[quote]<strong>First off I just would like to ask if you would please use "quotes" properly. I know you don't care what other people are inconvenienced by cause it just matters what you want to do but your doing it wrong. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oddly enough, I didn't even know QB existed.
[quote]<strong>What it LOOKS like.. not it's functionality or what the purpose of it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Matter of fact if your caught changing someone's web page for you own use.. you can indeed be sued.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You must be kidding. Of course I couldn't. I couldn't be sued for opening up a novel and changing paragraphs with a Sharpie either. What I do to content that I'm looking at is completely up to me. It effects only me, and only I (through the software on my computer) actually have complete control over it.
The author can offer suggestions, but the final choice is not theirs.
[quote]<strong>There is not ONE meta tag that is being used right now to turn off something like this that is specific to a web browser. Go figure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Irrelevant (and wrong). You can use Meta tags to show spiders where to go in the page hierarchy, among other things. Those aren't "standard," even though they may be widely used. The entire point of meta tags is to allow a program viewing content to alter it's settings.
[quote]<strong>And are you trying to say you CAN'T get sued for this? Pleas tell you are so I and every one else can laugh at you. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're conveniently ignoring the difference between me changing something for my use, and me changing something for distribution. You *can* get sued for distribution, you *can't* get sued if you're doing it on your own. I can turn a DVD on, change the tints on the TV to show everything as blue, and no one can sue me for it.
[quote]<strong>You can. But if they person who made that page has a copyright on the work and finds out you did it .. they can indeed sue you. That is if you put it on the web. Which is what Smart Tags do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahh... now we're to the crux of the issue. How do Smart Tags change content, then redistribute it? If they were run on the server side, I would agree with you completely. However, me using Smart Tags in no way infringes on the author's right to the material.
Explain to me how Smart Tags change the content AND distribute it?
[quote]<strong>And WHO controls what these words are being linked to? Do you get to tell IE to link the word "Books" to anywhere you want? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I do. I can tell IE to use any Smart Tags I want, even some I've authored through into XML file. Additionally, I can allow IE to use Smart Tags provided by some third party (like ESPN). Either way, I have control over what's tagged, where it goes, and anything else it may do.
[quote]<strong>And WHO put the ability in there? MS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And who makes Sharpies? Sanford. How is Sanford infringing on the rights of Tom Clancy when I use their product to change his works?
[quote]<strong>MS buried them as to make it HARD to turn them off. That is why I didn't see it in the first place. Something like that shouldn't be buried. And when it is.. it's done on purpose. Noticed people bitched about that too.. and MS changed it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They were put into a Beta of WinXP. Beta's are usually to provide feedback. People felt that there should be an easy way to toggle Smart Tags. MS provided that for a later beta. I fail to see the hangup.
[quote]<strong>The Public is who MS sells to. If the greater percentage of people think this feature is really lame MS would be stupid to keep it. Obviously the people have spoken. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, most of the outcry was from completely uninformed public (as usual). The uninformed (or misinformed) public ruins quite a bit for the average consumer, VHS dominance over BetaMax for instance.
[quote]<strong>So you control all the links? Hmm last version I used I could control the words I wanted.. but not where they went to. Did it change?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure I can. I can disable all the Smart Tags, whip up an XML file, and have a completely customized set. Most of the time, I would prefer to let someone else do the work (like ESPN).
[quote]<strong>And that means what? Absolutely NOTHING. I have seen smart tags in use. I have SEEN what they do to pages. That is ALL I need to know they are CRAP.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you really have as much experience with them as you claim (any), you would easily be able to tell me what the default set was.
So far, you've been factually incorrect about how they work. Obviously, by asking you what the default set was, I'm discrediting your opinions. Opinions are fine, unless they're based on ignorance, or half truths, as yours seem to be. Whether that's intentional or not, I have no idea.
[quote]<strong>Web standards son. Browsers should follow them. Not make them up as they go along with MS does with IE. Read up about it sometime. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I know all about web standards. Smart Tags aren't covered because they're not part of HTML, or any other technology that's involved with putting content on the web.
[quote]<strong>It's not your choice to begin with. Hell I want to browse the net with pics of myself on EVERY page.. IE doesn't let me do that. Those dirty rotten bastards! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure it does. Enable the "user specified" StyleSheet, and set the BODY property to use your picture as the background image.
[quote]<strong>Highlighting is not changing or redirecting the person to a different book is it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is changing the content. That seems to be your big hangup.
[quote]<strong>Bad analogy BTW yes they can sue you. Just like if you download a program and change it a company can sue you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I download an illegal copy, they can come after me. If I crack my legal copy, they can't do anything about it.
