Damn, I forgot to mention the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. As the cite notes, it’s been amended by the Patriot Act. Dunno how, but I doubt they made it any nicer for the script kiddies.
Still no answer to my question on whether I can take Cecil’s and Signorino’s work. After all it is also ‘out there’. I suppose for the defenders of hotlinking and content theft it all depends on the size of the legal team one has.
Jesus !
I’m fucking stunned !
As an ex-webmaster who paid for his bandwidth and once had a site cut off due to bandwidth limits 'cos some stupid forum liked my gfx enough to plaster tham all around their site, it sickens me to see people actually try to justify this !
I always though that those that hot-linked were just ignorant of the harm it did. I never once thought that they may have thought about it and decided that it wasn’t such a bad thing.
I think Mighty_Girl is right. The battle is over.
If you used Cecil’s or Signorino’s work without permission, you would presumably be guilty of copyright violation. If you had their permission to use the images, and you hotlinked to them instead of copying them to your site, you’d be guilty of the made-up crime called “bandwidth theft,” but not copyright violation.
How is the user to know whether they have the rights to even read that page? Is there another page that says that? And how does he find that page, given an image he’s interested in? And once he’s found it, how does he know it’s the One True Page that grants access to that file? Or that the owner of the file is even the one who made the page? Surely we can come up with some kind of explicit way of granting or denying rights to a particular file. Here’s my idea: each file could have corresponding “attributes” which say who can access it. Now if some clever computer guy would just code it up, we’d have…what’s that? You say it already exists? And it’s already sophisticated enough to do exactly what you want? Well there you go.
I’m not trying to justify hotlinking, since I think there are plenty of reasons not to do it (control over the content of the files, continued availability of the files, website reliability). I just don’t share the opinion that it’s such a dreadful crime, and it sickens me a little that people running websites have the nerve to get mad at other people when their bandwidth goes through the roof. If you’re putting content on the web, you have to be prepared for the possibility that it will become enormously popular, even in ways you didn’t intend. And if you don’t prepare for that, you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself.
If your site gets pounded to death because cruel.com made fun of it and linked to it, are they guilty of bandwidth theft? No, they’re guilty of pointing out something you put out for free.
Is this considered hotlinking? I don’t point out that the images are from google, after all.
We are not talking about the user knowing whether or not they have “rights” to visit the page, we are talking about the hotlinker knowing that they have no ethical right to leech someone else’s content, and their bandwidth, and put it on their own page. Let’s not get these two issues confused, shall we?
You left out, “incredibly selfish.”
Should I be “prepared” for someone hotlinking to one of my drawings, and then claiming that their “very talented cousin” drew it? Where do we draw the line, here?
I don’t know what others think about this, but it seems to me that there’s a crucial difference that you fail to mention, to wit:
I have to actively click on those links in order to see the picture. If, on the other hand,m you hotlink an image by inserting its location into the html of your page, then that image loads without the viewer having to do anything.
Also, when i click on the links you put up, i just have to look in my browser’s address bar to see that the images are hosted on the Google site. If i like them enough i can say, “Hey, why don’t i go to Google and check out more of their images.”
But if the hotlinked image is just embedded in the page, then the image’s location, and the website on which it is hosted, are not immediately apparent. The viewer has to make an active decision to seek out the image location, and could easily be forgiven for assuming that the content belongs to the person who has, in fact, pilfered it from someone else.
I agree with you man, but you might as well give up.
There are quite a few things funny about this thread:
the title “Web Master” for one, which in the 200+ web apps Ive built over the years Ive never really heard applied to anyone in any company Ive worked. There was one girl who was pretty much the flunky-grunt responsible for ftp’ing images and some html and crap to one site who always wanted everyone to call her the Web Master (to no small amusement for all of us programmers), but she was made useless when the content management system was plugged in.
someone (I assume (hope) someone in college/high school) brought up Netiquette. Whats worse, they brought it up apparently in all seriousness! I remember leaving adolescence, it was such a bitch.
