The Coolest Icons....

[Briandl79]

Yes I'm sure now that we've mentioned it, and the fact that many people go up to 128 on their docks, he'll be making them up to 128 soon.... Just wait......

[sinatosk]

never knew how stupid ppl can get over some icons :blink: :huh: ... I agree with both twist and Briandl79 ... would never pay for icons ...

[Jafo]

Thats the first time I've ever seen Icons for sale.. just shows the true greed coming from stardock. Just my opinion. There are two types of "customizers" out there, if you will. The type that push it like its porn and the others who do it for the creativeness and share it freely. No one at wincustomize falls into the later. More of a "nobody rides for free stance." Blew my mind when I saw them pushing objectdock... free or not it's yz's toolbar used as a free gimick too increase sales on more stardock products. We can talk about theft and copyright till were blue in the face but if you watch both sites closely you can see that all they do is troll the Neowin boards for ideas and use them to better that community. Included is cystalized, corona and the like. Even if they are ports you just can't seem to keep them out of the hands of the people they have in thier pockets. As you can tell, yes I am anti stardock. I think the whole community there is brainwashed. Anyone who wants too go off on me for my view go ahead, i'm used to the brainwashed mentallity. Agree or disagree with me... just don't go off on me like i'm a thief as they do over there for not agreeing with thier bussiness principal, cuase it's funny how things can get turned around.

[Briandl79]

Jafo just an FYI, Stardock had ObjectDock way before any other dock was around, it wasn't released previously because it was somewhat slow, and they had concerns over Apples possible response... It was nice and used to also do the Genie effect, although somewhat slow it was quite cool....

[Jafo]

If that is true then I errored somewhat, I had thought that the dock was somewhat different though in the beggining. It was just a dock and had no animations and came with the object desktop package. Maybe Im wrong. I can admit that, but I thought it was different then what it is now.

[twist]

you're thinking of the tabbed menu thing jafo. they did have a actual dock a long time ago. it was really buggy though, couldn't customize it. but it did have the genie efefect and worked like the task bar which was cool.

[Dokt]

Just wanted to pitch in and say that I agree totally with everything Jafo said earlier about Stardock.

[mxp]

pay for icons???

pfft no way

and plus they dun look that good

Snow E set is 10000000000 times better

and how come no 128x128 ???

my .02

[Darrian]

Amazing how such a simple thing can turn into a childish debate.

In any case, I don't dislike Stardock, but I don't favor them, either. I did recently resubscribe to Object Desktop, thinking there had been some major improvements since the last time I tried it out. I found myself sadly mistaken; the only thing I use it for is windowfx (to make only my desktop icons large) and desktop x (the only component of which I use is a clock in the corner of my desktop). I doubt I will renew the subscription again. I find myself using msstyles much more frequently than windowblinds; despite the wb features has over msstyles, it's still after all this development too buggy, and 99.9 % of the windowblinds themes IMO suck ass. So do most msstyles. There are a lot of decent ones, lots of creativity going into these themes, but they never seem to get finished completely, at least not to my satisfaction. There are only two visual styles I use on a regular basis: watercolor and sentinel, and sentinel is still in development (the only issue I have with it is my double-height taskbar, though, if that is ever fixed it could become my primary style). The same thing holds true with icons. There are a lot of great icons out there, but icon packs in general just don't seem to do it for me. I've had to mix and match the best icons from several different icon sets to get a look that I am only somewhat satisfied with. So am I going to pay $10 for these icons? Not a chance in hell. It's obvious a lot of work went into them, but they still look horrible. No thanks. If Twist wants to remake them from the screenshots more power to him, but I don't see why he would want to.

Brandl79 and Daryl, you guys really need to lighten up. Don't be sheep.

[grayhaze]

I just thought I'd make a few comments about twist's remarks earlier in the thread. Not because I'm particularly fond of banging my head into brick walls, but rather because every so often it's quite nice to cut an ill-informed child down to size by discrediting everything he believes in.

