= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Over-encapsulation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
I can see them, though I feel the need to note that direct linking to a site that isn't your own is bad form.
Bad form? Generally, but I'm not concerned with Science's bandwidth expenses.
If anyone requests it, I will link to a direct download of the .pdf of the full study.
It is bad form; but I have no site of my own to put them on. I'm homeless on the internet.
RobinZ and nhamann have already floated ideas for image hosting, but if you want a convenient, free, and immediately available option for hosting images, you can try an image hosting service: BAYIMG and imgur look like two good ones.
This sounds like a good idea. But my understanding is that if I link to the original website, I'm not violating copyright; if I link to a copy that I made, I am violating copyright. The penalty for violating copyright is larger than the penalty for poor etiquette.
Are you in the U.S.? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
Edit: Naturally, your point is apt - I'm just pointing out that there are fair-use exemptions that are often applicable. (I'm not sure hotlinking substantial amounts of copyrighted material is safe, but I Am Not A Lawyer.)
That's a good point. Though I note that "fair use" is not something you can rely on in the US. Try releasing a documentary film where you can overhear someone walking past playing a Michael Jackson song for 10 seconds, and see how much protection fair use gives you.
Well, you might win your court case, but it won't keep you from having to pay legal fees.
Thanks; images are now on BAYIMG. Hope they last.
Can't you upload images to LW, for use in posts?
Indeed. The LW wiki seems to support image upload, though you'd need to register as a user first.
But I'm not comfortable with LW hosting copywritten images, even though a rationale for fair use could be made.
I didn't know that.
For what it's worth, you can get absurdly cheap hosting through Amazon's Simple Storage Service. We're talking pennies per month.
PhilGoetz.com is available! Take it.
I wonder if LessWrong could 'sell' image storage for this purpose at 1 karma/kB or something.
I can see them, and I like your direct-linking.
Proper etiquette is to duplicate the file at reduced size (so as not to steal bandwidth and protect against link rot) and link to the original (so as to provide proper credit) with sufficient information to allow others to find the same source independently (so as to protect against link rot)
Upvoted for rationale ('don't direct link' is a new norm to me, and the reasons behind it weren't immediately obvious to me).
I've seen quite a few pleas from webcartoonists that hotlinking was costing them significant sums - it's one of those things which isn't obvious from the consumer side.
Oh, yes; the no hotlinking - i.e. no inlining with <img> tags - norm I'm familiar with, but the idea of refraining from <a>-type links is new to me.
(Edit: ohhh, you are refering to hotlinking. Sorry. I jumped into this subthread after seeing some of its comments on the Recent Comments page, rather than from reading the full context. I had thought the several of you were refering to <a>-linking rather than <img>-inlining because I hadn't read PhilGoetz's top-level post. Having looked at it now, I see that he did actually inline the images rather than just linking to them. So my comments don't make sense...but I'll leave them up for transparency's sake.)
Thank you!
Definitely better.