Review of Object Desktop in PC Zone Magazine
Tuesday, April 29, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I just bought the June issue of the UK magazine PC Zone for the big preview of Half-Life 2, and happened to notice a mini-review of Object Desktop in an article about making your computer 'cool'.
Quote:
"Products such as Stardock's Object Desktop can be downloaded in a flash, and allow you to tweak and fiddle with the default appearance of Windows by reshaping its look and feel. The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful, but if you couple Object Desktop with Winbar, which gives at-a-glance readouts of Godzilla's vital signs, you'll have something truly awesome."
Then elsewhere:
"Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess. Chalk up some points for being weird."
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding these comments downright offensive. They also lay into CursorXP by basically saying it's totally uncool.
Who knows where these so-called journalists learn to talk about this stuff, but it seems to me that they probably haven't even tried to research for the article. They probably just read an ill-informed comment on a forum somewhere and thought they'd add it to their copy.
If you'd like to give them some feedback on their journalistic integrity, you might like to e-mail their letters page at '[email protected]'.
By the way, if you want to give Winbar a go to improve your horribly disfigured desktop after using Stardock's products, go to http://www.winbar.nl .
Quote:
"Products such as Stardock's Object Desktop can be downloaded in a flash, and allow you to tweak and fiddle with the default appearance of Windows by reshaping its look and feel. The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful, but if you couple Object Desktop with Winbar, which gives at-a-glance readouts of Godzilla's vital signs, you'll have something truly awesome."
Then elsewhere:
"Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess. Chalk up some points for being weird."
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding these comments downright offensive. They also lay into CursorXP by basically saying it's totally uncool.
Who knows where these so-called journalists learn to talk about this stuff, but it seems to me that they probably haven't even tried to research for the article. They probably just read an ill-informed comment on a forum somewhere and thought they'd add it to their copy.
If you'd like to give them some feedback on their journalistic integrity, you might like to e-mail their letters page at '[email protected]'.
By the way, if you want to give Winbar a go to improve your horribly disfigured desktop after using Stardock's products, go to http://www.winbar.nl .
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Jafo
Reply #22 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:24 PM
Reply #22 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:24 PM
It's really easy to sit and point out 'copyright issues' and make wonderful judgements and determinations about all and sundry, but sometimes you look at both ends of the scale...on one hand you'd have something like Devart WAS...anything/everything was uploaded and copyright was 'never' an issue at all...the excuse being it was the responsibility of the submitter, to the other extreme that absolutely NOTHING is acceptable unless your own...and forget about ports or permissions or any of that....do your OWN thing or nothing at all...no collaborations [just in case there's a falling-out [don't laugh, it happened]]...forget 'community skins'...they are ports...some of it ain't yours...etc...ad nauseum.
The only solution is to draw 'lines in the sand'.
Read my 'permissions.txt' thread for one of those 'lines'.
Another line is with what is 'fair' when creating program launchers...[icons in shortcuts, etc].
Again, I still expect no dissention from the product manufacturers regarding this particular 'line'...
The only solution is to draw 'lines in the sand'.
Read my 'permissions.txt' thread for one of those 'lines'.
Another line is with what is 'fair' when creating program launchers...[icons in shortcuts, etc].
Again, I still expect no dissention from the product manufacturers regarding this particular 'line'...
moshi
Reply #23 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:37 PM
Reply #23 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:37 PM
i agree, that icon thing is going a too far. but isn´t it a little strange that each time somebody starts a thread like "can somebody do a Matrix theme?" every admin or moderator is there and preaches about copyright but then there are quite a few around (cut and paste crap). i could not care less wether this stuff is up or not, but especially KarmaGirl´s belittling of Adam Solley on his OS X rip was ugly when there are probably more than hundred of the same kind in the library.
Jafo
Reply #24 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:40 PM
Reply #24 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:40 PM
moshi...that wasn't/isn't the full story, and I'm not commenting publicly...
bakerstreet
Reply #25 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:50 PM
Reply #25 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:50 PM
grayhaze & mooshoo: If you look into any of the more 'intellectual' centers of UI discussion, you'll find that the review is a common opinion of skinning. Not unlike what real Graphic Designers think of those who buy themselves a copy of Photoshop and start calling themselves that.
Most UI 'thinkers' will literally take a ruler and various 'laws' of UI design and tell you how good an interface is. Depending on the skins or themes the reviewer used, it could very well have been perceived as 'unusable'.
For instance, next week when you change your theme, you will have to 'break it in' all over again. UI functions at the level of sense memory, like riding a bike or swinging a golf club. If you have to think about it, you probably aren't comfortable with it. Skinning often requires repeated 'breaking in' which is enough to make it 'unusable' to many.
