I use the HN7000S's equivalent of this page to check. No login necessary - just put in your satellite's site ID and it'll let you bring up a page with usage stats (updated hourly) for either that month or the previous month.
*blinks* Well THAT was easy! That worked like a charm and avoided the hassle of logging in, and all I had to do was type in the site ID which was no problem at all. Why the heck couldn't they link to that page before (or why can't I find a quick link to it on Hughes' website)? And previous times when I accessed it through the Usage Info thing, it'd appear in a popup window, presenting the possibility of me not seeing the direct web address to it anyway. The only advantage accessing it through the login page is that it fills in the site ID automatically, that's it. Thanks WarpRattler!
So I found
a forum thread at iStockphoto where it's pointed out that GameSpy "stole" images from their website for the "25 Worst Videogame Stock Photos" article. So in other words, what GameSpy did is illegal. It's not as defendable as the previous case where there were explicit links back to the website, but still, all the posts you see at that forum aggressively side with iStockphoto and say GameSpy's a bunch of morons for doing that.
I was always under the impression that "stock photo" meant "photo free for use by other people". No. I was under the impression that "royalty-free stock photos" meant they were free to download. No. Maybe it just means you pay a one-time fee. I understand the idea that some pictures shouldn't be copied or redistributed - no-right-click scripts and preventing hot-linking are weak but clear methods to get that across - but geez, if you're so stuck-up about how photos are used, then put a 72-pt disclaimer on every single page for those not logged in. The web-preview images are low quality and are watermarked - great, that should be enough for someone to buy the thing if they really want the image. Why should you get to say what happens to the web-preview image? Anybody stopping by isn't going to know the difference between someone who paid the fee to show the images on a different website and those who didn't (unless there's rules against that too). Linking back to your website and all that should be more than enough compensation for what's essentially a free thumbnail image. It shouldn't be that big of a deal how these web thumbnails are used (when unaltered). All you're doing is driving away potential business with your attitude.
The only thing I can see on the entire site enforcing these restrictions is the Legal page (yeah, as a small link on the bottom. Nobody reads those things anyway). For those who bother with a Standard license, you've got some other crazy restrictions like being forbidden from distributing the image (insofar as making a profit selling it to others), can't use it in more than one location at a time, and can only make ONE copy of the image for backup purposes. If you go for the Extended license, those restrictions are lifted (but I didn't read that far to see what the Extended license says).
But to iStockPhoto's credit, a subscription plan of $0.30 per file for three months at the most expensive is pretty darn low. The price for an individual extra-small picture (about the size of the web thumbnails it seems) is $1, and a small picture $3. So it wouldn't kill anyone to pay for these things. I'm just against the principle of paying for what should be free.
For those of you who read the Faux Pas webcomic, it says right there on the title image that all material is copyrighted and not public domain. Then to reinforce it, if you check out the thumbnails of art pieces they're selling in the Cat-alog, it again says "Please do not copy any material shown below. It is not public domain. Thank you!" Now see, notices like that I can respect.
That reminds me, I just found out that if I want the 3.0 update for iPod Touch, I have to pay $10. Anyone with an iPhone doesn't have to pay that fee. Maybe it's that iPod Touch lacks some features and you're paying to get those back, or maybe it's "we're just making up for the money we didn't get from you when you went with the cheaper iPod". But I absolutely hate the idea of having to pay for any update. You don't need to pay for updates with Windows or Mac OS X (well, with Windows I bet you need to pay something if you're going for one of those extended support plans). If it's enough of a change that you need to put in new components or buy a new product, then yeah, hit me up. But I don't think of it like that. I think of it as "this will add or fix stuff for a perfectly functional, currently-supported product." You don't need to pay for service packs for operating systems (no Windows jokes please), so I certainly wouldn't expect to pay for this.
So out of principle I'm ignoring the 3.0 update like the plague. I hardly use apps on the iPod Touch anyway. But in true Apple fashion, once an update comes out, every new app suddenly ceases to be backwards-compatible and you must upgrade or be forced to live in the past. This is why I had so much trouble with finding new programs to download with 10.2 "Jaguar" and eventually 10.3 "Panther" of Mac OS X, because if you're about two generations behind you're doomed. So now I see the value in Microsoft's commitment to backwards compatibility. Either that or Apple developers are really lazy about that sort of thing.
