# Hatch says destroy the downloaders computers. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560 "2003-06-17T22:13:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/121 "2003-06-24T03:45:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **Oh, but they are not linking to simply a _site_—that is something few of us have a problem with.** Maybe you don’t have a problem with linking to HTML pages, but it’s the same thing, as far as the law and the software are concerned. The one difference is that images are generally loaded automatically by the browser (though some browsers don’t load images, and most can be told not to), and links are generally only loaded by user interaction (though spiders and some caches will automatically load all links). As far as having a problem with it, someone could certainly claim that linking to a sub-page, instead of the front page, robs them of banner ad revenue. Or they could go with the bandwidth leech angle - B makes a link from his site to A’s site, which causes Googlebot and other spiders to automatically load A’s site after it encounters B’s site. The link on B’s site causes spiders to use A’s bandwidth, just as an embedded image on a leech’s site causes browsers to use your bandwidth. > [@](#): > > **Because let’s be honest—how many people check the URLs of an embedded graphic, just to see if the graphic really “belongs” there?** How many people check the URL of a link to see if it will take them to a different site, or just a different page on the same site? > [@](#): > > **But the fact still remains—the webmaster who willingly linked their web page (usually embedded into their web page) to my server had to know ahead of time that they did not have permission to show my picture on their web site. And because of their selfish sense of entitlement, they do it anyway.** The question is whether they need permission at all. Do I need permission from the Chicago Reader to post a direct link to [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191542), instead of saying “Go to the SDMB, click Great Debates, then click ‘Hatch says destroy the downloaders computers’?” (Whoops, I did it anyway.) In both cases, the URL is simply a way to get the user’s computer to save him time. The author of the site that’s using your images could have said, “Go to yosemitebabe’s web site, click the third link on the left, and look at that picture. Now imagine it being right here.” Instead, they gave the user’s web browser a shortcut so the user wouldn’t have to go out of his way to do it. There is, of course, an additional question of whether the other site’s author is misleading her readers to think she created your picture, or holds the copyright on it. If she takes credit for your work, or presents it in such a way that the user has no way to know it’s not her work, that’s plagiarism and it’s wrong. But I can’t convince myself to feel the same way about simply linking to the file. > [@](#): > > **Stealing someone else’s content, _and_ bandwidth, against their will—well, they have to know that it’s stealing, and wrong—but they do it anyway.** By putting a file on your web server in a public place, you implicitly give the world permission to download it. > [@](#): > > **I don’t expect the web server to do anything other than what it is designed to do. But I do expect that other webmasters out there could use some common restraint and decency and not steal my bandwidth, my content, or both, especially since I have big honking statements on each of my pages saying that it is not permissable (or legal) to do so.** At this point, whether it’s legal depends on which state you’re in. (Thanks for the heads-up, **TWDuke**. I hope [vssp.com](http://vssp.com) gave you permission to link directly to that page. ;)) I agree that those other webmasters are jerks. But technically speaking, this is more or less what the web was designed to do, and I’d much rather see leeches fought with technical and social measures, instead of legal measures that may end up crippling the web. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/122 "2003-06-24T04:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Maybe you don’t have a problem with linking to HTML pages, but it’s the same thing, as far as the law and the software are concerned. The one difference is that images are generally loaded automatically by the browser (though some browsers don’t load images, and most can be told not to), and links are generally only loaded by user interaction (though spiders and some caches will automatically load all links). And that’s what I’m talking about—images from my server “embedded” into someone else’s web page, where they are automatically downloaded. A link is generally considered to be a text hyperlink, where the surfer is taken to a different HTML page, where the HTML content on that page will indicate that they are somewhere else (no longer on the linker’s page). > [@](#): > > As far as having a problem with it, someone could certainly claim that linking to a sub-page, instead of the front page, robs them of banner ad revenue. And so you think this is the same as linking directly to an image? It’s not. The sub-page will be distinctive enough for visitors to know that they are somewhere else; an embedded image from somewhere else is not even giving the visitor an inkling or a clue that they are using someone else’s server space, and are viewing someone else’s