So, when I read reviews like the above, it just sounds like the many harsh judgments I have seen concerning skinning in general. The perception is that little or no care goes into the usability of the UI, and that standard metaphors are abandoned for more abstract (if swooby) ones.
Commercial electronics often get attacked for their flashy and counter-intuitive design. Being about the furthest community from 'the brains', and 'hobbyists' to boot, we are gonna be the most harshly judged, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean we should change what we do, nor does it mean we can't learn a bit from them as well.
***
Jafo: There were no e-books, web pr0n, or mp3s in 1961, either, and the laws seem to hold up fine. How would this be different than: "I am providing these mp3s/books/boobies so that people who own the originals won't have to go to the trouble of ripping/scanning them to digital format themselves." You are still distributing work that someone else owns the copyright to.
People who download 'packs' of icons rarely own all the software referenced, so they end up downloading work they have no legal right to posses. People can extract icons from software and make their own shortcuts, just like they can alter other people's skins. It is the distribution that makes it wrong.
Extracting and redistributing an icon entails
* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.
It is uploaded in the name of the 'artist', with no credit to the original artist, and distributed. Even worse, many *alter* said icon to match some other themed set. This is no less a derivative work than a 'Babe' wallpaper. Even resource extraction is of dubious legality these days.
Regardless of our difference in opinion, Jafo, thanks for the work that you do. I know you are not a person that can be accused of being lax about these things.
Most UI 'thinkers' will literally take a ruler and various 'laws' of UI design and tell you how good an interface is. Depending on the skins or themes the reviewer used, it could very well have been perceived as 'unusable'.
For instance, next week when you change your theme, you will have to 'break it in' all over again. UI functions at the level of sense memory, like riding a bike or swinging a golf club. If you have to think about it, you probably aren't comfortable with it. Skinning often requires repeated 'breaking in' which is enough to make it 'unusable' to many.
So, when I read reviews like the above, it just sounds like the many harsh judgments I have seen concerning skinning in general. The perception is that little or no care goes into the usability of the UI, and that standard metaphors are abandoned for more abstract (if swooby) ones.
Commercial electronics often get attacked for their flashy and counter-intuitive design. Being about the furthest community from 'the brains', and 'hobbyists' to boot, we are gonna be the most harshly judged, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean we should change what we do, nor does it mean we can't learn a bit from them as well.
***
Jafo: There were no e-books, web pr0n, or mp3s in 1961, either, and the laws seem to hold up fine. How would this be different than: "I am providing these mp3s/books/boobies so that people who own the originals won't have to go to the trouble of ripping/scanning them to digital format themselves." You are still distributing work that someone else owns the copyright to.
People who download 'packs' of icons rarely own all the software referenced, so they end up downloading work they have no legal right to posses. People can extract icons from software and make their own shortcuts, just like they can alter other people's skins. It is the distribution that makes it wrong.
Extracting and redistributing an icon entails
* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.
It is uploaded in the name of the 'artist', with no credit to the original artist, and distributed. Even worse, many *alter* said icon to match some other themed set. This is no less a derivative work than a 'Babe' wallpaper. Even resource extraction is of dubious legality these days.
Regardless of our difference in opinion, Jafo, thanks for the work that you do. I know you are not a person that can be accused of being lax about these things.
citats
Reply #26 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:58 PM
Reply #26 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:58 PM
(in reference to Moshi posted links to dashboard themes) I thought I would point out that the icons in all those screen shots are not made by the theme authors. They are the actual icons that are provided by the program developers and appear on the desktop as such. The themes that use famous characters can be considered fan art. However the authors would have to prove they created the works and have not copied and pasted them.
Jafo
Reply #27 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:59 PM
Reply #27 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:59 PM
And in 1961, baker, there were no 'screenshots', yet they entail the extraction and redistribution of an icon....by...
* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.
Yet, strangely this is deemed OK...but were that exact same icon stuck on an iddy-biddy little 'wall', say, 100 x 50 pixels then it's NOT OK.
Interesting double standard, don't you think?...
* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.
Yet, strangely this is deemed OK...but were that exact same icon stuck on an iddy-biddy little 'wall', say, 100 x 50 pixels then it's NOT OK.
Interesting double standard, don't you think?...
Jafo
Reply #28 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:01 PM
Reply #28 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:01 PM
Static....as much as we manage to find them, we don't approve 'fan-art' unless its creation is either 100% their own or has permission, as with walls...
bakerstreet
Reply #29 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:05 PM
Reply #29 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:05 PM
P.S.
"It's really easy to sit and point out 'copyright issues' and make wonderful judgements and determinations about all and sundry..."
