Okay, just an idea...

[Hypoxia]

They said the same thing to Chris Columbus (the explorer not the director). "Why bother going out and trying to find a different way? It's pointless. You're only going to fall off the edge of the earth and die."

Poor illustration. Actually, contemporaries of Columbus who knew anything, knew Terra was globular, not flat. No edges. This was known for well over a millennium. Those around CC told him, "Your maps are wrong, the world is bigger than that!" and they were absolutely right. If the Americas hadn't conveniently been on the route to Asia, the westward voyage from Europe would have induced starvation and/or mutiny -- which it nearly did.

(Lousy Joke: Did you know that CC actually set sail with 4 ships, not 3? Yup, the Santa Cruz sailed off the edge. Ha ha.)

Back to voting. All systems will suck. The question is, which sucks least?

 

[sr71plt]

They said the same thing to Chris Columbus (the explorer not the director). "Why bother going out and trying to find a different way? It's pointless. You're only going to fall off the edge of the earth and die."

Sorry, but I don't see how that applies here. The Spanish throne paid for Columbus' adventures. The throne here posts stolen cat photos.

 

[MatthewVett]

The reader rates the authors 1 to 5 for various reasons. It would be nice if those reasons were legitimate but a good portion of the time they are not. I have one jackass that constantly tells me my stories don't belong in LW so he rates every one of my stories with a 1.

How about if the authors could rate the readers...

Based on their critiques, the writer could click on the comment and rate it 1 to 5. As the votes add up, that person's vote would carry the weight associated with his score. In other words, the vote of a complete jackass who would get a score, of say, 1.5 would have almost no bearing on the story he is voting on; whereby, the vote of someone who gives thoughtful and insightful comments and has a score of 4.8 would carry much more weight.

I know this is probably impossible, I just thought it was a novel idea...

Would you really rate someone a 5 if they tore your story to bits in an intelligent and well-thought out way, though? I feel this would just be a rating of how greatly the commentor agrees with you. If anything, everyone *except* the writer should be able to rate other commentors.

 

[sr71plt]

If anything, everyone *except* the writer should be able to rate other commentors.

Which, I've noted, though, they now can do just by putting it in a comment on the story.

 

[laptopwriter]

As sr said, folks...

This was just a bit of fantasy that I laid out there. I know it would never come to pass, if it could come to pass, or if it's really even a good idea.

I know SOL has a weighted scoring system that sucks in my view. I checked the last story I submitted there after only 5 votes. I had 2-8's, 1-9, & 2-10's and my score was 7 point something. They somehow grade on the curve and your score is influenced by the way other stories are scored that day. I think they also throw out 2 of the high scores and 2 of the low scores.

 

[RejectReality]

This was just a bit of fantasy that I laid out there. I know it would never come to pass, if it could come to pass, or if it's really even a good idea.

I know SOL has a weighted scoring system that sucks in my view. I checked the last story I submitted there after only 5 votes. I had 2-8's, 1-9, & 2-10's and my score was 7 point something. They somehow grade on the curve and your score is influenced by the way other stories are scored that day. I think they also throw out 2 of the high scores and 2 of the low scores.

Nobody but Laz knows how the scores work at SOL *laugh*

I seem to score more or less in the same place I always did, so far as relationship to other authors, so I shrug and say, "Whatever."

 

[robertreams]

my question is: Why piss off your readers? Why do all you guys attach so much importance to categories? If LW is so terrible post somewhere else. I keep hearing complaints about LW, but surely all these loving wives must be engaging in some activities which could qualify the piece for admittance to another category, e.g oral, anal. I have to admit I have not read any stories in that category. Why? I have my own "Loving Wife" why write about that, when I could whistle and she would come upstairs and fuck me? I have only written one story that would fit in that category. I wrote it specifically for a woman in this forum who wanted someone to write a story about a husband who takes his time to seduce his wife into anal sex. Well, I wrote the story. In the story it took the husband 10 years to seduce his reluctant wife into anal. then one night of long drawn out foreplay with a bath and candles and washing and licking et,stc,ets. Well she commented back that the story was terrible, she was looking for one in which the husband took his time. Needless to say the story sits in my archives waiting for a second life, but if it comes out, I assure you,it will not go in LW.