the fact that web copyright laws and their increased enforcement are part of the ~cause~ of this so-called bandwidth thievery. In the old days, they would have copied the pics to their own servers, but because of copyright laws thats too much of a risk so they just link to your image. There is no copyright violation whatsoever going on here from all of what OPhas stated. The only issue OPhas a valid complaint about is the cost of the bandwidth. And thats it.
the fact that someone who, in many many other threads, has taken the ‘Liberal’ line when it comes to the private property of others is now sounding much like a property rights Republican of the Old School. The irony is rich, full, and ever so sweet. Reminds me of a friend of mine who once gave me a big lecture over dinner about how everyone should make the same wage; then, as we got up to leave, he bitched about me leaving a 20% tip, saying the service wasnt good enough to warrant it, thus demonstrating that all of his rhetoric over dinner was nothing but a bunch of bullshit hot air. Perhaps YosemiteGirl, the next time she goes on about free healthcare or free anything for that matter, will have the strength of character to relate her views on free shit to how she feels when people commit the dreadful crime of linking to her images.
All this is a tempest in a teacup. YosemiteGirl, for all your artistic inclinations, you dont seem to be very creative. If you are trying to sell your stuff online, and people keep linking to your images so much that it is annoying, what do these facts tell you? They should be telling you that people like your stuff. Does it not occur to you that there is an element of flattery in all of this? Does it not occur to you that if x amount of people are willing to link to your images, then y amount of people are willing to pay for them?
Get creative. Use this to your advantage, dont just sit and bitch and whine. Rather than send them a porno .gif or something, why not send them an advert? Matter of fact, why not figure out the images that they are linking to most, and make special versions of those images with perhaps text along the bottom or middle with something like “This image and others available for purchase at www.yoursite.com”? You could even get more trick and and serve up not only the advert images but also a script that would open your site up in a new window when the image is loaded by the site calling it. You could look for people who are viewing your site from this method, and give them some stupid welcome message like “Hello viewers of Dickheads blog, this is where you can buy the images featured so prominantly on Dickheads site”. All of this is possible with minimal coding. In short, if they want to fuck with you, well Ok, fuck em.
Lets face it, the extra bandwidth charges are only bad ~if they dont result in you selling more of your product~.
Of course I dont need to mention the fact that, in the long run, you arent going to be losing any money either way. If you are selling your stuff off the site, all of your payments to the ISP are tax deductable. Any extra bandwidth charges you aquire are as well.
Perhaps you need someone to explain the concept of “tax deductible” to you. $100 in tax deductible income does not equal an extra $100 in your pocket.
Even when expenses are tax deductible, if your expenses go up then so do your costs. All it means is that your tax liability does not also go up.
Say, for example, that yosemite is in the top tax bracket, which is, IIRC, 39c in the dollar. And say that the extra bandwidth is costing her $100 a year.
That means that she reduces her taxable income by $100, which reduces her tax libaility by $39. The other $61 still comes out of her pocket.
What some of these people fail to see is that some websites (ours for example) are not a for-profit venture. Whatever money we produce is spent twice in keeping the site. I love doing it, but if at some time it costs me too much money – and people keeps stealing my bandwidth do increase costs – I will pull the plug. Guess who will benefit from that? Nobody, least of all our readers who seem to be grateful that we do what we do.
Or maybe you prefer the internet without these sites that provide a valuable service at the webmaster’s expense.
And yes, webmaster: the one running the site.
Ah yes, obfuscation of a simple issue. Works for some.
The point is, it’s not on your server, someone else is paying for the bandwidth, they may or may not be happy to have you use their bandwidth to display your webpage, all you need to do is ask. The default assumption would have to be that they probably don’t want you to use it. People don’t usually give away their property in my experience.
Let me ask you: if you see a powerpoint on a wall on someone else’s building, do you assume it’s OK for you to plug in and use their electricity because they don’t have a lock on it? Is that the default assumption for you?
And this absolute balderdash comparison you and your ilk make between using my bandwidth to display my page freely to the public, and you using my bandwidth to display your page freely to the public is so obviously morally and ethically bankrupt as to barely deserve further comment. Are you actually so thick you can’t see the difference between using my resources for my purposes and you using my resources for your purposes?