[quote]<strong>Doesn't happen but they CAN do it. Read up a little bit about copy right laws and the internet son. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you're referring to the DMCA and perhaps the Russian guy who wrote a program to remove copy protection from eBooks? The feds went after him because his program broke a proprietary encryption produced by Adobe. I don't particularly agree with that, or the DMCA as a whole, but it clearly doesn't apply here.
[quote]<strong>Smart Tags are non-standard no? Yes they are non standard. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Smart Tags aren't meta tags. The meta tag to turn them off is not proprietary. By their very definition, meta tags are designed to allow such things, therefore their proper usage can't be considered proprietary and non-standard.
[quote]<strong>Why should you be allowed to change copyrighted material to suit your own needs? Guess what it's illegal unless you get permission. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not. It is illegal to distribute the content, but it's not illegal to change it.
[quote]<strong>Good for you. Doesn't mean you can go and change other people's work legally to suit your needs son. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I can. I can write notes in the margin of a book all I want, I can even sell that book. I can make copies out of a text-book to turn in with a research paper. I can do whatever I want with the particular copy of the work I own, as long as I don't distribute it.
[quote]<strong>No your a brat cause you don't care how it effects people.. what people think about it. What damage it can do. You want it and that is all that matters</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I enable Smart Tags, it only has an effect on one person... me. If Smart Tags were server side, or impossible to change/turn off, you might have a point. But they're not.
[quote]<strong>I see Sinewave take the effort to acknowledge the good and bad of Smartlinks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
His understanding of their implementation and the legality behind them is fundamentally flawed. Therefore he's basing a negative opinion on his very thin and uninformed experiences.
[quote]<strong> I don't believe Sinewave wants them banished altogether, just "off" as a failsafe default for webpages in general, unless the webpage maker explicitly enables them </strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, the webpage author doesn't, and shouldn't have that much control over my particular copy of their work.
[quote]<strong>I'm sure we'll see all of RD's webpages (and many others) with Smartlinks enabled and more power to him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll see my copy of IE6 with Smart Tags enabled. You'll also see my copy of Office XP with Smart Tags enabled.
[quote]<strong>It's the most prudent way to go, since there is virtually no regulation over the content of whoever's Smartlink set the user happens to be using (and the default set happens to be whatever M$ feels is "appropriate").</strong><hr></blockquote>
The user has complete power over the Smart Tag definitions on their particular computer. Other regulation is just intrusive.
[quote]<strong>I see RD argue in circles (for his own edification, perhaps, not to further the understanding of the topic for the rest of us), all the while dropping in the insulting jab.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I'll further the understanding of the topic for the rest of you:
1) Smart tags are client side.
2) The user has complete control over the Smart Tag definitions
3) There is no re-distribution of the work.
4) The only person who sees the effect of the Tags is the surfer who has them enabled.
5) Content authors have very little control over their works, once it's in the hands of the consumer
6) You can't be sued for changing your own copy of something for your own personal use.
[quote]<strong>He acknowledges all of the benefits (for him, of course), but refuses to acknowledge any of the potential dangers that Sinewave and others before him have brought up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The potential dangers are only a possibility of Smart Tags become something else entirely. Right now, they're nothing more than a framework the user can use to allow the browser to highlight keywords, allowing extra information instantly.
[quote]<strong>From that standpoint, I think it is pretty clear which one of them has a more objective understanding of the topic, and which one is arguing for the sake of arguing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Dr. Crane.
[quote]<strong>All I kept thinking of when RD was saying that he can change the webpage to be however he wants was "intellectual property." Who owns the content on the web?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The author owns the content. I own a copy.
[quote]<strong>For my site, as Sinewave said, I own it. It's copyright *me*.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I own the copy that's in my cache. I can do whatever I want to it, and as long as I don't distribute it, you can't do anything about it.
[quote]<strong>RD apparently doesn't believe in intellectual property rights. It's a good thing that some people do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course I do. I don't, however, believe in the rights of content authors to take away the powers I have of enhancing their content for my own use.
[quote]<strong>So, I guess I just want someone to sort out this contradiction for me. Am I the only one who sees this? Any takers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no contradiction. Smart Tags are in no way a violation of your intellectual property rights.
[quote]<strong>We've had this argument before and well.....you lost ( both the argument and the reality of Smart Tags ) </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh? Then what's the reality of Smart Tags. What's the difference between using a Sharpie to make notes in a Nnvel and using Smart Tags?
[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: RubberDucky ]</p>