Forget about harm. What makes it right? If I create something, why should you be able to use it without my permission?


It stems from general ownership. One should not presume that using something that doesn't belong to oneself is acceptable unless informed otherwise.


It is for the intended purpose. The nature of the object is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't mine was the point.

You might consider that disallowing me the opportunity to use a pencil sharpener would be petty, and you might be right, but that would be your choice. It is not my business to decide what is appropriate for your things, it is yours alone. Bizarre, vindictive, selfish - whatever - it's your choice.

The same is true with software posted on the Web. It might be selfish to disallow free use, but you didn't write it so you have absolutely no say in how it should be used.


The example in question, in case you forgot, is hypothetical source code that was released under free license for educational use only. In this case, protection does still exist: the code is copyrighted and therefore it can only be used under license. The author automatically retains all other rights. Granting that license doesn't relinquish control, nor should it be assumed that the author doesn't care because if that were the case, it would have been released into the public domain rather than in a limited way.


That's not the same at all: rubbish is discarded.


Exactly. In order for competition to be fair, it's hardly right to take a competitor's product, clone it with little or no effort, then sell it (probably at a lower price). The original producer may have spent millions on research in order to create it, yet the new-comer gets the benefit with nothing.


And that is different: method can be derived from independent effort. One can engineer a similar product from the idea, but it wouldn't be the same, succeeding or failing on its own merits.


From other posts in this thread, there also seems to be some misunderstanding of what is actually protected. Mark up and style sheet rules certainly cannot be protected. The content of elements may be, but not the tags or the structure itself. A lot of trivial scripts aren't, but something along the lines of Dean Edwards' IE7 and more convoluted menu scripts would be. The latter are original. Writing out the date and time value of a Date object isn't.



No, it doesn't.


Every programming and scripting language I've ever encountered is free to use: the language specifications are available publicly and the only charge is usually for "materials" (paper, bandwidth, etc.), delivery, and sometimes support of further development (ISO, for example). Compliers or interpreters are also often freely available. However, that doesn't mean that software developed using those languages becomes free.

A programming language is a tool. A landscape garden doesn't become free just because you let the gardener borrow your shovel.


Which is a different thing entirely. The authors choose to release their work freely (though there may be a clause in the Firefox license that may make selling extensions impossible, anyway).

Mike

I did not mean use the script as it is. I just mean that people tend to have the same ideas, and just because one is quicker with getting it out should not mean that the other person has no right to use it. With this modify your script some with creativity. Javascript is out there for everyone to use if they would take the time to use it the way it should be used. Yes, there are FREAKS out there who just plainly copy and paste with no concern for the original user, but what about the other ones who would actually sit down and play with the scripts to learn it and have fun with it.

[Masterskinnie]

Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the problem :) Perhaps it should be free to use without express permission, and perhaps it shouldn't, but the fact remains that it isn't: international copyright law forbids it.

Europe has been getting rid of copyright laws. They are limiting them down to make it more fair for others who cannot use an Idea that was maybe originally theirs.

[jscheuer1]

Europe has been getting rid of copyright laws. They are limiting them down to make it more fair for others who cannot use an Idea that was maybe originally theirs.

Independent invention, I like that. But, in actual fact, I imagine that it is a bit like immaculate conception. If it happens, it is more rare than those claiming to have experienced it would lead you to believe . . .

[Freeman]

I wasn't asking. I am just going to do it. I could care less what you think about it.

So, anyway... quit wasting time in here and hurry and finish my new site!

not creative enough i guess.

Sounds like a good idea, why didn't they think of that?



From the looks of it, it almost seems like your are getting into personal attacks. I did not raise this question just to make you mad at me and you to think less of me. If we are to understand life we need to have discussions about things. I wasn't sure what I believed about it because I don't write web pages very often.


After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

This is true, You, I, and everyone else should at least show respect even if you disagree.

[jscheuer1]

Lighten up, this is 'The lounge'. My tongue has been firmly in my cheek for most of this thread. Oh, and I do respect you. It is up to you to decide what you want to do. If you are feeling criticized, perhaps you are uncomfortable with your current choices.

[mwinter]

Masterskinnie: Did you really have to quote my entire post, especially when little of it had any relevance to what you wrote.



I did not mean use the script as it is. I just mean that people tend to have the same ideas, and just because one is quicker with getting it out should not mean that the other person has no right to use it.

Who said otherwise? If people couldn't reimplement the same ideas, there would be no competition, just a large number of monopolies. The problem isn't reusing an idea, it's reusing a specific implementation that embodies that idea beyond the terms of its creator.



Yes, there are FREAKS out there who just plainly copy and paste with no concern for the original user, but what about the other ones who would actually sit down and play with the scripts to learn it and have fun with it.

Learning from others is just fine, though when it comes to client-side scripts, be careful from whom you choose to learn.

Mike

[boxxertrumps]

...there are FREAKS out there who just plainly copy and paste with no concern for the original user...