 

[robertreams]

I have an idea!!! Could there not be a mechanism to measure whether a reader finished reading the story? Maybe just a click, did you finish the story? Then we authors would know if the reader merely downloaded or actually read the story. That would make a huge difference to me, since I am approaching one million downloads. Then we could forget about rating, for who really cares anyway. I want to know: Is my message getting out there? That's enough for me!

 

[sr71plt]

I have an idea!!! Could there not be a mechanism to measure whether a reader finished reading the story? Maybe just a click, did you finish the story?

What would prompt a reader who comes just to read and doesn't click anything afterward currently to click that one?

I suggest more realization that this is a reading site, not a critique site. There's no pressure for a reader to do anything but read. If you've got to have the critique/response, ask for it each time on the Feedback forum . . . or go find a critique site.

 

[Serafina1210]

I have an idea!!! Could there not be a mechanism to measure whether a reader finished reading the story? Maybe just a click, did you finish the story? Then we authors would know if the reader merely downloaded or actually read the story. That would make a huge difference to me, since I am approaching one million downloads. Then we could forget about rating, for who really cares anyway. I want to know: Is my message getting out there? That's enough for me!

A kind of natural experiment, which I won't narrate for fear of boring everyone, persuaded me that the view counter for stories is on the last page, or there is some other mechanism to detect readers who hit page one, read a few lines, and back out. I think the view counter is reasonably close to the number of people who've actually read to the end of a story.

 

[AZMotherLover]

Sorry, but I don't see how that applies here. The Spanish throne paid for Columbus' adventures. The throne here posts stolen cat photos.

No. The Throne here posts links to cat photos that are hosted at another site. Your browser serves the photos up for your viewing pleasure by going to that other site.

For a writer, you aren't very precise.

 

[sr71plt]

No. The Throne posts links to cat photos that are hosted at another site. Your browser serves the photos up for your viewing by going to that other site.

For a writer, you aren't very precise.

The image shows up. That's all that's required for it to be a reposting. The delivery mechanism makes not difference. It's not just a link to an original posting by permission. I do understand that you don't understand what a copyright violation is and are going to stalk me all over the forum on this. (Even after I showed you one you committed and the Web site removed).

 

[AZMotherLover]

The image shows up.

Because your browser, on your computer, goes to the original site to get the image and display it for you.

That's all that's required for it to be a reposting. The delivery mechanism makes not difference. It's not just a link to an original posting by permission. I do understand that you don't understand what a copyright violation is and are going to stalk me all over the forum on this. (Even after I showed you one you committed and the Web site removed).

Help me understand, oh wise one. Provide some case law that supports your position. And not the rules of this website, but actual court cases.

So you disagree with United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on this matter? I'm going to defer to them, not you.

You seem like a smart guy in some respects, but your desire to have copyright law conform to your wishes does not make it so.

I'm not stalking you, don't flatter yourself, but I will rebut you every time you post your opinion as fact. You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, we disagree. Your citation is irrelevant in two dimensions. As far as the court ruling, the image IS displayed here. That's the point. It doesn't really matter where else it also lives.

And in the second dimension, hotlinking is against the forum rules. You say I keep saying that, and citing Forum Rule #3. Why, yes, I do. It's right there in Forum Rule #3. Can't you read?

Now just drop it. I proved my point as far as Literotica is concerned, because you posted an image that I own and I had it erased. Thems the facts.

 

[AZMotherLover]

Yes, we disagree. Your citation is irrelevant in two dimensions. As far as the court ruling, the image IS displayed here. That's the point. It doesn't really matter where else it also lives.

And in the second dimension, hotlinking is against the forum rules. You say I keep saying that, and citing Forum Rule #3. Why, yes, I do. It's right there in Forum Rule #3. Can't you read?

Now just drop it. I proved my point as far as Literotica is concerned, because you posted an image that I own and I had it erased. Thems the facts.