If you haven’t asked for permission to use somebody else’s stuff it is theft. It is THAT simple. Even an idiot can understand it. :rolleyes:
And, if I had said that it equaled an extra 100$, you would be correct.
Well, since expenses and costs are the same thing, I would hope that if ones expenses go up, so do ones costs. Yes, it means ones taxable liablity does not go up. It also means that the extra cost of bandwidth, in a year where she sold many images, may keep her from being pushed into a higher bracket than she might otherwise have been in. All without ever having paid anyone for any advertising.
Well, but shes not in the highest tax bracket or she wouldnt be using a hosting service to host her site. So thats pretty damn moot. Long before she reached that stage, it is assumed she would be smart enough to have her own hosting solution, in which case she would have far more things to itemize and deduct.
But even so, its not a $61 loss if she implements advert images or other such strategies to direct users of the bandwidth-stealers sites to her site and it results in sales. She is basically getting free advertising.
Again, thats whats occuring here: ~She is basically getting free advertising~. How or why this is construed as a bad thing Ive no idea. She just needs to implement strategies to yank the pole once the bandwidth-stealers have placed the hook in peoples mouths.
We could go on and on. The point being, the perception that bandwidth-stealers in this case are just reavers who are a dire threat to the web world is just that; only a perception. And as of course we all know, perception is not reality.
With a little creativity the situation could easily be turned to YosemiteGirls favor, through a combination of advert images and redirects as well as yes, tax deductions at this point in the size of her business. Hell, those are ideas that took me all of 5 minutes to come up with, Im sure being as creative as she is that YosemiteGirl can can up with far better ideas to use the situation to her advantage.
It just boggles the mind that one would get upset that people like ones product so much that they would link to it even when asked not to. Especially given that as the host, you have far more control of the situation than those doing the linking.
With all due respect, if youre running a fan-site or whatever (meaning a not for profit, yet non-registered non-profit) on a pay-for bandwidth host service, its not that smart of an idea. If you simply cant get DSL, there are plenty of hosting providers that have unlimited bandwidth. There are plenty of hosting providers that have special deals for non-commercial sites. Hosting providers are a dime a dozen. I would seriously recommend switching providers if you have one now that has a bandwidth limitation and you are running a non-commercial site. Im sorry, its just not that smart and doesnt make much sense, especially given that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of hosting providers.
Well, if its valuable, then people are willing to pay for it. If people arent willing to pay for it, then by default it has no value.
But honestly, and Im not trying to be a jerk, I just cant think of a situation where I would have a non-commerical site hosted by a provider that charges for bandwidth. Maybe you just havent looked around enough or something, but its real hard for me to believe you cant find another hosting provider.
And really, if people really do need or value your content, and people are linking off of your site, then shouldnt that make you happy that your users have that many more resources to go to for this valuable service? Im just not understanding the dichotomy here of on the one hand your admirable desire to provide for free a needed service, and on the other hand your getting upset that others are helping you to provide it - for free. I mean really, the end user is all that matters right?
Your issue seems to be with your hosting service, not with the people linking off your site.
Eh. Not really. Okay, maybe a little. But mostly, not really.
They just need “eye candy” for their blog or their avatar. They don’t necessarily care where they get this eye candy. Their viewers certainly don’t have the money to buy stuff from the eye candy maker (that’s me). It would be one thing if they were hotlinking to my stuff in order to discuss my work. That happens very rarely, however (and no, I don’t replace the hotlinked graphic with something else in such cases). Often, bloggers just throw up a bunch of “odd” or unusual pictures. Sort of a “stream of consciousness” thing, I guess. I have some how-to illustrations on one of my sites that look peculiar unless seen in context. These are often hotlinked because they are strange-looking (unless you know the context). Sorry, I don’t feel the need to cater to someone else’s rambling blogs, and I don’t think that replacing the graphic with an ad for my site is going to attract any new customers. Not in that context, no.
