The Saga of a Thief...

Poster: Drieske1982
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 8:51:15 BST

Hi,
I have the idea that Milonic menu 5.1 is much slower then 5.0. Do other users have the same impression?

P.S. I use a PIII 500Mhz - 512Mb Ram - Windows XP - IE6

Poster: fredlongworthhighschool
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 11:35:09 BST

I can't say that i've noticed any difference. What kind of speeds are we talking?

Poster: Drieske1982
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 13:28:24 BST

Like .e.g. when you mouseover an item and have to wait before a subitem shows...

Poster: John
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 19:42:39 BST

Drieske1982, I've held back on this for a while, but no longer. Two questions...

1. Why did you change the name of the menu code files on your site?

2. Why are you using menu code taken from the site of another user?

Re: Menu 5.1 slower then 5.0?

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 20:11:23 BST


I think that you might be running into the menu system's built-in stolen license detection mechanism. This mechanism is code that detects when the menu scripts are running on a domain other than the one they were licensed for, and then introduces a response slow-down, to encourage the user to quit stealing the menu code.

For example, in an honest effort to help you with your concern, we spent some of our own valued time to go to your website, and check your menu. It took a little longer than usual to check, because it seems that you have changed the names of the base menu scripts; milonc_src.js is now called bovenmenu_bron.js, mmenudom.js is now bovenmenu_ie.js, and mmenuns4.js is now bovenmenu_ns4.js. That in itself isn't odd, but it does raise a flag, since renaming source files is a common practice of people who try to pass other people's code off as their own, to impress a boss, a client, or a potential client.

Of course, just changing filenames by itself is not proof of nefarious intent. So, we checked your menu... only to find that your -- and I use that term loosely -- "your" v5.1 menu scripts actually came from someone else's site. That might not be so bad if it was the free trial version that you had... um... "borrowed" from another site. But in this case, it turns out that "your" menu scripts... or should I say "the menu scripts that you are currently running"... are actually the fully-licensed pro version. Again, that in itself is usually a good thing. Milonic likes for people to use the pro version, beause using the pro version means that the user has paid for a license, and that helps Milonic stay in business. Or... no... wait. I meant that using a pro version that you actually paid for helps Milonic stay in business. But in your case, the pro version that you are using was licensed by... i.e., paid for by... someone else. Milonic does not like that particular twist on using the pro licensed version because, oddly enough, not paying for the license that you are using does not help Milonic stay in business... quite the reverse actually.

So... let's review. (1) You renamed the source script files; a common tactic used by people who want to pass commercial js scripts off as their own. (2) You are using a licensed version that was taken from another site. Hmmmm. Now, here's something else. I know the person who licensed the version that you're using... the person whose site you took it from. She confirms that you did so without her knowledge or permission. Just to be clear... when someone pays for a commercial product, then someone else comes along and takes it without the purchaser's knowledge or permission, civilized people call that "stealing". The thing that was taken is then referred to as "stolen". Hence, the menu's "stolen license" mechanism.

I find a couple of other things mentionable. The site you obtained... well stole... your menu scripts from is mercuryexposure.org. Now here's something ironic: as far as I know, mercuryexposure.org is a non-profit site, with the goal of informing people about and warning people about the dangers of mercury exposure, and providing various resources related to that goal. But even though it is a non-profit site, the site's owner had enough appreciation for the effort that goes into producing a product like Milonic Menus that she bought a pro license (in case you were unsure, "bought" means "exchanged money for"... here's a link for you, so you can learn more about buying). Where's the irony? You stole a licensed version from a non-profit site that probably would have qualified for a free license. Now isn't that special? It's especially nice that you take the trouble to steal from that site regularly, to make sure you have the latest update. How very clever of you!

And finally, here's something that pisses me off just a little. The owner of the site where you stole your licensed version of the menu is known around here as "Maz". Anyone recognize that name? How long has Maz been helping people in these forums? How many people has she helped? A long time. A lot of people. You stole the scripts from someone who gives freely of her time to help others. Now don't you feel good about yourself?

You have some big balls coming here for help under these circumstances. If you have the impression that I'm not very happy about this, you're correct. But I wouldn't expect that to matter very much to a thief. I mean, what can I do except (1) point out your thievery in this public place, (2) refuse to help you in any future use of the menu, and (3) encourage others here to do the same.

It looks the site you're working on is in Belgium. If that's where you are too, I can't help but wonder what legal agreements exist within the EU for theft of copyrighted material? Maybe that's something for Milonic to look into. Of course, if you're a professional developer... nah, let me rephrase... a person who gets paid to produce sites for others, and the site you refrenced is a client's site, then I'm sure your client would like to know that their site developer is using unlicened software, making the site's owner also responsible for the copyright violation. But if it's just your site, you'll have only your conscience to live with.

Happy Trails,

Kevin

Edit:

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of Milonic Solutions. The above rant represents my own opinion, and not necessarily (but probably) the opinion of Milonic Solutions, and of other honest Milonic Menu users around the world.