The facts are that you're wrong and too foolish to realize it.

Pearls before swine...

 

[sr71plt]

The facts are that you're wrong and too foolish to realize it.

Pearls before swine...

Who showed me wasn't a violation--and had it quickly erased?

Did you read Forum Rule #3? Do you need a translator?

 

[AZMotherLover]

Who showed me wasn't a violation--and had it quickly erased?

Did you read Forum Rule #3? Do you need a translator?

I'm talking about copyright law, not the rules of this particular forum. Sheesh you're slow.

 

[Serafina1210]

The image shows up. That's all that's required for it to be a reposting. The delivery mechanism makes not difference. It's not just a link to an original posting by permission. I do understand that you don't understand what a copyright violation is and are going to stalk me all over the forum on this. (Even after I showed you one you committed and the Web site removed).

Surely this controversy should be easy to resolve. Posters on this site frequently link to images (on servers like media.tumblr.com) without also linking to the page (if any) in which they are embedded. With the exception of avatars, which seem to be covered by the court ruling that allows reposting and hotlinking with significant transformation, these are not hotlinks in the usual sense: the pictures are not embedded in Lit web pages as if they were hosted on this site: instead a new window or tab is opened and the image is displayed there without any context.

I can't find references to any U.S. court rulings governing this kind of behavior. (The court rulings on hotlinking, which is much more controversial, seem pretty inconclusive so far: most cases have been settled out of court, and such settlements don't make for definitive case law.) It's possible to block that kind of linking, and many sites do, but I can't find any evidence that it's illegal.

If I'm wrong I'm glad to be corrected, but please correct by linking to something that cites case law, not to assertions in blog posts.

 

[AZMotherLover]

If I'm wrong I'm glad to be corrected, but please correct by linking to something that cites case law, not to assertions in blog posts.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

"Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking

 

[Serafina1210]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

"Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking

I saw that, and it was sloppy of me not to remember it when I wrote. So this ruling, anyway, sees hotlinking as legal.

Hotlinking is not what goes on in forum posts here. Instead, what goes on is straight linking to images without the context (if any) in which they originally appeared. It seems more innocent than hotlinking, since it doesn't make images appear in a new context. As I said before, as far as I know no court has ruled that it's illegal.

 

[sr71plt]

*Sigh* The copyright violation is the reposting of the copyrighted image or material at all without permission, not the means by which it was RESHOWN without permission.

 

[Serafina1210]

*Sigh* The copyright violation is the reposting of the copyrighted image or material at all without permission, not the means by which it was RESHOWN without permission.

Sorry, mere assertion won't cut it. I want proof. Court rulings.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, mere assertion won't cut it. I want proof. Court rulings.

I'm down to who cares what you folks think? You'll find out what you find out when/if you ever actually get involved in it. Until then, someone else's creative work is theirs; it's not yours to decide to steal and repost anywhere. And you should be able to enjoy the same protections of your own creative work. If you expect to be protected but to be able to grab someone else's work for whatever purpose, you may be able to get away with it, but you're just a sleazebag.

 

[Serafina1210]

I'm down to who cares what you folks think? You'll find out what you find out when/if you ever actually get involved in it. Until then, someone else's creative work is theirs; it's not yours to decide to steal and repost anywhere. And you should be able to enjoy the same protections of your own creative work. If you expect to be protected but to be able to grab someone else's work for whatever purpose, you may be able to get away with it, but you're just a sleazebag.

Assertion and bluster. You don't know what's legal and what's not. You don't even know the difference between linking and "reposting," "grabbing," whatever vague term you want to apply to it.

And when people call you on it, you retreat to "who cares" and insult. This isn't argument: it's a tantrum.

 

[AZMotherLover]

Assertion and bluster. You don't know what's legal and what's not. You don't even know the difference between linking and "reposting," "grabbing," whatever vague term you want to apply to it.

And when people call you on it, you retreat to "who cares" and insult. This isn't argument: it's a tantrum.

What else would you expect from an old man who doesn't understand how the internet works? Sad, really.