That statement is eating at me. actually, it *is* easy. Like we always say, if you didn't make it or have permission to use it, don't upload it. It works for us, but not for commercial apps? If software developers released icons as 'free use' shortcuts, they would offer them as such publically, wouldn't they?
I have great doubts that some icon 'creators' here even own all the software they make derivative icons for. That would grant them *no* right at all to own or use the icons, much less make a derivative work from them.
As it stands 99% of icons are embedded in apps... not what I would call an indication that the developer wants their natural state to be 'fair use' and accessable to all, regardless of software ownership.
"It's really easy to sit and point out 'copyright issues' and make wonderful judgements and determinations about all and sundry..."
That statement is eating at me. actually, it *is* easy. Like we always say, if you didn't make it or have permission to use it, don't upload it. It works for us, but not for commercial apps? If software developers released icons as 'free use' shortcuts, they would offer them as such publically, wouldn't they?
I have great doubts that some icon 'creators' here even own all the software they make derivative icons for. That would grant them *no* right at all to own or use the icons, much less make a derivative work from them.
As it stands 99% of icons are embedded in apps... not what I would call an indication that the developer wants their natural state to be 'fair use' and accessable to all, regardless of software ownership.
bakerstreet
Reply #30 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:10 PM
Reply #30 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:10 PM
Jafo: a screenshot is not an icon, it is an image of icons amidst the rest of a desktop. Cars passing by a newscast are not cars, they are images of cars... incedental inclusion. The point of a screenshot is not to pass around icons. If your theory were correct, then people selling cars, comic books, computers, etc., could not display images of them, since the hood ornaments, logos, etc., are trademarked.
I'm sorry but this screenshot thing seems a lot more like an excuse than a precedent. Screenshots are images of a desktop, icons are 'works', pure and simple.
I'm sorry but this screenshot thing seems a lot more like an excuse than a precedent. Screenshots are images of a desktop, icons are 'works', pure and simple.
moshi
Reply #31 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:14 PM
Reply #31 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:14 PM
§tatic: none of the links was about icons 
they were about cut and paste nonsense and the use of trademarked logos. just ask the FIFA (international real football federation) how much they charge for merchandise licences ... several dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars. doubt they approve the use of their logo in a Deshboard skin.
Stardock does great effort to commercialise skinning (and i do not like them for that), so they just have to play real world rules.
they were about cut and paste nonsense and the use of trademarked logos. just ask the FIFA (international real football federation) how much they charge for merchandise licences ... several dozens or hundreds of millions of dollars. doubt they approve the use of their logo in a Deshboard skin.Stardock does great effort to commercialise skinning (and i do not like them for that), so they just have to play real world rules.
moshi
Reply #32 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:17 PM
Reply #32 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:17 PM
btw: i just had my "free lunch" of the day. unlike most of you believe such things exist. full MP3 album from a band´s website.
citats
Reply #33 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:21 PM
Reply #33 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:21 PM
moshi I mentioned the icons for the following reason. Wanted to point out that that would not be the copy right material you were talking about. Back to your witch hunt moshi
#15 by Jafo - 4/29/2003 2:35:59 PM
OK...had a quick look at #7.....and see plenty I have a 'problem' with...perhaps a couple that I am at a loss to see where the issue is...if it's a MS Word icon that's used or similar read my previous post.
Primarily there are background images [photoskins] that perhaps shouldn't be there.
Something will be 'done'....
#15 by Jafo - 4/29/2003 2:35:59 PM
OK...had a quick look at #7.....and see plenty I have a 'problem' with...perhaps a couple that I am at a loss to see where the issue is...if it's a MS Word icon that's used or similar read my previous post.
Primarily there are background images [photoskins] that perhaps shouldn't be there.
Something will be 'done'....
Jafo
Reply #34 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:24 PM
Reply #34 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:24 PM
baker..an icon is and/or can be a simple collection of pixels....perhaps 16x16 of them...arranged in a 'copyrighted' way...and lookie here, so is its reproduction in a screenshot.
The 'image' is identical...100 and 1 %.
The example of the photo of the car is entirely off target...so far so that it is quite humorous....
A phot of a car is ONLY that. You gotta be weird to expect to be able to actually drive it, and puting petrol in it will knacker it totally...
The 'photograph' is NOT the 'car'...the example is flawed.
The issue of the 'icon' is a group of pixels being redistributed in original or modified form, and a screenshot is exactly that, ergo all screenshots should be illegal...
The 'image' is identical...100 and 1 %.
The example of the photo of the car is entirely off target...so far so that it is quite humorous....
A phot of a car is ONLY that. You gotta be weird to expect to be able to actually drive it, and puting petrol in it will knacker it totally...
The 'photograph' is NOT the 'car'...the example is flawed.
The issue of the 'icon' is a group of pixels being redistributed in original or modified form, and a screenshot is exactly that, ergo all screenshots should be illegal...