Myspace Users?
thinking there hot stuff, throwing there bloated pages around claiming to be web designers.


Me: Do you know what HTML is?
Myspace user: No...

[jscheuer1]

Excuse me, I need to go and burn some CD's now :)

[Masterskinnie]

I am sorry I did not mean to be rude. I guess I miss worded what I said. I was originally just saying that as long as the script is used in a good manner and not plaigerism, it should be alright. It is no different from using information from books. If you said you got it from this source or person I can not really see the problem. There are just some people who do things to get rich and some people who do it for fun. That is why I have a personal computer running linux. People create new versions of it either because it is fun, or they feel they are doing a deed to society. Guess why Gates left his own business, it was originally intended for the benefit for the people and it turned into a rat trap for money.

[jscheuer1]

. . . Guess why Gates left his own business, it was originally intended for the benefit for the people and it turned into a rat trap for money.

That's sure to bring some controversy, I'd say it was because he could (he was so rich already) and felt guilty and/or bored. He may think he is one of humanity's greatest gifts. I'm sure most, if not all of those whom he now helps via his charitable work are grateful and need the assistance.

[Masterskinnie]

That's sure to bring some controversy, I'd say it was because he could (he was so rich already) and felt guilty and/or bored. He may think he is one of humanity's greatest gifts. I'm sure most, if not all of those whom he now helps via his charitable work are grateful and need the assistance.

I do agree for the most part.:)

[Freeman]

Excuse me, I need to go and burn some CD's now

I was listening to the radio a while ago and they were talking about copyright laws and music. They had a copyright attorney on there talking about what was legal or not. You can burn a CD for yourself, or put the music onto an mp3 player and that would be ok. You could also listen to it at work. But, if at work, you are listening to your music and someone else starts listening to it that is infringement on the copyright law. They did not pay for the music so they are stealing. Even if you don't want them to listen to your music, if they do they are stealing and your are the one that is giving it away. Seems kinda like a frivolous thing to say is a copyright infringement law.

[Masterskinnie]

I was listening to the radio a while ago and they were talking about copyright laws and music. They had a copyright attorney on there talking about what was legal or not. You can burn a CD for yourself, or put the music onto an mp3 player and that would be ok. You could also listen to it at work. But, if at work, you are listening to your music and someone else starts listening to it that is infringement on the copyright law. They did not pay for the music so they are stealing. Even if you don't want them to listen to your music, if they do they are stealing and your are the one that is giving it away. Seems kinda like a frivolous thing to say is a copyright infringement law.

Yes, I really disagree with that. Is that only at work though, is it alright for others to listen to it in your own house?

[Freeman]

I do believe so, It would be "more illegal" for them to break into your house and see what you are listening to and who else is there.

[djr33]

Illegal is a finite adjective.... nothing is more illegal than anything else; however, it is also important to note that consequences may be more secure or the act may be less accepted by society.

[jscheuer1]

If you read this post without my permission you are violating my copyright.

[djr33]

No. By posting to this board, you are allowing people to see it.
That's like claiming listening to someone talking in public is illegal.

[jscheuer1]

No. By posting to this board, you are allowing people to see it.
That's like claiming listening to someone talking in public is illegal.

My lawyer will be contacting you.

[djr33]

Mine would love something to do ;)

[jscheuer1]

See you in court.

[djr33]

But where would a case like this be held? It didn't actually take place in any location... I think they have yet to invent a cybercourt, though that would be awesome.
An interesting idea of the future is a nation that doesn't actually exist except in cyberspace.
For example, one could say "I live in Google."
Perhaps he could have a war with a resident of Microsoft.

[BLiZZaRD]

But where would a case like this be held? It didn't actually take place in any location... I think they have yet to invent a cybercourt,


EU to the rescue.. Online money claims (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp) Could you broadcast the proceedings on YouTube?

[djr33]

Hehe :D

[Masterskinnie]

But where would a case like this be held? It didn't actually take place in any location... I think they have yet to invent a cybercourt, though that would be awesome.
An interesting idea of the future is a nation that doesn't actually exist except in cyberspace.
For example, one could say "I live in Google."
Perhaps he could have a war with a resident of Microsoft.

I think that would really be fun. you know a cyberwar in which nobody would get hurt, maybe play unreal tournament or something like that.

[Freeman]

maybe play unreal tournament or something like that.

That would be a good way to solve other court cases They could have a huge online battle and whoever had the most frags would be the winner of the lawsuit. I bet alot more kids in high school would be winning court cases.

[Masterskinnie]

That would be a good way to solve other court cases They could have a huge online battle and whoever had the most frags would be the winner of the lawsuit. I bet alot more kids in high school would be winning court cases.

It would be but for the fact that crime rates would go up. Unless you get the best game players to be the lawyers, judges, and jury, more crimes would be committed in the real world. Unless even then cybercourt only is for cybercrimes, which really do not get considered real crimes.

Yes We should go more with cyberneighborhoods. life is more peaceful that way