(ok, really my last post this time, I just want to answer the question…)
It doesn’t matter because there is a sign. We aren’t relying on what the default state is, because the files have been explicitly published as readable by everyone.
So you are ducking the question. Answer the question.
Ok. If there’s no sign, you cannot assume that it’s ok to take/use something just because someone has not forbidden it. But I’ll reiterate that the files on the web server do have a sign, so the question is irrelevant. What you have done, in effect, is put up two signs. One says “free” and the other says “not free”, but is less visible.
In my case, there is another sign that says “not free” and it is quite visible, and is on every page of all of my sites. In some cases, the text is in BOLDED RED LETTERS. But of course, people still hotlink. And yet you still claim that they have done nothing unethical?
I wonder if ntucker ignores “Keep off the grass” signs because if they really meant it, they’d wall the grassed areas off?
BTW, earlier I mentioned Shutterfly as an image hosting service that allows hotlinking. That was wrong, their terms of service expressly forbid hotlinking. I was misinformed and just discovered my error.
Expand on this answer. What does the sign say? Does it say “anyone may use this file for their own purposes”? Or is it just the equivalent of a lockable door that has not been locked?
What are the two signs? Why is one less visible, and which is that and why is it less visible?
The big sign is the file’s attributes.
My bolding. You understand the flaw in the defence?
Funny, I didn’t see any such sign in order to get this file: http://s107633810.onlinehome.us/images/el-capitan.jpg
And besides that, given just a file URL, how am I to determine the permissions? Oh yeah, ask the web server: it tells you it’s world-readable.
You see, one of these “signs” (the file permissions) is an inherent part of retrieving any file, and the other (some web page with BOLDED RED LETTERS) is not. So you can’t even be sure someone has seen your BOLDED RED warning.
To answer Princhester’s question, the sign says “anyone may retrieve a copy of this file from this web server” and the “bandwidth thief” causing someone to do that is perfectly ethical. The “bandwidth thief” would be a jerk if he didn’t take into consideration the impact he may have on the server, but the linking itself is not a crime, amateur webmaster protestations notwithstanding.
Geez, I’m not even a web techie and I’m amazed by this. Somehow, this reminds me of the dumbass arguments I’ve seen on this board that sneaking into a movie is also not stealing, it’s just trespassing and it’s not a big deal and movie theatre owners shouldn’t complain about it because they wouldn’t be getting paid for it anyway. :rolleyes:
Voodoochile, in addition to being a hyper-arrogant moron who can’t even be bothered to read the thread he’s soiling, you’re a disgrace to a great song. Go fuck yourself, preferably while still riding that high horse you came in on.
Well, it’s a very small, new site, and I hadn’t bestirred myself to put warning text on the pages (but hey, I will!). Though you will notice, I do have my copyright and URL identifying information on each graphic, in big bold letters, which indicates that it does belong to me (not the hotlinker). Do I need to put text that says “DO NOT HOTLINK THIS YOU BASTARDS” to get my point across as well? What sort of sign would it take to satisfy you?
I might add, on all my other (much larger and more established) sites I do have identifying information on most of my graphics themselves, and on the html file where they are displayed. And yet people still hotlink to these files, even with all these warnings in place. And you still claim this is ethical?
How do you determine “permissions” for the electical outlet of someone else’s building? Do you just assume that since you can leech electricity from it, that you have permission? Or do you feel the need to pursue the matter further, since you don’t actually own the building, and you didn’t pay for the electricity?
How is this any different? Oh yeah. It’s on the Internet. That magically makes it “different.” :rolleyes:
Of course. They could be visually impaired and therefore could not see my warning! Of course, if they are visually impaired, what use do they have for my graphics anyway?
So ntucker how did you find that el-capitan.jpg? Don’t say you googled because I just tried that and it doesn’t bring up the file. Exactly what steps did you follow?
So it doesn’t say that you may link to it, or that you may put an embedded link in your own web page without attribution, it just says you may retrieve a copy. Right?
-
What sign would it take to “satisfy me”? You’ve already put it up: you revoked permission to view the files when the referrer isn’t you. Fucking perfect. Don’t give me any crap about how you “shouldn’t have to” do this, because it’s irrelevant. The fact that you have to doesn’t mean people are breaking the law, it means anonymous people aren’t as polite as you’d wish, much like you’d find out if you set up some kind of “free stuff (take only one!)” table in the middle of the city and left it unattended.