Jafo
Reply #35 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:30 PM
Reply #35 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:30 PM
moshi...about #32..again, I didn't see the FIFA stuff submitted, but had I they'd be rejected automatically...and will be now.
As for #33 I have no idea what yer on about...
As for #33 I have no idea what yer on about...
moshi
Reply #36 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:37 PM
Reply #36 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:37 PM
§tatic: did you draw that Spiderman?
did you use GPLed icons from the HiColor set by Tackat in several of your skins and then not put your derivative work under GPL as well as it is a condition when using those?
and don´t we all know that Apple does not allow the use of their logo?
all illegal, but i was honest when i said i don´t care about that
it´s just that some statements and reality contradict each other. sig looked pretty exhausted when he read "blatant copyright theft", so i gave him a few examples.
i would enjoy a discussion about interface design better
did you use GPLed icons from the HiColor set by Tackat in several of your skins and then not put your derivative work under GPL as well as it is a condition when using those?
and don´t we all know that Apple does not allow the use of their logo?
all illegal, but i was honest when i said i don´t care about that
it´s just that some statements and reality contradict each other. sig looked pretty exhausted when he read "blatant copyright theft", so i gave him a few examples.
i would enjoy a discussion about interface design better
moshi
Reply #37 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:41 PM
Reply #37 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:41 PM
on #33: was just to avoid statements like "there is no free lunch" because i said i don´t like commercialisation.
cool band btw., but i doubt you´re into Jungle and Ragga. http://www.visionaryunderground.com/html/audio.html
cool band btw., but i doubt you´re into Jungle and Ragga. http://www.visionaryunderground.com/html/audio.html
moshi
Reply #38 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:44 PM
Reply #38 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:44 PM
the FIFA one is here: https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371
citats
Reply #39 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:01 PM
Reply #39 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:01 PM
Emulating OS's is an acceptable practice with the exception of using Mac's logos. Spidy is fan art however I would not argue it as still being under copy right and would not protest its removal. Was one of my early skins and quite horrid... should have been moderated in the beginning...
bakerstreet
Reply #40 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:03 PM
Reply #40 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:03 PM
You don't upload screenshots to distribute the contents of them for other people to use. If so, then by all means they need to go too. IF you say "well, if that is illegal, then that must be too..." it doesn't prove your point, it just drags something else into it. Do you want them dragged in?
I can display a photo of my office for purposes of "illustration or clarification" and the trademarked logos and such therein are incidental. If I take the same trademarked logos and make wallpapers out of them, I am acting illegally. A screenshot is not a derivative work, it is a documentation. A re-colored icon is a derivative work. I don't understand the confusion.
The purpose of a screenshot is to document the desktop.
The PURPOSE of a pack of copyrighted icons is to distribute copyrighted icons to people who may or may not own the software.
You can't take a screenshot and plug it right into ObjectDock can you? No, you have to make a derivative *work* out of it to do so. No one considers screenshots to be 'works'.
Unfortunately, the sole purpose of re-distributed icons is to distribute other people's works. If they don't have permission, it is wrong.
**
No point in argument, this would be really easy to decide. Let's pick, say, the top 100 most-used software icons and contact the software developers with links to sets here that contain them. Then they can exercise the their own rights as they and their lawyers comprehend them.
Oh, but if next week the 101st developer disagrees, then I guess we'll be right back here again. I didn't think it was kosher to 'assume' the creator of a work doesn't mind. As long as folks like Apple can decide their stuff does not belong here, then WC really can't speak for the developers.
I can display a photo of my office for purposes of "illustration or clarification" and the trademarked logos and such therein are incidental. If I take the same trademarked logos and make wallpapers out of them, I am acting illegally. A screenshot is not a derivative work, it is a documentation. A re-colored icon is a derivative work. I don't understand the confusion.
The purpose of a screenshot is to document the desktop.
The PURPOSE of a pack of copyrighted icons is to distribute copyrighted icons to people who may or may not own the software.
You can't take a screenshot and plug it right into ObjectDock can you? No, you have to make a derivative *work* out of it to do so. No one considers screenshots to be 'works'.
Unfortunately, the sole purpose of re-distributed icons is to distribute other people's works. If they don't have permission, it is wrong.
**
No point in argument, this would be really easy to decide. Let's pick, say, the top 100 most-used software icons and contact the software developers with links to sets here that contain them. Then they can exercise the their own rights as they and their lawyers comprehend them.
Oh, but if next week the 101st developer disagrees, then I guess we'll be right back here again. I didn't think it was kosher to 'assume' the creator of a work doesn't mind. As long as folks like Apple can decide their stuff does not belong here, then WC really can't speak for the developers.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:20 PM