content. > [@](#): > > How many people check the URL of a link to see if it will take them to a different site, or just a different page on the same site? You mean to tell me that being directed to a completely different web site, designed by a different webmaster, with a different layout, color scheme, specific copyright notices, etc. would not tip them off? > [@](#): > > The question is whether they need permission at all. Do I need permission from the Chicago Reader to post a direct link to [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191542), instead of saying “Go to the SDMB, click Great Debates, then click ‘Hatch says destroy the downloaders computers’?” (Whoops, I did it anyway.) You’re trying to elude the issue. An embedded graphic is definitely different from linking to someone else’s HTML. > [@](#): > > In both cases, the URL is simply a way to get the user’s computer to save him time. The author of the site that’s using your images could have said, “Go to yosemitebabe’s web site, click the third link on the left, and look at that picture. Now imagine it being right here.” Instead, they gave the user’s web browser a shortcut so the user wouldn’t have to go out of his way to do it. There is no comprehensible reason why they cannot direct the visitor to the specific HTML page where the graphic in question resides. Webmasters do this to me all the time, and I have absolutely no problem with it. On each page has my copyright notice, terms of use, and information about my photos, for all visitors to see. I don’t have that many pictures on any one given page, so it really isn’t _that_ complicated for another webmaster to direct the visitor to the page, rather than the graphic. > [@](#): > > If she takes credit for your work, or presents it in such a way that the user has no way to know it’s not her work, that’s plagiarism and it’s wrong. But I can’t convince myself to feel the same way about simply linking to the file. But if she embeds a graphic in her own HTML page, and gives no mention of where the photo came from, who did it, is she not implying that the photo is hers? Or at least that there is no reason for anyone else to know who _really_ did it? Once again, I am not talking about linking to another complete HTML page, I’m talking about linking to a single graphic, or more specifically, _embedding_ the graphic in the HTML. > [@](#): > > By putting a file on your web server in a public place, you implicitly give the world permission to download it. So hotlinking is OK, then? Which is it? Is all content on the web a free-for-all, or are people who provide content entitled to control (just a little bit) how the content that _they_ pay for (and the bandwidth space that _they_ pay for) is distributed? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/123 "2003-06-24T05:11:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **And you are right on that—I need to get over that learning curve (providing my web host allows for some of these precautions) and figure out how to stop them. But you will agree, that the people who leech bandwidth are leeches, no? Stealing someone else’s content, _and_ bandwidth, against their will—well, they have to know that it’s stealing, and wrong—but they do it anyway.** I don’t see what “learning curve” there is. Any webhost worth its salt will provide you with a web interface to manage your site ([Cpanel](http://www.cpanel.net/) is a common choice), including whether or not to allow hotlinking. On my site, it’s easy – off of the main Cpanel menu, click the Hotlinking icon, then check the box that says “prevent hotlinking,” then press “OK.” That’s it; you’re done. There’s also a text entry area where you can stick in URLs that you want to allow as exceptions to the general no-hotlinking rule. If your webhost doesn’t provide this basic level of service, find a new webhost – there’s no excuse for not giving people basic control over their site. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/124 "2003-06-24T05:15:47Z")
Damn—I’ll have to look into that, Dewey. I tried to turn off hotlinking at a previous web host (by using some funky script) and ended up turning off the whole damned website! So I guess I’m feeling a bit gunshy after that. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/125 "2003-06-24T09:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nightime \* > \*\*In other words prove that if you would not or could not have bought something, that money is actually LOST. \*\* Nightime, I really don’t have any stake in convincing you what is right by definition. If you want to continue operating under the assumption that the law actually allows for the exceptions you mention, go right ahead. In fact, let me state it more emphatically, I do not for a second believe that it is completely beyond the means of you or anyone else to pay for any piece of music they have downloaded, not if you were inclined to respect the owner’s rights. But more importantly, the law does not provide for a “I really never intended to buy this exception,” despite your strong wish that this be so. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/126 "2003-06-24T13:24:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*Nightime, I really don’t have any stake in convincing you what is right by definition. If you want to continue operating under the assumption that the law actually allows for the exceptions you mention, go right ahead. In fact, let me state it more emphatically, I do not for a second believe that it is completely beyond the means of you or anyone else to pay for any piece of music they have downloaded, not if you were inclined to respect the owner’s rights. But more importantly, the law does not provide for a “I really never intended to buy this exception,” despite your strong wish that this be so. \*\* but the question was any damage done? i have seen cds for $22.50, i would never pay that for a cd, a movie maybe, but never a cd. would downloading the music from the cd damage the artist? no. so then would it be immoral? no. same goes for works the artists is not selling copys of anymore. you have pointed out it’s still illegal, well yes of course. however just becouse something is illegal is not enough to make it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kitfox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f6c823/32.png) [@Kitfox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kitfox)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/127 "2003-06-24T13:25:03Z")
So, its established that the destroying computers thing won’t work. Well, what would work to end file-sharing? The easiest way is to undercut the demand. The way I see it, the two main types of songs downloaded are radio singles and old and obscure stuff. The first seems amazingly easy to undercut. Downloading takes a fair amount of time, effort and equipment. However, at a savings of around $20 a song, it’s well worth it. Hear five songs on the radio you like? You can buy the CDs for nearly a hundred dollars or you can pay nothing but a couple hours of time, get the songs you want without the extraneous crap, and put them all on one CD. However, if all of those songs were availible as singles on CD and priced at maybe a dollar or so, that becomes less and less of a deal. All of the sudden, your couple hours online running vain searches for a crappy transfer that may have beeps on it isn’t saving you $100 anymore, but $5. Not seeming like such a great deal anymore, is it? And ya didn’t even have to break the law. The old and obscure stuff is going to be harder. I’m tempted to just let these folks go, but I suppose you could offer a subscription service that allowed people to download out of print music for a monthly fee. If the fee isn’t too large, I think that a lot of people might just pay it to keep from breaking the law, especially if it were more reliable than file-sharing. ---
**Author:** ![dylan\_73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecccb3/32.png) [@dylan\_73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dylan_73)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/128 "2003-06-24T14:39:34Z")
**yosemitebabe** : You can deter this kind of behaviour by changing the name of your picture, updating your website to reflect this, and creating a new picture that simply contains the text “\ and \ are complete and utter \” and saving this with the original name of your file. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/129 "2003-06-24T15:27:43Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > [B (Thanks for the heads-up, **TWDuke**. I hope [vssp.com](http://vssp.com) gave you permission to link directly to that page. ;))_\* You’re welcome, but did you read it? > [@](#): > > When users click on a simple link, they are taken to the other site and **know they are viewing another site**. > > Unless that link allows users to circumvent password protection or other mechanisms to control access, users are simply responding to what in essence is the second site owner’s invitation to visit. (Cited under fair use; my emphasis added; full text available [here.](http://www.vssp.com/FSL5CS/articles/articles861.asp)) That’s OK. This is different than a case in which "“the user typically would not realize that the image actually resided on another Web site” (ibid) That’s NOT OK. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/130 "2003-06-24T19:09:44Z")
TWDuke—yes, you are clarifying _exactly_ the point I’m trying to make. dylan\_73: Yes, I usually do that. When I see someone is hotlinking, I put up an embarrassing image (maybe of a pig, a picture of dog poop, or just a message saying that so-and-so is a bandwidth thief and copyright violator). The thing is, I have _hundreds_ of photos. Hundreds. It’s a big task, and I get behind. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/131 "2003-06-24T19:15:23Z")
TWDuke—yes, you are clarifying _exactly_ the point I’m trying to make. dylan\_73: Yes, I usually do that. When I see someone is hotlinking, I put up an embarrassing image (maybe of a pig, a picture of dog poop, or just a message saying that so-and-so is a bandwidth thief and copyright violator). The thing is, I have _hundreds_ of photos. Hundreds. It’s a big task, and I get behind. ---
**Author:** ![LifeIllustrator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/958977/32.png) [@LifeIllustrator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LifeIllustrator)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/132 "2003-06-24T21:04:15Z")
I think every forum on the web has to have a file sharing debate every 3 months. 🙂 I download a song every once in a while. I know it is stealing. I don’t care. It is an illegal procedure in the same way that a kid operating a lemonade stand can be shut down if they do not have a permit. Yeah, techinically it is illegal, but nobody really gives a damn, and the ones that do, well, they are suckers. Now the corporations are raising a stink these last few years because they are not the only ones allowed to steal anymore, and they don’t like it. I steal, my friends steal and corporations steal. It is the american way folks…and for those of you who can honestly say they have never stolen, that is fine…now you know where everybody else is doing the stealin’ from. ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/133 "2003-06-24T21:09:27Z")