Firstly, your grasp of copyright law leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know where you got the idea that stealing (yes, I said stealing!) someone else's work for your personal use is all fine and legal. It doesn't matter whether you're making a copy for your own use or to spread around to all of your friends, it's still illegal. If we were to follow your line of thinking, it's legal to make a copy of a movie that you don't own, just so long as it's only for your personal use; it's legal to make copies of every Harry Potter book, just so long as you're the only one reading them; it's legal to make copies of all of your friends CDs, just so long as you're the only one listening to them, etc. Actually, on second thoughts, I'm probably fighting a losing battle there - you almost certainly think all those things are legal! :rolleyes:

The fact is, it's not just the distribution that's illegal, it's also the copying itself. It's the cold, hard truth, and no amount of 'screw you' attitude will ever change that. So live with it.

Secondly, you're actually right about the Mona Lisa. If you wanted to make your own version of the Mona Lisa, you're quite right to think you can, but not for the reason you give. Copyright has a time-limit, and as such the Mona Lisa is no longer covered by Copyright. Now, if you were to try and pass your version off as the real deal, then that would be illegal. That's called forgery, and is punishable by imprisonment.

The point is, every single piece of digital artwork ever created will still be covered by Copyright law. There are no exceptions. If you still want to create copies of Paul's fantastic icons in around 75 years time, then go ahead. ;)

I know I'll almost certainly get another 'I'm right, so screw you' response to this, but I honestly don't care. After all, I'm right. So screw you.

[grayhaze]

The anti-Stardock thing is getting old. I fail to see the logic in the view that charging for your work somehow removes any creativity from the process. We all have to earn to live, and if you can make a living out of selling your work, then why not? Customisation for non-profit can sometimes be a very thankless and time-consuming experience.

[greenreaper]

Thats the first time I've ever seen Icons for sale.. just shows the true greed coming from stardock. Just my opinion. There are two types of "customizers" out there, if you will. The type that push it like its porn and the others who do it for the creativeness and share it freely. No one at wincustomize falls into the later.

Yowch. That's kinda harsh, Jafo. It's 45 Mb of icons for sale. And it's not like Paul doesn't do free stuff. See here for some examples, including the entire set of FauxS-X icon packages. And I seriously doubt that he broke even on the deal - $10 really isn't that much, especially after credit card charges etc.

At the end of it, if there had been no compensation, this icon set would not have been made, because he'd have had to spend the time doing something else. Perhaps he'd have managed to squeeze the time in to do a few icons at the same time, but I suspect they'd have been a shadow of the quantity available in the Orion set. Would that really have been better?

[twist]

I just thought I'd make a few comments about twist's remarks earlier in the thread. Not because I'm particularly fond of banging my head into brick walls, but rather because every so often it's quite nice to cut an ill-informed child down to size by discrediting everything he believes in.

Firstly, your grasp of copyright law leaves a lot to be desired. I don't know where you got the idea that stealing (yes, I said stealing!) someone else's work for your personal use is all fine and legal. It doesn't matter whether you're making a copy for your own use or to spread around to all of your friends, it's still illegal. If we were to follow your line of thinking, it's legal to make a copy of a movie that you don't own, just so long as it's only for your personal use; it's legal to make copies of every Harry Potter book, just so long as you're the only one reading them; it's legal to make copies of all of your friends CDs, just so long as you're the only one listening to them, etc. Actually, on second thoughts, I'm probably fighting a losing battle there - you almost certainly think all those things are legal! :rolleyes:

The fact is, it's not just the distribution that's illegal, it's also the copying itself. It's the cold, hard truth, and no amount of 'screw you' attitude will ever change that. So live with it.

Secondly, you're actually right about the Mona Lisa. If you wanted to make your own version of the Mona Lisa, you're quite right to think you can, but not for the reason you give. Copyright has a time-limit, and as such the Mona Lisa is no longer covered by Copyright. Now, if you were to try and pass your version off as the real deal, then that would be illegal. That's called forgery, and is punishable by imprisonment.

