5 ms·
The web was literally built do be usable this way. I know people have started to believe that the only allowable way to view "content" is in the way the website
by cyborgx7 8y ago
The web was literally built do be usable this way. I know people have started to believe that the only allowable way to view "content" is in the way the website builders decided, but your browser is allowed to display the content it downloaded in any way it wants to you.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoYou're right and I'm totally on board with that. But that doesn't seem to be how Apple works, if they freely share everything they put on line then, for sure, have at it. If they expect people to pay to access their IPR then they should, without prompting, pay others when they want access to their's.
- cyborgx7 8y agoYou're right, the big companies are the biggest offenders against this intended use of the web. And that's bad. And they aren't accessing others intellectual property with this. They are building custom tools to display other's intellectual property. Very different.
- threeseed 8y agoSo Google, Microsoft and Apple who fund and build the web browser you are currently using are against the intended use of the web. I wish more companies would "offend" then.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gcb0 8y agobrowser have very explicit rules against this very action by apple. in your browser, apple.com cannot access the content from jguitar.com
- boodrizz 8y agoThat is not true in several ways. Iframes and cdns work. There are security measures that prevent https connections from embedding http and other content restrictions, but those are for security reasons. People hotlink images, it's a wild web out there
- gcb0 8y agoFor everything you described there is a tag or http header i can set on my own content to prevent a browser on another domain from 'hotlinking'. If you are the 'browser' as this IOS feature is, there is none. I hope it at least respect the robots.txt rules.
- dcow 8y agoWhats the legal precident for cases like this? A C&D is not the law and just because big-corp has lawyers doesn't mean bullying people who don't access their public resources in exactly the way they want is legal...
- threeseed 8y agoI'm confused. Does Apple prevent you from linking to their website ? Because that's the point here. That the web was built to allow anyone to link to anyone without asking permission.
- brlewis 8y agoFrom the article: "In a nutshell, the shortcut uses the user's input (a chord symbol) to construct a url to a chord search result page on JGuitar.com and then looks for 200x200px chord diagram images on that page and shows them to the user. The rest of the web page isn't shown." This is different from linking. With links you see the whole web page. I haven't used the shortcuts app and don't know how obvious the source of the info is. It seems the article author had to dig into the shortcut configuration to find a reference to his site.
- dcow 8y agoI understand the point but: a link is a link is a link.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoThey're framing (as we used to call it back in the good old geocities days!). If I wrap Apple's stuff in my livery, leeching their content, I guarantee there will be legal action (C&D). Also, see up thread where they disclaim right to do the same to them.
- whatshisface 8y agoWikipedia should be allowed to ask for donations inside of the little Google snippets. Doesn't that sound fair?
- cyborgx7 8y agoWikipedia is released under creative commons. That is literally the worst example you could have picked.
- untog 8y agoIt isn't, though. The Creative Commons license says "you can use this content", it doesn't say "you are forbidden from assisting the creator of this content in any way". Creative Commons is great because it allows everyone to use it. But a company the size and stature of Google should consider it a bare minimum, not a target.
- emodendroket 8y agoIf you search for questions like "how long should I bake a frozen chicken thigh?" you'll get chunks of text from Web pages which are not CC-licensed.
- reaperducer 8y agoThis might not be a great example, either. Most cooking web sites tag their HTML with things like itemprop="recipeIngredient", and itemprop="recipeInstructions", hoping to get featured by Google in this way.
- whatshisface 8y agoWell, what you can do and what's fair and friendly are not always the same thing. For example, although I have to pay taxes to the government but not to charities, I may use a charity as an example of somewhere to give money to.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoAnd the content author doesn't have any copyright say over his content?
- romwell 8y ago>The web was literally built do be usable this way. Sure, the technology was built to be used in certain ways, which might not be ethical or legal, depending on a particular instance of usage. Because one can do something, obviously doesn't mean one should. I can't chop your furniture just because I have an axe that was literally built for chopping. >your browser is allowed to display the content it downloaded in any way it wants to you. Indeed, but that doesn't mean someone is allowed to send arbitrary content to that browser. The fault is not with the browser. If I put an image on Flickr, you can hotlink to that image in your web article, print it on your printer, and distribute. The technology was literally built to be usable that way. However, it is neither legal nor ethical to do that.
- jplayer01 8y agoThe web wasn’t built for massive corporations to profit off the work of others.