One of my images in particular is a “hot item” right now and circulating around all the blogs and is being used in many sigs/avatars. In many cases, they take this rather large file and squeeze it into a little 50x50 pixel message board avatar. You can hardly recognize what it is at that size, so I have no idea why the thieves even choose to use it. This large (I’m guessing) 100K file is displayed many, many times as people view many message board threads. How, exactly, is this bandwidth theft helping me? And even if someone saw my replaced image (advertising my site), the avatar is so small you can barely read any message anyway. I just want these people to stop using this graphic and go away, basically.
Only rarely am I “flattered” by any of this. Usually I just see this theft as a wanton disregard for other peoples’ stuff. I also suspect that some of the theft comes from an attitude that you displayed—“you should be flattered that I want to steal from you.” No, I am not flattered when someone is using my resources and content without asking for permission first. I am not “flattered” when they hotlink to one of my drawings and then claim that their “very talented” relative did it. I am not “flattered” when they display my work in such a way as to pass it off as something they own, or have rights to display. No.
I see.
If I, without permission, grabbed one of the signs from the antique shop down the street, put it in my yard and told everyone what a great antique shop it was and where I got the sign, you are correct, Id be guilty of theft.
Now, would it be smart or childishly stupid for that antique shop to press charges? Or would it depend merely on the amount of business I sent their way?
If you think this shop is so great, then why the everloving fuck are you STEALING THEIR PROPERTY?! In what parallel universe is this acceptable behavior?
Let’s say I like Domino’s Pizza. A lot. And I think everybody should try them. Which is the more proper behavior:
a.) Asking people, “Have you ever tried Domino’s Pizza? It’s awesome. There’s a shop just down the street, check it out.”
b.) Hijacking a Domino’s delivery car, driving it over to my house, and giving away all the pizza to my friends.
c.) Hijacking a Domino’s delivery car, driving it over to my house, taking the big “Domino’s Pizza” light off the roof, and giving away all the pizza to my friends, without any mention of where it came from.
B is akin to what you’re suggesting. C is akin to what hotlinkers do on a regular basis. A is what SANE and CIVILIZED people would prefer to do.
No actually the point is that this is a strawman. No one except you has mentioned “dire threats to the web world”. You are talking to yourself.
None of this is to the point. Yosemite can do what she wants with her stuff and with her money. That there may be opportunities to turn something disrespectful someone does to you or some way in which someone is ripping you off to your advantage does not make what that person did other than disrespectful or ripping you off.
It boggles your mind. That may well say more about your mind than about the situation at hand. The key here is that hotlinking images and embedding them in your page seldom gives any recognition to the person who owns/created/is paying for the bandwidth for the image in question. This is a point that you and your ilk are studiously ignoring. You need to face up to this point and deal with it.
Another example of your obtuseness. Exactly how many times are you going to have to be told that bandwidth leaches seldom attribute before it sinks in?
They don’t care. They want what they want, and will try and justify theft because it’s on the web and that makes it different, somehow.
How many times do you need to be told that you dont need to leave it up to the linkers to attribute anything? If you are the one hosting, you are the one in control of what they are linking to. You can put any attribution you want. You can literally redirect the linkers page to your own page every time your link is loaded. You can feed them a special image, you can feed them a note that says fuck you, you can execute practically anything you want because the linkers are executing code from your site on ~their~ site.
As the hoster you have far more ability to fuck over the linkers than they have of fucking over you. Now, you may take the attitude of a cheerleader whos missed her period after fucking the football team and whine and cry and wring your hands, or you can take the attitude of doing something about it.
If you want to get psuedo-religous about it and start throwing around made up concepts such as ‘social responsability’ or its equivelent ‘Gods Will’, then to let the linkers link without fighting back, without doing anything to defend yourself, is going to to lead more linkers to do the same to more people. By not fighting back, by not taking steps ~yourself~ to deal with the situation, you are teaching the linkers that there are no real adverse consequences to their actions.
Fundamentalism is for idiots and high school/college kiddies.