The point is, every single piece of digital artwork ever created will still be covered by Copyright law. There are no exceptions. If you still want to create copies of Paul's fantastic icons in around 75 years time, then go ahead. ;)

I know I'll almost certainly get another 'I'm right, so screw you' response to this, but I honestly don't care. After all, I'm right. So screw you.

yes and if i was copying them it would be illegal. the fact is that remaking them from that picture is not illegal. pictures of copywritten material are not copywritten.

every example you gave is a totally different thing. copying my friends cd is illegal. copying a cd i own for my personal use isn't. if i copied the icons from someone who bought them then yse it would be stealing, remaking them from a picture for my own use is not.

but i suppose if you saw something at the store they wanted $10 for but could make it yourself you'd shell out the cash cause its stealing to make it.

[tomwarren Veteran]

every so often it's quite nice to cut an ill-informed child down to size by discrediting everything he believes in

grayhaze no need to be disrespectul of twist here.

Whether or not what twist wants to do is illegal or not there are a lot of things that are illegal in this day and age. Spitting on the floor is illegal and yet people do it, copying music from radio etc is illegal but yet people do it. If twist wants to make icons from a picture I don't see in anyway how this is illegal its how most icons are made on the internet.

[moshi]

come on.

as long as there is no distribution it?s not ripping. end of story.

i have often done icons from navigation symbols on websites (a lot of iconists make money with that). of course i did not distribute them. does that make me a thief? :oo no, i don?t think so.

buy it or do it yourself. i see nothing wrong with that.

[grayhaze]

yes and if i was copying them it would be illegal. the fact is that remaking them from that picture is not illegal. pictures of copywritten material are not copywritten.

every example you gave is a totally different thing. copying my friends cd is illegal. copying a cd i own for my personal use isn't. if i copied the icons from someone who bought them then yse it would be stealing, remaking them from a picture for my own use is not.

but i suppose if you saw something at the store they wanted $10 for but could make it yourself you'd shell out the cash cause its stealing to make it.

The point is, the image you're using is not a picture in the way a photograph of a building is a picture. The very picture you're using is copyrighted material in itself. You are taking a snapshot of someone else's work and modifying it (or in computer speak 'decompiling' it) back into close representations of the originals. The majority of the pixels in the resulting icons are not your own work, but rather the work of the original artist.

You are no more 'remaking' those icons than a person who photocopies a page from a magazine and cuts out an article is creating that article themselves. If you were to look at that image and then go away and create your own icons inspired by the style, then you would be doing nothing wrong. There is little to no creativity on your part in what you're doing, and it is still illegal.

[grayhaze]

as long as there is no distribution it?s not ripping. end of story.

This isn't about ripping, it's about violation of copyright. Regardless, it's still ripping whether you're distributing the finished result or not. The very creation process is what we term as 'ripping'. The term itself comes from 'ripping off' someone else's work for use in your own. If you're creating those icons for your own use, you're still creating them to be used.

[neuro-OSX]

I totally respect this guys want/need to make a living.. I say more power to him !!! I personally couldn't pay 10 bucks for icons... Now I could pay 10 bucks for Yz dock or Object Dock if this included updates.. I think they'd be worth it... :D :D

[twist]

lmao, lemme guess if i grabbed a magazine and scanned a page to put on my wall its stealing right?

the amount of creativity on my part has nothing to do with the legality of the topic at hand. they make the image availiable for download on thier site. if i save that image i can technically do whatever i want with it for my own personal use, weather i want to make it a wallpaper, an icon, colorize it, whatever. it really doesn't matter.

[moshi]

Grayhaze, i really like your skills in design but i feel a little alienated on your point here.

[grayhaze]

lmao, lemme guess if i grabbed a magazine and scanned a page to put on my wall its stealing right?

the amount of creativity on my part has nothing to do with the legality of the topic at hand. they make the image availiable for download on thier site. if i save that image i can technically do whatever i want with it for my own personal use, weather i want to make it a wallpaper, an icon, colorize it, whatever. it really doesn't matter.