Poster: John
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 20:58:50 BST

It is also most unfortunate, of course, that you have not {yet} stolen the most recent version of the menu code. Given that you are now down-level, the version you are illegally running is not supported.

Gee - what a shame...

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 21:37:46 BST

Nice point John! LOL!

On a serious note... I hope everyone who uses the various free options (free license, link back to milonic.com) is outraged by this sort of thievery. This is exacty the kind of thing that makes Miloinc Solutions struggle with how to make free licensing available to non-profits, while still protecting their intellectual property. Andy and company want to do right by non-profit organizations, but Dries and the scores of people like him make it dificult. They figure, "what will it hurt if I steal the code?" Here's what: everyone who now or in the future will want to use the free licensing options is hurt by this. This type of theft is what makes Andy implement means to make free licensing more difficult (forced links, etc.). And this type of theft is what makes him re-consider even offering any sort of free license. If your free license disappears down the road, you have Dries and his ilk to blame.

Sincerely,

Kevin

Poster: Bartie_boy
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:01:08 BST

I have the impression that the menu is much faster in other browsers than IE. That's because IE displays some 'effects' (Firefox doesn't). Is it possible to disable those effects for IE?
(with effects i mean the effects when a submenu appears/disappears)

What i see is:

Does it mean he has finally paid for his Milonic menu? Or is it fake?

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:07:52 BST

An update for those who are interested...

In case anyone thought that some of our replies in this thread were a bit harsh... that perhaps Drieske1982 made a simple mistake and didn't really intend to steal Milonic's source code... that perhaps he wasn't a common thief...

I just checked, and the scumbag has removed all of the copyright information (that he could find) from the source files. Now isn't that clever? Took him long enough to figure that out though... guess he hasn't progressed to the level of professional thief yet. What a shame to be mediocre even at petty theft. Removing copyright and other identifying information from commercial source code and renaming the source code files are sure signs that the culprit has stolen the code and intends to pass it off as his own... pretty pathetic really... I wonder what other inadequacies haunt him?

This latest development should remove any doubt that anyone may have had that this cyber turd intentionally stole a licensed professional copy of Milonic Menus. Wonder what else he's stolen? Keep an eye on your wallet folks... he's already picked Milonic's pocket.

Kevin

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:09:57 BST


Yes, just leave those lines of code out entirely.

Poster: Maz
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:12:23 BST

Yes you can simply remove the filters for ie in the styles.

maz

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:19:18 BST

He was on the board a short while ago. Obviously he left no post, but it seems equally obvious to me that, after seeing we had 'discovered' his illegal activities, he went ahead and tried to cover things up as Kevin has described. Nice guy.

I hope nobody thinks we are taking this lightly, or 'oh, gee, it's just a little piece of code'. Oh, no - it's stealing, period.

For the 99+% of you who are honest, and understand and respect what Andy is trying to do here - we offer our sincere thanks. For the others - trust me, we will find you.

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:20:59 BST


I checked just minutes before you did (as I was writing my last post). At that time, those two values were not set. I assume they were just recently added. Combine that with the fact that the required copyright statements have been removed since my initial rant yesterday, and the fact that they are still gone, and I have to conclude that the license info you noted is fake. I'll check.

Kevin

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:22:49 BST

It's a fake. He made up that license number.

Duh - what an idiot...

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 17:27:37 BST

Apparently John checked. The guy's ineptitude continues to show itself. He apparently can't figure out the formula for generating the license numbers, so he just made one up! Brilliant! At least he shines in his mediocrity.

Kevin

Poster: Bartie_boy
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 18:01:02 BST



And how do i do that? I tried a search on this forum, but i've failed.

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 18:14:11 BST

Just remove the lines that start overfilter= and outfilter=.

Poster: Bartie_boy
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 18:17:49 BST

Thanks!
I've changed it to:

Just in case i need those filters again.

Poster: Maz
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 18:24:35 BST

I think some older browsers don't like the slashes and you are just adding more load time, its best to remove styles completely when you aren't using them, you can always get them from a new download.

Hence keep it a lean clean machine;)

maz

Poster: Bartie_boy
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 18:28:08 BST

Ow, i didn't know that. I thought that all browsers would ignore that.
So i should remove ALL comments? Also the default ones from Milonic like:

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday April 6 2004 - 19:00:27 BST

No, those should be OK because they are not actual code, they're just plain text comments (unless you want to cut down the file size a tad). I know the // turns the code into a comment (supposed to, anyway), but, as Maz mentioned, some browsers just plow through it.

It's a fine line, and not all browsers act up in this fashion, but does it make any sense?

Poster: Ruth
Dated: Wednesday April 7 2004 - 21:33:55 BST

Bartie,
Just a note, you seem to be down at least two levels. There are only 4 items in that section, the two top ones and the offsets.

Ruth

Poster: John
Dated: Wednesday April 7 2004 - 21:43:11 BST

Suggestion - let's move all threads other than the main purpose of this one out of here, please. Just start up a new one.

Thanks.