MagPul FMG 9

[Soybomb]

To add insult to injury, you're hot-linking the photos (instead of downloading them from DefRev and then uploading them to THR), and thus using our bandwidth, instead of THR's bandwidth. That's just plain inconsiderate and lazy on your part.

If you don't like people embedding your images you need to disable that on your end. The web is built on links and many of us have differing opinions what is courteous behavior. I have no trouble with people deep linking to my sites or embedding my images, I feel like thats the foundation the web was built upon. By default I assume that anyone who allows me to do so, feels the same way. You might wish to investigate the rewrite engine and .htaccess files if you use an apache server to stop people from embedding hotlinked images.

 

[ctdonath]

The pictures you've posted to start this thread were taken by, and belong to, DefenseReview.com. They are our property and are copyrighted. However, for some reason, you still posted them here without crediting DefenseReview

They are, in my perception, credited - for if one clicks on the image, it takes the user to your article. I thought you might appreciate the exposure.

However, as you apparently do not appreciate the exposure, I shall promptly edit the post to remove the pictures - and the links.

All photographic images contained in this article were taken by DefenseReview.com, and they are the exclusive property of DefenseReview.com. DefenseReview.com owns the copyright on these photos.

Surely you are aware that copyright law includes concessions to "fair use". That was my intention: sharing "news" material with a relatively small group, with links to the source material.

This is the article:

http://www.defensereview.com/modules...ticle&sid=1098 -- MagPul FMG9: Prototype 9mm Folding Submachine Gun

I know. I linked the pictures to it three times.

To add insult to injury, you're hot-linking the photos (instead of downloading them from DefRev and then uploading them to THR), and thus using our bandwidth, instead of THR's bandwidth. That's just plain inconsiderate and lazy on your part.

Um ... that would be copyright infringement. I didn't think I was supposed to COPY photos and distribute them, so I asked your servers to serve your photos ... and your servers, as programmed to your requirements, cooperated. Actually I was only interested in what appeared to be small "thumbnail" versions, but they turned out to be rather larger than I expected. But no, I had no interest in actually violating any laws by COPYING your photos and independently distributing them, so I set the posting to ask your servers for them, which they provided without complaint.

"Hot-linking" is a common practice on the Internet. Yes, it is controversial. Your servers are capable of refusing such requests, but they do not, so the presumption is it is allowed.

May I observe that Google has apparently gone much farther with your images? Click on that link, and you'll find hundreds of Defense Review photos copied from your servers. Click on the photos, and - like my post - they will take the user to your pages.

So, the least you can do, if you're going to post them here, is A) credit us properly for them,

I thought linking the photos to the related page amounted to credit.

and B) don't hot-link them.

Well, then there is nothing to credit, is there?

At this point, I would just like to make it clear that, usually, in most cases, DefenseReview doesn't mind people posting our photos in other internet venues, provided they credit us properly and don't hot-link them. If you had simply done that, you would have had our blessing.

Just to be totally clear:
1. I meant no harm.
2. I meant to draw attention TO your related article.
3. I asked your servers to provide the photos, and they complied. (Many servers are programmed to refuse such requests.)
4. I made the photos, as used, clickable links which took users directly to the related page. This is a common form of "credit".

ctdonath, as a senior member of THR, you should know better. You've exhibited some really bad internet etiquette, here. Please do it the right way, next time.

What constitutes "bad etiquette" in this case is open to discussion.

As what your "blessing" applies to is unclear, and what you would prefer I do remains unclear, I shall delete the lead content in this thread, and in the future avoid Defense Review (I don't mean that to sound snotty or anything, really; I just want to resolve the issue amicably & rapidly, and do the simplest thing I can to avoid future problems: i.e., don't go there).

 

[ctdonath]

Awright, seems I can't delete/edit the offending post. I've put in a request to the moderators to pull it.

 

[Art Eatman]

If I delete only the pictures, the opening post makes no sense. If I delete the opening post, the entire thread goes away.

DefRev has made his point about attribution. (So drop any further OT comments about that.)

I see no reason to discontinue discussion about the firearm.

Art

 

[opticalc]

OK can we get back to the FMG-9?

How about more discussion about the AOR vs SBR issue? I concur with the notion that its an SBR. But a few posters have claimed that magpul registered it as an AOW so how could they have gotten there?

 

[Quiet]

OK can we get back to the FMG-9?

How about more discussion about the AOR vs SBR issue? I concur with the notion that its an SBR. But a few posters have claimed that magpul registered it as an AOW so how could they have gotten there?

I agree it would be classified as a SBR instead of an AOW.
It can't fire when folded, should be a SBR.

Magpul said at the SHOT show...
(1) that they had no intention of producing the FMG9.
(2) that they made it to show what they are capable of.
(3) that what they brought was a non-functional prototype.

So, what they showed was really their take on the ARES FMG of the 1980s.

