Re: filmscanners: Stealing images

2001-09-11 Thread Rob Geraghty
"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side. Good grief. Just about every ASP file written depends on javascript. For what it's worth, the code I mentioned IS javascript but it seems to have been more important t

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images

2001-09-11 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Rob writes: > For what it's worth, the code I mentioned IS > javascript but it seems to have been more > important to figure out whether I used the right > word ... The difference between Java and Javascript is enormous, despite the similar names, so it is important to refer to each correctly.

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images

2001-09-11 Thread Steve Greenbank
uality 1024*768. I think something like a 600*400 (or even smaller) image will look good on most screens, whilst at least limiting print use if not web use. Steve - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, Sep

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images

2001-09-11 Thread Rob Geraghty
Steve Greenbank wrote: > The point (other than an on-topic dig) is that a 1024*768 image > will have scroll bars round it at 1024*768 - you need to allow > a little for the edges of the window and the title bar. With > copyright (and bandwidth) worries smaller is also better as you > can make a su

filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-09 Thread Rob Geraghty
Harvey wrote: > musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal > item. Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be very small. > I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on we

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners:Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Johnny Deadman
on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message > if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's > relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of > discouragement > of t

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread SKID Photography
Rob Geraghty wrote: > Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC

RE: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Laurie Solomon
, September 10, 2001 3:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Rob Geraghty wrote: > Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Meta

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Harvey writes: > Actually it was a band called Metallica. If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game.

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread SKID Photography
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > Actually it was a band called Metallica. > > If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game. Since this is your opinion vs my opinion, I'm not going to debate with youBut I will point out that they felt that their losses

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-11 Thread Rob Geraghty
Harvey wrote: > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Want to bet that it wasn't > > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money I

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-11 Thread SKID Photography
Rob Geraghty wrote: > Harvey wrote: > > > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > Want to bet that it wasn't > > > any individual musician who chased Napster? > > Actually it was a band called Metallica. > > And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - > if they did pay for the

Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-11 Thread Arthur Entlich
I would definitely pursue the Encarta infringement. Mr. Bill "deep pockets" Gates needs a few lessons in etiquette, it would appear. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Harvey wrote: > > musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal > > item. > > Only because it's worth billions to some v

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Rob Geraghty
John wrote: >on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message >> if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's >> relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of >> disco

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re:filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Johnny Deadman
on 9/10/01 7:24 PM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> you mean javascript I think >> yes that's a good idea. In fact I might search that out. > > AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. The only Javascript I've used > is server side code in an ASP. But I don't want to start an a

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images

2001-09-10 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Rob writes: > AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side. You'll know it's Java if it takes half an hour to execute; if it executes instantly, it's Javascript. Anyway, all you have to do is turn off Java or Javasc