-
This is where the silly electrical outlet analogy breaks down (as most analogies between the physical world and the internet eventually do): the way you have to determine permissions for the electrical outlet is look around it, because it doesn’t have a built-in permissions mechanism. Note that this isn’t practical on the internet because “looking around” the file isn’t always possible when all you have is a URL.
-
Tell you what, Princhester, I’m not going to tell you how I found that file (although I will say, it’s two clicks from this thread, and there are no hotlinking warnings in between). The challenge for you is to find the page that says whether or not it’s ok to hotlink that picture, and tell me how you decide whether a) it doesn’t exist or b) you just haven’t found it yet (remember: can’t prove nonexistence) And if you do find it, how are you sure it’s the right one? Hint: this isn’t it.
-
No, I never saw any permission to “link to” it, and I’m not surprised, because “linking to” the image isn’t a significant action with respect to its use. Let’s say I have linked to the image. In a file that is only accessible on a web server behind my firewall. And nobody (not even me) has ever even viewed that page with a web browser. What crime did I commit? Bandwidth Petty Theft of zero bytes?
And if I was with an NT server, I couldn’t do this. What then? Are all people who have sites with NT servers automatically giving permission for everyone to leech their files?
I don’t see why. I shouldn’t have to lock my house for other people to KNOW that they have no “permission” to go inside. The reason I lock it anyway is because some people are selfish, unethical tresspassers or thieves. The unlocking of a house is not “permission,” and the people who wander in anyway are not suddenly “ethical” because they discovered that they could enter an unlocked house and did so.
You mean that they aren’t as ethical as I’d wish. Thanks, I already knew that. These people are selfish and unethical.
How do you figure that? I mean, the outlet works, anyone can plug something in and use it. If that is not “permission,” what is? I mean, if they didn’t want everyone to use the outlet, they could set a lock on it, or put up a sign, now couldn’t they?
Read what I wrote above. Apparently, all that is needed for “permission” is the ability to use the file. Right? So why isn’t it the same with the random electrical outlet?
Oh. Right. It’s on the Internet, and therefore, that magically makes it different. You never really explain how it’s so profoundly different, only that it is.
I haven’t read a single post, but whatever Yosemite is saying, is right. 
What about NT makes this impossible? I could do it in two lines of ASP. I think you mean you couldn’t figure out how to do it in NT.
And the difference between a file on a web server and an electrical outlet isn’t that one’s on the internet, it’s that one has an explicit fucking permissions mechanism. Pretend not to grasp this point all you want, but it’s pretty obvious.
That’s exactly what I mean. 
I asked this earlier, but nobody addressed it: if it’s so easy, please tell me how. Please give a link or something so that all of us non-techie types who don’t want (or can’t) learn a whole new computer language can protect our files.
I asked the tech support on my NT web host (I only have one domain remaining there) and they had no answers for me, other than to “take it up with your web designer.” I looked on the Internet for an answer to this problem, and didn’t find much, other than a very expensive solution, and another solution that required (as far as I could see) that I have my graphics files all in one folder. Which I don’t. I’d move my site to a new host before I’d overhaul it to that point.
And there can be “explicit permissions” with the electrical outlet as well, can’t there? A lock on the outlet would be one way to make the “permissions” explicit. To not put that lock on there would be pretty explicit as well, wouldn’t it? To just leave the outlet there, all out in the open, why, that’s just telling everyone to take freely, now isn’t it?
The mechanism might be different, but the outcome is the same. If the owner of the outlet does not give “permission” for everyone to use their outlet, they can physically bar them from using the outlet (like putting a lock on the outlet). If they don’t do that, it must mean that they give permission, right? That’s the logic you’re using here.
And so the same goes for the files on the internet, apparently. One actually has to make it impossible for someone to hotlink their files (by setting up an htaccess file, or turning on hotlink protection in cPanel). So, in other words, in order to not give “permission,” you have to physically bar them from doing the thing (hotlinking, and, one would assume, leeching electricity). And to fail to effectively bar them from taking or leeching or whatever is the same thing as giving “permission” then, right? I’m just using your logic here.
World Eater: You crack me up!
I can try to come up with an example, but the basic idea is that you deny access to any image directly, and instead you link to all images through an ASP page which checks Request.ServerVariables(“HTTP_REFERER”) before spitting out the image, returning whatever error code you want (401 forbidden, 404 not found, etc). I confess that it’s probably more like 10 lines of ASP, not 2.
No. You apparently don’t understand the terms “explicit” and “implicit.” This explains a lot.
No, you’re not. You’re still confused about explicit vs implicit.
Oh, and when I say I’ll come up with an example, I mean later. At the moment I have paint to scrape while it’s light out. 