I make themes and im very clear with my conditions. I dont release anything under any type of creative commens rubbish.

You have specific rules if you want to use my stuff.
1. you must keep the link in the footer.
2. you are not allowed to modify the work and resell it or claim it as your own.
3. you are not allowed to place any of my work for download on any site without permission.

If people arent willing to stick to these 3 simple rules then they should look elsewhere for themes.

I have successfully had websites taken offline for breach of these rules.
Web hosts dont want the trouble and are quite will to issue a cease and desist or remove sites.

lolz

For fuck’s sake!

I work in the business, and for a couple of client sites I have utilized themes that are available for free on Joomla/Drupal/Wordpress sites. Now in my situation I always leave any attributions in the code, and I have a couple of client sites right now that bear the mark of the theme developer. So yes, I attribute properly.

But what really happened in this situation is that NMM started with a freely available theme and made so many modifications to it that it no longer resembles the original theme. I’ve done this in the past, and once I’ve replaced all images and redone the layout of the site I do NOT attribute the original author. Of course I also have the foresight to remove any comments from the original code first…

So NMM made a small mistake by LEAVING THE ATTRIBUTION IN.

Had they ripped the site off completely, this wouldn’t even be an issue. We wouldn’t even be discussing this. But by trying to do the right thing (or just being lazy), they are incurring the wrath of the Internet.

I realize how everyone wants to point out the supposed hypocrisy here, but can we agree not to lower ourselves to the level of the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA? Otherwise we’re no better than them. “Us” becomes “them.”

http://gangstaname.com/pirate_name.php

Let’s impeach Gordon Brown for handcoding a site which blatantly defies a non-binding attribution license by attributing the author in the code but not in the way that he wanted!

The Revolution is at hand!

P.S Feel free to vote for the Tories BTW, just remember that they voted -with- this “criminal” government for the Iraq war, the only major party which didn’t were the Lib Dems. Oh, and I really really want them to fail quite spectacularly whilst I emigrate.

I posted this link here yesterday, but i’m not sure it appeared so i’ll try again: http://www.newmediamaze.com/index.php/antbags-theme-the-facts/

The article I wrote is quite lengthy, but then it needed to be to put the matter fully to bed, so i’ll summise here in case you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing and that’s the last you’ll hear from me:

1. The only file that was drawn upon from Ant’s theme was the css file. Ant accepts this fact: http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/.

2. Under Ant’s theme license (CCL), there was no requirement to attribute the work to him in the footer.

3. Under the CCL, he was correctly attributed in the CSS file that was used.

4. Therefore we have abided by the license of Ant’s work and neither we, nor Gordon Brown are ‘pirates’.

I’ll leave it to you to decide whether to do the decent thing and correct the factually inaccuracies in your original article.

kind regards,

Dave

So… antbag.com can kiss it.

P.S: I don’t give a crap about Brown, and I’ve never even been to the UK.

Also, I agree with #25. The solution is to cause laws to include the duration until the law must be reviewed, number of jurors required as well as rules for selecting them – to resolve any given issue of state.

People should be automatically randomly selected to serve.

A “judge/speaker” ought to guide the group through an evaluation of the case at hand, and the law should come to pass by vote.

This would replace the role of politicians and ensure that law was relevant.

Best,
Daniel

Time to walk the plank, Gordon!

It’s the principal, they broke their own copyright laws which they are fighting wildly for.

How are they supposed to make us respect the copyright laws, when they do not? It’s absurbed.

@49: Why don’t you read the fucking license before opening your mouth in the public? No, they really can’t do whatever they want with GPL stuff. Plus, the theme is NOT under GPL.

LOL, gg England.[quote]

[quote] 18 Aug 20, 2008 at 14:51 by CMG

The british government is in SHAMBLES at the minute and I am embarrassed to say that I am a resident of England. Gordon Brown should get off his fanny and f**k off out of Parliament.[/quote]

Gordon Brown is not English.

England is a Nation within the British Isles.

Britain is a name of all the Nations within Great Britain.

Innit?

*/

http://www.number10.gov.uk//wp-content/themes/networker-10/style.css

It’s not about who cares, it’s about them being hypocrites.

bollocks. it’s wordpress. the code is GPL, they can do what they bloody like with it. “wordpress” could care less that a WP blog doesn’t advertise itself as such.

If they’re going to push their laws onto us, they’d better be ready to have these very same laws shoved up their asses.

Give ‘em hell!

1. Nowhere in his licensing does he require attribution in any specific way. He is attributed in the CSS file, so as far as that goes, they have fulfilled their end.

2. The license he used refers to distribution, not use. They’re not redistributing, so that license does not apply anyway.

3. They’re denying that they’re actually using his theme: http://www.newmediamaze.com/index.php/antbags-theme-the-facts

4. His license is wrong anyway. WordPress is GPL software. His theme is a derivative of WordPress. Therefore it is GPL too. Sorry, but all WP themes fall under the GPL. Like it or not.

brown should go cos hes the biggest embarrassment the uk has ever had!

I’d never say ignore copyright completely but ultimately, it wouldn’t harm anyone to leave a link in… Even if they engineered there own version, it makes me wonder, Labour paid this company to make something they could of had for free… all because of what, they didn’t want a link at the bottom of the page? it’s tax payers money in the end.

@ 30 – B0rg

I noticed the same. I’ll be honest I think we should have a campaign against those ads, I find them so offensive that they all but say ‘if you see an illegal downloader, spit in his face’

They wana knock off nigel, then really we should knock off the MPAA

Ever heard of police abusing people’s rights? Ever heard of government officials taking away your rights through law? It’s not like it’s only one official making the decisions, you know.

Of course, what the PM’s site designer did was CRIMINAL copyright infringement since it was for financial gain.

We at TorrentFreak like to point out the dichotomies of those villifying copyright infringement, but at the same time being a party to the same offences. It’s the same league as Al Gore traveling by private jet, or buckcherry stickking a song on torrent sites and then complaining about piracy. They can’t have it both ways. It’s NOT one rule for us, and not for them.

And let’s be serious here, we’re all here for piracy, we all want copyright law to be more lax for our benefit, but by the same token, we all need to realize that it goes both ways. You cannot have a site glorifying piracy, bitching about piracy. It’s stupid.

When in reality it was a company hired by someone working for the Brown office.

Most of which, obviously have no understanding of the masses of copyright or infact any other type of legislation they have swindled through the House of Lords, these past 10 years.