 

[DefRev]

Dear ctdonath,

1) How could your initial/original post draw attention to our article when you didn't credit us or provide a link to the article? To date, as this is written, you still haven't credited us and/or provided a link to the DefenseReview article in that post. Heck, if you had just done that in immediate response to my post, I would have thanked you, and that would have been that. Water under the bridge.

2) I don't think your response to this was the right one, considering that I still believe you handled your initial post incorrectly. That said (or written), I'm sorry that you don't want to visit us because of this situation, but I think the reason you don't want to visit us is that you're perhaps a bit ticked at me for publicly confronting you on it.

I will tell you that I debated doing it, but decided in the end that it was important to address it. Remember, all I was really asking for was to be credited properly and not to be hotlinked. I really don't think that's asking too much, but I'm going to rethink the hotlinking issue based on this discussion and heed Soybomb's advice re disabling that feature if we decide to take decisive action against it (hotlinking) in the future. I'm going to consult my Sys/Admin on this one. However, at the moment, again based on this discussion, I'm leaning towards allowing it (hotlinking), provided Defense Review is properly credited per my perameters.

If anyone here can advise me on how to better-handle this type of situation on the boards in the future if it happens again, I'll listen to your advice. Should I respond differently? Should I perhaps not respond at all, and just allow it? I'm listening. I realize I'm fallible like everyone else, make mistakes, and don't always handle situations properly or as well as I could.

ctdonath, we're sorry to lose you. I mean it. You will be missed. We appreciate all of our readers, even if we disagree with them. So, I hope you change your mind. You're always welcome at DefRev, and we hope to see you back.

Sincerely,

David
--
David Crane
Owner/Editor-in-Chief
DefenseReview.com
defrev at gmail dot com
http://www.defensereview.com

 

[NG VI]

One aspect of it that hasn't been addressed yet, in regards to it's usefullness as a weapon vs PLR-16, shorty ARs, things like that is that quality and even many generic pistol bullets of the 21st century perform very well compared to pistol bullets of even 15 years ago.

And also, what if they were using a glock 22 or even better a Glock 20? Who can argue that a buttstock and the added weight of the device would make shooting full-power 10MM more enjoyable than shooting it out of the unmodified pistol? Also, it would be far more powerful than the 9mm version, and still hold at least 15 rounds, maybe more if Glock starts making the 29-round mags for it. I would love to have a stocked, folding 10mm.

 

[Soybomb]

If anyone here can advise me on how to better-handle this type of situation on the boards in the future if it happens again, I'll listen to your advice. Should I respond differently? Should I perhaps not respond at all, and just allow it? I'm listening.

That would be my advice for the most part. Once your post your intellectual property to the internet you've lost a degree of control over it. Right or wrong thats the way it is. You'll still get some credit and bandwidth is relatively cheap. If you want to win 100% of the time you'll usually wind up looking like a bad guy and hurting yourself more in the long run I think. Chasing down people to tell them what you think of what they're doing is only going to drive you mad. If I were you I'd continue to allow people to link your images but I'd add a small watermark on them somewhere so they automatically are credited. People can still use them, you'll automatically be credited when they're used, and you won't have any confrontations with people over their use that might reflect poorly on you or the site.

 

[ctdonath]

How could your initial/original post draw attention to our article when you didn't credit us or provide a link to the article?

Move the cursor over the picture (hard to not do), cursor indicates it's clickable.
Click on the picture, you get the article.
The pictures are the link; the link is the credit.

This is a common protocol in web usage.

To date, as this is written, you still haven't credited us and/or provided a link to the DefenseReview article in that post.

My post #52 provides the credit and link in your own words.
Clicking on the photos takes you to the article.
I tried to edit/delete the post, but I can't.
What more do you want?

I don't think your response to this was the right one

I do. Sorry if opinions differ. What I did is common practice, accepted "nettiquite". If I could edit the lead post, I would - but I can't.

how to better-handle this type of situation

Marking the pictures is common. Putting "defensereview.com" in small text in the corner would ensure credit is clear no matter how the picture gets distributed, to the point that someone would have to edit it deliberately to remove the attribution.

Your servers represent you. If they allow hotlinking, then presumably you allow hotlinking. (I wouldn't consider copying & distributing them separately - that would violate IP rights!)

Should I respond differently?

You'll have to ask yourself if you really want to respond at all. This (and variants) may be happening a lot more than you think; is it really a problem? do you really want to address every instance?

Understand the technology, nettiquite, and sociology first before chewing someone out about what amounts to common accepted practice.

Realize that the public at large may not know what particular industry expectations are.

Consider that something might be doing more good than harm. I'm sure what I did sent a bunch of desirable traffic to your site (have YOU clicked on the photos yet?).

You're always welcome

Thank you.
Do pardon my hesitation, as it seems some key rules are unwritten, only expressed when violated.

Do, please, go to the start of this thread and click on the pictures.

 

[NG VI]

Somebody please talk about the virtues of a small 10mm shoulder fired easily hidden 15 round firearm in the event of rampaging drug addicts or virus-infected crowds (not zombies, really) who are mad. it would be great!