If you want to be pedantic, then technically you're right. It would be stealing. You're using copyrighted material in a way that the original author didn't intend it to be used, without consent of the copyright holder.

At least we agree on something. Technically, you can do whatever you want with an image downloaded from a web site. Legally, however, you cannot.

[AOXOMOXOA]

man are you guys still fighting about this????

[twist]

lmao, lemme guess if i grabbed a magazine and scanned a page to put on my wall its stealing right?

the amount of creativity on my part has nothing to do with the legality of the topic at hand. they make the image availiable for download on thier site. if i save that image i can technically do whatever i want with it for my own personal use, weather i want to make it a wallpaper, an icon, colorize it, whatever. it really doesn't matter.

If you want to be pedantic, then technically you're right. It would be stealing. You're using copyrighted material in a way that the original author didn't intend it to be used, without consent of the copyright holder.

At least we agree on something. Technically, you can do whatever you want with an image downloaded from a web site. Legally, however, you cannot.

ok gray i'm gonna make this really easy for you.

1) the file is on my hd, i own the hd.

2) i own the file, i do not own the copywrite.

3) i am entitled to do whatever i want to files on my hd (and yes its legal to modify the files in anyway i see fit)

4) as long as i don't pass them off as my own, distribute them, circumvent security measures. it is compleatly legal.

5) even if they wanted to sue me (they would lose in about 2 minutes) i doubt the image is LEGALLY copywritten. just making an image doesn't mean you own the copywrite to it.

now, go read up on fair use and copywrite laws, pay attention to personal use.

and now if you really want to get into it. the only law that has acctually been broken here is how he used various compaines logo's in his icons (unless he got permission from adobe, macromedia, windows, opera, corel, netscape, etc.) and is now selling them. but hey. why would you acctaully want to deal with the facts.

[grayhaze]

1) the file is on my hd, i own the hd.

2) i own the file, i do not own the copywrite.

3) i am entitled to do whatever i want to files on my hd (and yes its legal to modify the files in anyway i see fit)

4) as long as i don't pass them off as my own, distribute them, circumvent security measures. it is compleatly legal.

5) even if they wanted to sue me (they would lose in about 2 minutes) i doubt the image is LEGALLY copywritten. just making an image doesn't mean you own the copywrite to it.

1) Yes, you do own the hard disk. I hope.

2) That's something of a gray area. Just because you are storing a file on your own equipment doesn't make that file your 'property'. Hence piracy laws, and all the examples I gave previously.

3) Within the constraints of copyright law and legal practises.

4) Mostly true, but lacking on the relevant points.

5) Actually, making an image does mean you own copyright on it. Under copyright law, you no longer have to declare copyright on each piece of work you produce. Copyright automatically belongs to the author unless they specify otherwise. As for being sued, I think you'd be surprised. It's well known that the courts tend to rule in favour of the authors in such cases, and the number of cases being brought against copyright infringers is growing every day.

I think it's you who needs to brush up on copyright law. I'm a professional Graphic Designer by trade, and I deal with these laws on a day-to-day basis. As I said before, you can't change the law just by saying it doesn't apply to you.

[insurektion]

I'm a professional Graphic Designer by trade, and I deal with these laws on a day-to-day basis.

Sounds like someone is taking a relatively pointless issue a little to personally. Get a life. There is more to worry about than some guy talking an incomplete icons set image and rebuilding them for his own use. By incomplete i mean that the image does not show all the included ones. Legal or not hardly matters. I can think of few people who would shell out 10 bucks for a lousy icon set. Jeeze this is ridiculous. Anyways im off to get the snow.e 2 shell from hardware geeks when it gets released shortly. Oh and you have about 50 post twist has about 3000. I am more opt to listen to an experianced user such as himself rather than your ramblings based upon personal profession beliefs. Thank you. This is so sad. :no: