Sites that remove copyrights, link backs, etc. What to do?

Worker Joined: Oct 26, 2004 Posts: 134 Location: Boston

Note added by Raven: This is a continuance of a discussion that got started in http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/postx17137-0-0.html . This is not only a v2.3 RavenNuke(tm) issue, however this seems the best place to discuss this as 2.3 is the current release.

Raven wrote:

What version of RavenNuke(tm) are you using? Also, you do need to restore the RavenNuke(tm) footer, copyrights, etc.

I am seeing more and more people coming here and asking for help with their sites then you find no RavenNuke(tm) copyrights on the sites Evil or Very Mad

Raven and the team should encrypt the code for the RavenNuke(tm), copyrights, etc. and if it is removed disables RavenNuke(tm) from working Shocked

Can this be done? What is you thoughts on this Raven?

Also I am sorry for the hijacking of the thread I am just seeing more and more of the copyrights, etc being removed

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Unit1,

First off, it's good to see you back. It seems it's been a while Smile

.

While we (the RavenNuke(tm) Team), of course, feel very strongly about this (for obvious reasons), what we have found is that it's usually more the theme authors fault and/or oversight. Granted, the user is still accountable and should make sure that all the copyrights, links, etc. are in place as is required per the GPL. We could put an encoding scheme in place and I have thought of that. But, the GPL requires that if you put encoded code in a GPL application you must also give any person who requests the decoded code, the decoded code. Hopefully that makes more sense when you read it than it did as I was writing it Laughing

. We have discussed not offering support for anyone who has removed copyrights for any *nuke application. On the positive side, we have also found that when we bring it to their attention they usually correct it.

I've been thinking about the following approach. Hopefully this will draw some feedback to get opinions and perspectives that we need to plot a course Wink

* We make it very public that this is a serious issue
* We contact the theme authors that we know of (and ask the public to do so also) and request that they make sure the required information is kept in the footer
* Find out from the author's why it's happening. Since it is so wide spread it could be that we just need to understand where they (the theme authors) want us to put the data
* If we make no headway then we may have to resort to stronger measures such as no copyright & link back = no support

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:45 pm

I have to jump in here because I totally agree with alot of this...

1 No you shouldnt get support when you arent supporting the authors, but then theres those that only give you the site theyre testing said code on, so ultimately youve given them support based on a lie. Needs to be a better system in place for handling copyright breakers, as there are so many.

2. Making it pubic is a must, but you also have to consider those that legally contact all of the authors of the code to remove copyrights legally, therefor giving way to the next set of people that ask 3

3. Why do I have to include it if they dont, "one law for us, another for them...", you get the point. Must be a better way of explaining how to go about removing the copyrights legally while at the same time being able to understand if a site has done so with/without permision.

4. A better system to report those who dont have permision, or who you think doesnt, and a system in place to take REAL measures against the violators at their expense. This would coincide with making it more public as awareness with allow courts to understand the legal stakes regarding gpl violations.

These are just my feelings regarding open source software and Im not directing this at anyone, so take no offense, we all have different opinions regarding "free" software: http://www.ravenphpscripts.com/contentid-16.html

registered · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:04 pm

My opinion is give credit where credit is due. A small amount of space at the bottom of the site is a very small price to pay for this wonderful CMS and the super support offered for free. On the flip side, a small fee of say $100 or $200 to remove the visible link may be something that could be offered? Just throwing it out there. $200 is still a bargain compared to the cost of having someone build your site for you.

New Member Joined: Feb 16, 2009 Posts: 13

Hi i need to know the code to put the missing copyrights back as i am new to this ravennuke and installed a theme and then asked for help on here and was told the copyrights are missing . Please help on what to put in the footer

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:27 pm

you should be able to modify to footer(s) in admin -> preferences
but how the information is displayed is dependent on your theme... as for what to add, see the footer at http://www.ravennuke.com/

registered · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:10 pm

Quote:

4. A better system to report those who dont have permision, or who you think doesnt, and a system in place to take REAL measures against the violators at their expense. This would coincide with making it more public as awareness with allow courts to understand the legal stakes regarding gpl violations.

I don't think this would be easy to implement, esp if you cannot figure out what damages to claim. None of us really have time to go to court. Ultimately all we can do is give them a little nagging here to add the copyrights and hopefully others will follow.

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:35 pm

Actually on that point I agree, I kind of take it a little too far sometimes, so I apologize. While I do wish there was a better way to enforce it, it's clear that there just isn't. Thanks for helping me clear my head of the anger. Smile

But nagging sounds good, I'm actually all for that. Appoint a nagging commitee.

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:52 pm

how about a "footer4" that loads after the theme is done, with an admin interface that allows style/theme changes ONLY, so you can match your theme, but not change or remove text??

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:14 am

It is really up to the theme itself how it implements the footer. It can use the footmsg function, the $foot1/2/3/4 variables, or do its own thing.

I don't think there's an easy way to enforce it and retrofit into current themes nicely - not unless we roll our own theme system and break compatibility with current Nuke ones. That's something up for discussion in the next major release probably

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:57 pm

I suggest a function that loads just under the mainpage module.

I agree with raven , though it's not really working on futurenuke.com , when we don't answer, people come here where they get support anyway or anywhere else.

If you add up all the minutes passed by mods figuring wich cms the user is running and convert them in kaching!

$ ,we'd probably be rich Very Happy

(sometimes i don't even have a link for the disfunctional site Sad

)

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:16 pm

eldorado wrote:

I agree with raven , though it's not really working on futurenuke.com , when we don't answer, people come here where they get support anyway or anywhere else

- Exactly! There several sites that do a great job of helping to not only promote RN but support it too. Who has the time to check them all to see if someone has gone elsewhere, not to mention that they can always change names and that makes it even harder. Still no answer but I just wanted to throw that in.

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:27 pm

Quote:

I agree with raven , though it's not really working on futurenuke.com , when we don't answer, people come here where they get support anyway or anywhere else

So all that's left is encouraging the no support without a link act. Hmmm...

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:39 pm

rofl , well said raven Razz

edit: I'm not really into that no-support if no link stuff , actually. But copyrights are copyrights.Just like laws are meant to be respected .
Even themes have their author's name on. And i'm sad to see members ripping off the copyrights (sometimes badly) and asking for help.

Another suggestion. an API key , just like google has. , it's a bit ambitious and bandwidth eater , but:

users create an API key on this website , and loads it in their RN config.
The admins would periodically check every sites registered with the API (like clantheme.com does with it's free downloads) , and if they find out that the footer is gone , they disable the site.

A bit harsh , but it'd work Very Happy

People would actually leave their copyrights in place. Wink

Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:01 pm

Ide love for another measure to be implemented to help respect the CMS' authors and supports. As a themer i always allow room for the footer to be placed in. Im not sure why alot of theme designers feel the need to remove it, or simply not allow enough space.
But to also back the themers, i find that even allowing the users of the themes to have a copyright / link back in place... they remove it anyway =/

I also hate looking at image based copyrights and link backs which is why i always dignify the users of the themes to just a simple text link... which of course... can be deleted rather easily, and brings me to wonder why i just dont include it in the graphic.. so i guess you have to weigh it up...
I feel your paid though with regards to hard-coding something in i.e encode the information.
Couldnt you load something in like ioncube but give the licenses away free with the cms? atleast then you know which site's are using it, and people can then specify their site when asking for help.. check agains your records etc?
Sounds like a large scale operation, especially if someone new jumps in the forums and answers the questions anyway.
Or maybe a public list? - well im out of ideas, but i'll definatly have a think about it and keep my eye on this thread. Its something that ive also been thinking about for some time with regards to themes, so im interested on how this turns out.

Cheers

registered · Regular Joined: Nov 05, 2006 Posts: 96

I had removed the footer info long ago so that it did not become a target nuke site where a bot could google for the footer, find my site, and then hack it. I have replaced the original, but I wonder what steps could be taken to prevent that, like an image footer...

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:26 pm

I don't think it really matters. If search engines can find your site, so can any other hackers.

registered · Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6437

It's difficult to "enforce" anything in the code since the source is open, any "enforcement" could / would be removed - eliminating the benefit for investing the time to develop it in the first place...

...but I saw one company, using an open source CMS (not Nuke), insert a hidden link, text and keywords in the body of generated pages for all of their clients' sites. It doesn't hurt the client (though few know they do this), but it sure helps the company's page rank!

Of course, open source developers love public recognition of their hard work - and the copyright does that - but I'd be just as happy to get a link - even if search engines are the only ones who see it. Yes, some engines might get (or may already be) smart enough to discount these hidden "Easter eggs."

What do you think? Have you seen any articles about this approach?

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:10 pm

It's very easy to do but I have chosen not to do that because I believe it's an invasion of privacy unless the clients sign off on it when they accept Raven Web Hosting LLC services.

registered · Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:05 am

In my readings on SEO, I have heard that the SEs are smart enough to recognize now most of these "tricks". That is the problem. There have been more tricks being played just for SEO purposes that the good get thrown out with the bad.

The basic theme that I keep seeing expressed is make your content useful and well structure to a human being and that is what the SEs are going to continue to attempt to refine their algorithms to support the human being find this content.

So, unfortunately, although some claim to have the "magic sauce", it is still part guesswork, part experiential (but how can you measure?), and since it changes over time, who can possibly keep up on it all and know what is worthwhile vs. not?

So, coming back to the specific question of this thread, isn't the bottom line really "visual copyrights" plus just plain "pay your respects to those who have worked very hard to give you FREE software". Period. One thing is still certain, I believe, in the SE world, and that is having good high quality link backs. Why tamper with what seems to be common wisdom of what works and take the chance of any negative or neutral effects (we always what positive effects, no?).

JMO of course.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:49 am

Hate to play devil's advocate here, because I morally feel completely aligned to what is being said...but...

Perhaps we shouldn't make it so easy to get rid of the copyright. Instead of putting it in the db and an easily editable textbox in preferences, make it static text in the files. You can still keep the text box if you like.

I certainly have donated, but am feeling guilt now for removing the code, which is probably grounded. It was so easy to do it at the time though, that I didn't think twice about it. It was actually more work to put it back in than to get rid of it.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:23 pm

sixf00t4, already being discussed. I agree, it should be hardcoded somehow in code (and buried so deep that no-one could find it - lol).

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:28 am

It already is on platinum Razz

Can't remove it in admin Very Happy

Buried so deep it can't be found: md5 hashed and iframed from an external site Razz

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:59 am

Raven Thank you for moving this. I know most do not willingly remove the copyrights but some do. And most of the sites asking for help still had the FB copyrights in it and not yours.

I am not trying to start that debate on FB again boxing

I think that is what set me off. I have been coming here for a bit now I am always reading the help you all give here in the background gaining a lot of information for thought. I think what eldorado had to say should be looked into.

keep the thoughts and the discussion coming folks RavensScripts

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:13 pm

I've been giving this much thought. I completely understand and appreciate the business side of the issue. I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on the following, +/-

Obviously there are issues on both sides of this debate. With search engines being more sophisticated now and becoming more so all the time, I'm not sure that the criticality that once existed is still the case. Forgetting the advertising aspect (visible link), for the moment, is(are) there any reason(s) why a visible link on the front page is needed? Could there not be a link to a credits page with links? Or even a link buried in the front page where both the anchor text and the anchor link are bot the same color? There are other ways, I'm sure, but I think I've completed my thought for right now. Comments please Smile