Main Page

From Deskthority wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The deskthority wiki is dedicated to mechanical keyboards, mice and other human interface devices. The main focus is everything regarding quality (mechanical) keyboards. In the nature of a wiki, the content will be frequently and constantly under construction. Want to share your knowledge and help us create the best input device wiki? This wiki is part of the deskthority forum - sign in with your forum account and start editing! There is no separate registration, and this is an open wiki. For discussions about the wiki, requests for higher wiki rights or changes/addons to the wiki engine, see the wiki subforum.

We currently have 1,083 articles, 8,263 pages and 25,354 edits.

Looking to contribute, but not sure what needs to be done? See the list of pages needing work to be done on them!

Keyboards / PCBs

Keycaps

List of all group buys


Latest posts from the Deskthority wiki talk forum

  • kbdfr (Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:09:10 +0200) jacobolus wrote:kbdfr wrote:[...] In the case of photos, one of the components of the damage is the price which the owner could theoretically have obtained by licensing his work, and this is of course not for the illegal user of the work to decide.[…] No one is going to make a fortune licensing their shitty cellphone pics of shit they sold on ebay. The value of these photos to the author is vanishingly close to zero.This is the typical argument (guess why I had written exactly that) of illegal users wanting to decide themselves on the value of photos made by others. While allegedly being "shitty cellphone pics of shit […]", obviously they are still good enough to be used - but just not good enough to be paid for.It’s easy to make a case that any use of such photos on Deskthority falls under the fair use provisions of US copyright law.No, it's not. For example, when copying a photo (it's not always eBay), you can never be sure those who published it didn't license them themselves from the copyright holder. There is a risk there because in this case, the value of the photo is documented.In the times of analog photography, I was once engaged by a reporter to take a few photos (relating to a particular sport I practised at the time) for him. One of my photos was published in his newspaper and, if I remember correctly, they paid 300DM (actual equivalent would be around 300€) for just a non-exclusive one-time right to publish that one photo. Mind you, I've never been a professional photographer, and the photo wasn't even very good.The world copyright regime, and the surrounding culture of fear, is such a pile of bullshit.The copyright rules protect artistic and intellectual creation against all those who find they have a damn right to profit at no cost from anything made by others.But well, people also want to use streets, bridges, schools and police and judicial protection, but not to pay taxes.[still grumbling about all those cheapos claiming it as a right not to pay for anything]
  • HzFaq (Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:21:36 +0200) It looks like the TEK is plate mounted so that would rule out opening switches without desoldering them right away. As for the actual Kailh switches, it doesn't look like you can open them from the top just looking at the pictures on that page, but I couldn't say for sure as I don't own any.I'd imagine you would have to desolder the switches and open them from the bottom if you wanted to mod them.
  • rio9210 (Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:55:16 +0200) Is there any guide (article or video) with instructions for opening kailh switches ? Recently bought a Truly Ergonomic (TEK) that recently switched (it's not a joke...) from Cherry MX to Kailh.The kailh switch is different from the cherry one, it doesn't have the four holes in the angle. I already have a Compaq MX 11800 and opening the switches it's a joke, however, the kailh looks more "closed" in the top part of the switch.Any suggestion ?
  • jacobolus (Wed, 01 Apr 2015 06:51:25 +0200) kbdfr wrote:It is not a matter of profiting from the pictures, but a matter of infringing upon the owner's rights,so the question is not what the profit is for you, but what the harm is for the owner. And it is more than you would expect. [...] In the case of photos, one of the components of the damage is the price which the owner could theoretically have obtained by licensing his work, and this is of course not for the illegal user of the work to decide.In theory this sounds reasonable. In practice, it’s almost always nonsense.No one is going to make a fortune licensing their shitty cellphone pics of shit they sold on ebay. The value of these photos to the author is vanishingly close to zero.It’s easy to make a case that any use of such photos on Deskthority falls under the fair use provisions of US copyright law. (Dunno about other places in the world.) But in any event, nobody is going to be suing Deskthority for $$$ over this. Even if they could clear out Deskthority’s entire membership fee collection, it wouldn’t cover their legal costs.In general the worst thing likely to happen is someone demands their photo be taken down, and then it gets taken down, problem solved.Basically, Wikipedia at some point decided that, as a very high profile and international organization, they had to dot all their i's and cross all their t's, because otherwise some litigious assholes would come after them. As a result, they started deleting all the perfectly fine fair use images, because it wasn’t worth someone’s trouble to figure out where the fair use line could be drawn. Wikipedia has to do this because, as one of the most popular sites on the internet, they’re a big target. They don’t really have that much money, but it’s enough to be attractive to a certain brand of crazy person, and any lawsuit involving Wikipedia would get a bunch of attention.Then all the overly pedantic rule-driven nerds on the rest of the internet got the mistaken idea that they needed to copy Wikipedia’s exacting standards for their little hobby sites. Oh well.The world copyright regime, and the surrounding culture of fear, is such a pile of bullshit.
  • Madhias (Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:15:18 +0200) Once a good friend of mine (I know... stories from someone else) used an Ebay picture for his own sale and had to pay then about € 800 - a bill from the lawyer of the original image owner. So that could happen!
  • kbdfr (Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:01:38 +0200) ramnes wrote:[…] And even if someone contact you, you just remove the pictures. DT is non-profit, I don't see how it could be accused of profiting other people pictures for a knowledge base.That's not the way it works.It is not a matter of profiting from the pictures, but a matter of infringing upon the owner's rights,so the question is not what the profit is for you, but what the harm is for the owner.And it is more than you would expect.In the case of bootleg recordings, the actual objective damage is obviously the sum all recipients of the work together would have paid if buying from the owner - even if the bootlegger has distributed the work without any profit at all.In the case of photos, one of the components of the damage is the price which the owner could theoretically have obtained by licensing his work, and this is of course not for the illegal user of the work to decide.
  • ramnes (Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:37:34 +0200) wheybags wrote:it's fiiiiiineliterally noone will ever notice, and if they do they will _never_get lawyers involved in the AMAZINGLY unlikely instance that they actually careEven if they did, they'd send a takedown notice, we'd take it down, all's wellYeah.
  • wheybags (Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:27:32 +0200) it's fiiiiiineliterally noone will ever notice, and if they do they will _never_get lawyers involved in the AMAZINGLY unlikely instance that they actually careEven if they did, they'd send a takedown notice, we'd take it down, all's well
  • bhtooefr (Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:21:29 +0200) Any signatory to the Berne Convention will consider the work copyrighted. That means all of Europe, and most of the world, really.
  • ramnes (Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:19:17 +0200) Depends what law. And depends where is hosted DT.A good solution would be to mention something like this in the wiki: "Wiki pages are made by users of all around the world, and do not imply DT administrators responsability. Images always belongs to their author. If you are the author and don't want your picture to be there, please contact us here.", etc.Basically, I don't see how anyone could have any trouble with something like this.And even if someone contact you, you just remove the pictures. DT is non-profit, I don't see how it could be accused of profiting other people pictures for a knowledge base.