Hey, Blalron, aren’t you the one that once said that anyone who expects to get paid for their creative work are like whores? Because if they were real artists, they’d give it all away for free?
It is no surprise then, that you think that anyone who doesn’t like being ripped off is overreacting. So are we all just supposed to donate our resources and our money to anyone who wants to snatch it, and not get pissed off about it?
Is this leading towards an anecdote about a paralysed old lady who can’t leave her flat but wants to see el Capitan once more before she dies? Please say it is, I love those.
galt, this situation is precisely analogous to someone phreaking your phone, or running a line off your electricity supply to run their washer. Bandwidth is a paid utility, and using someone else’s bandwidth to prettify your own page cost-free is thievery. And no, placing pictures on a website does not imply consent to hotlink to them all over the place. Particularly not if there are honking great copyright notices on them.
Yeah, except that hitting reload is a consequence of actually using yosemite’s website, which she undoubtedly is willing to pay for because it benefits her. Using one of her graphics elsewhere, and linking to it so it costs her bandwidth, is using a finite resource of hers to for someone else’s benefit. I don’t see why that’s not thievery; it’d be like sneaking into someone else’s house to make long distance phone calls.
And why are her images ‘free for the taking’? What’s your moral reasoning here? Because, legally-speaking, it’s a violation of copyright. What’s next? She shouldn’t take her images down when she’s done using them because it inconveniences others? I mean, wouldn’t you agree that she’s entitled to do what she likes with her web space, within the bounds of her contract? Or, by making materials available to the public do you then assume responsibility to provide for others’ use of them? I can’t imagine what sort of bizarre logic you use to support the idea that yosemite has some moral responsibility to give her work, and bandwidth, away to others. Please explain.
Or, if you don’t care to explain why you so blithely declare others’ property ‘free for the taking’, then kindly shut your pie-hole. :rolleyes:
I don’t understand. If your solution sends a “thief” graphic, isn’t that charged to your precious bandwidth usage, and if so, what is the net gain? I understand your satisfaction at sticking it to the transgressor, but I don’t see how you are reducing your bandwidth usage.
Fear Itself, they will mostly act fast to disable an image that proclaims that they are stealing someone else’s bandwidth, and with any luck they’ll think twice before stealing another image from the same site as there’s every chance the same thing will happen again. If you just disable the image altogether, your persistant hotlinker will just keep trying to locate it on your site and even if you remove it altogether they won’t get the message, and may do it with other images in the future.
Obviously it didn’t work with our hotlinker, but it was so funny that we didn’t mind about the bandwidth 
I’m guessing here but the thief picture could be much smaller and may even be hosted elsewhere. But in the end it’s a deterrent, people are linking the pictures as they want to use them in some way – they presumably don’t want to have a thief graphic on their site so when they notice they’ll delete the link (and perhaps think twice before doing it again).
To the people that don’t think this is a big deal, it is. A) It’s copyrighted material and shouldn’t be used without permission and proper attribution (noone’s going to disagree with that, right ?) and B) bandwidth is a commodity that is paided for, by sucking someone elses (instead of your own) you are stealing that bandwidth. Thus costing the copyright owner money and potentially depriving them of traffic to their site if they max out their bandwidth limit.
I’ll grant that it’s possible that people don’t do this deliberately, or don’t understand the consequences. But I don’t mind the term ‘thief’ in this context because it is and the faster we educate people that this is stealing and Not Acceptable ™ the faster people will realise not to do it.
SD
I don’t think you understand what’s happening here. Here’s an explanation of this whole issue, that will hopefully clear some things up:
A simple web site is a collection of HTML and other files, including graphics. The HTML specifies how the page is supposed to look, including where the graphics go. So you might have an HTML file that has a picture with a caption underneath it. Usually, both the HTML file and the picture file reside on your server. When someone views your web page, they download both the HTML file and the picture file off of your server (frequently, billing is based on how much data is downloaded off of the server–this is the bandwidth people are talking about). Typically, picture files are much larger then HTML files, so on a graphics-intensive site, they can use the majority of bandwidth.
The rub is that HTML files can do more then just display picture files from your server–they can display pictures from someone elses server as well. So a dishonest person can put only the HTML file on their server, and have that file display a picture on your server. Someone looking at their web site can’t tell (unless some of the methods discussed above are in place) that the picture is really hosted on your site–it displays just like a picture hosted at the site they’re viewing. The viewer’s web browser gets the HTML file from their server, and the large picture file from your server. So, ultimately, you get charged when someone views their site.
Oh, and in case it’s not clear now–the purpose of having the server substitute a picture that differs from the one that they linked to is so that their web page no longer looks the way they wanted. This will usually cause them to stop linking to your site, and using your bandwidth.
I am quite familiar with how HTML works, and why hotlinking steals bandwidth. What I don’t understand is how sending a “thief” graphic instead of the hotlinked graphic in any way reduces the bandwidth usage.
Others before me have explained it well, but once again, I’ll elaborate: many of my “stolen” graphics were 30-150K or more. I’ve replaced it with a little .jpg that’s 2K. So yes, it’s saving me bandwidth, and putting people on notice that hotlinking is not allowed.
Presumably once the thieves note that instead of a nice image they get one indentifying them as a thief, they’ll remove the link from their websites.
I want another fridge, do you mind if I step into your home and take yours? What? You say I can’t cause *you * paid for it?
Twit!
galt needs to go away and reacquaint himself with copyright laws. It is a crime, it is theft, and it is certainly unethical. Placing something on a web page does not make it public property.
It’s not like you have to look to far on the SDMB to find plenty of explanations about this. Try scrolling to the foot of any page sometime.
Not to pick nits, but…isn’t it a bit hypocritical to protest content theft (Mr. Cazzle’s images) by, uh, stealing someone else’s content (the steaming turd pic he found on the 'net)?
In my case, the image I use is a two color GIF that’s less than 3K, which is substantially smaller than the ones that people typically attempt to hotlink to.
From the site in question:
Great honk!
I am less than novice when it comes to understanding web sites, band width etc.
But one thing that comes to mind, which is how artists and writers get credit for work they do, is their name or signature on their work. Is it not possible for this to be included in graphics? Then, if someone is using your graphic, you are at least getting acknowledged as the artist?
It’s not an issue of getting credited. Unless you host your own website, you have an agreement with the people who own the server that you can deliver up to, say, 1GB per month for a flat fee, and you get charged for anything over that. If all you have a 50k image and it gets viewed 20,000 times, the next time someone pulls it up, you start getting charged.
When someone else hotlinks an image, you still have to pay for the bandwidth, but people aren’t looking at your site. If you have a store and you rely on that income, it’s a bad situation.
I have a question.
I did a Google vanity search on my website name and it returned first in the list :mad: :
I clicked the link (I don’t advise it; pop-up hell!) and it looks like it’s just finding every random thing to do with Setzer and putting it on their site albeit giving the creator credit, sort of, as it list the links to the original under the thumbnail, but not the bigger image when you click on it.
Have I been “hotlinked”? 