Microsoft users beware. There are always new avenues for hackers to take control of your computer. All they’d have to do is have your computer download some mp3’s. They wouldn’t have to worry about causing damage to your computer, the government would handle that for them. This raises more possible legal challenges and problems. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/134 "2003-06-24T21:42:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yosemitebabe \* > **And that’s what I’m talking about—images from my server “embedded” into someone else’s web page, where they are automatically downloaded. A link is generally considered to be a text hyperlink, where the surfer is taken to a different HTML page, where the HTML content on that page will indicate that they are somewhere else (no longer on the linker’s page).** It may or may not indicate that. There are certainly sites with generic enough designs that you might not notice moving from one to another. For example, Slashdot’s design has been duplicated by many similar sites. Also, the generic index pages look exactly the same on every Apache server, except for a tiny “Generated by Apache/1.2.3 at [www.foo.com](http://www.foo.com)” footer. But in terms of “bandwidth theft”, the results are the same. You link to another page, spiders and caches load the other page after loading yours, net result: your link causes extra traffic for the other page. > [@](#): > > **There is no comprehensible reason why they cannot direct the visitor to the specific HTML page where the graphic in question resides.** Sure there is - it’s more convenient for the visitor. The same reason you use hyperlinks to pages on other sites instead of giving directions. > [@](#): > > **So hotlinking is OK, then? Which is it? Is all content on the web a free-for-all, or are people who provide content entitled to control (just a little bit) how the content that _they_ pay for (and the bandwidth space that _they_ pay for) is distributed?** Either both \ links and \ links are OK, or neither are OK. I choose the former. Of course the person running a web server is entitled to control how his resources are used… by telling his web server who is allowed to load the files. He is _not_ entitled to control the links on other sites. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by TWDuke_ > **This is different than a case in which "“the user typically would not realize that the image actually resided on another Web site” (ibid)** What makes you so sure that users realize that a link will take them to another site? On some sites, external links appear different from internal links, but on most (like the SDMB) there’s no difference. Just as most users don’t hover their mouse over images to see which site they came from, most users also won’t check which site a link goes to, until they’ve already clicked on the link and “stolen” the other site’s bandwidth. ---
**Author:** ![Sock\_Munkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Sock\_Munkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sock_Munkey)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/135 "2003-06-24T21:52:23Z")
If I see an image I like I often check who did it and what site it came from to see if they have other images I might want to see. ---
**Author:** ![ParadoxJim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ParadoxJim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParadoxJim)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/136 "2003-06-24T23:44:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\* > Either both \ links and \ links are OK, or neither are OK. I choose the former. > \*\* Except \ and \ tags are quite different. For example, if your site relies on banner revenue, a hyperlink will forward the user to YOUR page, so the banners on your page can be exposed to the user. If someone else simply uses image tags to display your pictures on his site, then the banners will most likely never be displayed to the user. Often, people don’t care too much about the distribution of something as long as THEY GET CREDIT. Like **yosemitebabe** said, people can simply display images on their site without showing signs of proper credit, and the creator of the image will not get the credit he or she deserves. If there is a text link that directs the viewer to the creator’s site, the creator can ensure that the viewer sees the proper credits. > [@](#): > > \*\*What makes you so sure that users realize that a link will take them to another site? \*\* In MANY (if not most) cases, it will be quite obvious that you are at a new site, due to the change in top banner, color schemes, interface, etc. Likewise, most browsers have the address bar displayed at all times by default, so the URL of the PAGE is clearly visible. With image tags, the URL of the IMAGE is not immediately obvious unless people actively check it. Of course, it seems **Dewey** found an easy way of handling unwanted external linking. I hadn’t previously heard of such a web interface for managing your site, thanks for the heads up. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/137 "2003-06-25T00:34:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by netscape 6 \* > \*\*but the question was any damage done? i have seen cds for $22.50, i would never pay that for a cd, a movie maybe, but never a cd. would downloading the music from the cd damage the artist? no. so then would it be immoral? no. same goes for works the artists is not selling copys of anymore. you have pointed out it’s still illegal, well yes of course. however just becouse something is illegal is not enough to make it wrong. \*\* I will now assume that anyone reading my posts and determining that all I am doing is pointing out that this is illegal is in a state of mind I cannot reach with simple English. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/138 "2003-06-25T01:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ParadoxJim \* > **Except \ and \ tags are quite different. For example, if your site relies on banner revenue, a hyperlink will forward the user to YOUR page, so the banners on your page can be exposed to the user. If someone else simply uses image tags to display your pictures on his site, then the banners will most likely never be displayed to the user.** If you make an \ link directly to an article on your favorite news site, instead of linking to the front page and giving directions, then the user doesn’t see any of the banners on the front page or other sub-category pages, and the site loses that potential revenue. How is that any better? > [@](#): > > **Often, people don’t care too much about the distribution of something as long as THEY GET CREDIT. Like yosemitebabe said, people can simply display images on their site without showing signs of proper credit, and the creator of the image will not get the credit he or she deserves.** Then, like I’ve said, the creator of the image should convince the owner of the site to give proper credit, instead of just whining about the \ link. > [@](#): > > **In MANY (if not most) cases, it will be quite obvious that you are at a new site, due to the change in top banner, color schemes, interface, etc.** Many sites have different designs on different pages, and many sites look similar to other sites, whether intentionally or out of convenience (default styles that come with Apache, Slash, PHP-Nuke, LiveJournal, etc.). And, of course, the design is irrelevant to spiders and caches that automatically load links. Those programs don’t care whether the site has the same color borders as another site, they load it anyway, just as a browser automatically loads images. > [@](#): > > **Likewise, most browsers have the address bar displayed at all times by default, so the URL of the PAGE is clearly visible. With image tags, the URL of the IMAGE is not immediately obvious unless people actively check it.** How many people look at the address bar every time they click on a link? And how is this relevant to the issue of “bandwidth theft”, since the address bar doesn’t change until _after_ you load a page, incurring bandwidth costs for the site owner? Here’s a serious question: If an \ link isn’t acceptable, is an \ link to an image file acceptable? After all, it’s only loaded by direct user interaction (except for spiders and caches), and the address bar changes. But the artist still misses out on banner ad revenue, copyright notices, and so on, just like linking to an article on a news site. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bob Cos_ > **I will now assume that anyone reading my posts and determining that all I am doing is pointing out that this is illegal is in a state of mind I cannot reach with simple English.** I gotta say, if you have a point besides “copyright infringement is illegal”, it’s lost on me as well. Look at your earlier post: (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > **If you want to continue operating under the assumption that the law actually allows for the exceptions you mention, go right ahead.** In fact, let me state it more emphatically, I do not for a second believe that it is completely beyond the means of you or anyone else to pay for any piece of music they have downloaded, not if you were inclined to respect the owner’s rights. **But more importantly, the law does not provide for a “I really never intended to buy this exception,” despite your strong wish that this be so.** No one is claiming that it’s _legal_ to download music that you wouldn’t have paid for, only that the illegal download doesn’t harm the artist. ---
**Author:** ![ParadoxJim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ParadoxJim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParadoxJim)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/139 "2003-06-25T01:47:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*If you make an \ link directly to an article on your favorite news site, instead of linking to the front page and giving directions, then the user doesn’t see any of the banners on the front page or other sub-category pages, and the site loses that potential revenue. How is that any better? > \*\* Alot of sites have banners on all their pages. No doubt the person would make alot more money if everyone navigated through the front page, but if a viewer at least visits some pages of the creator’s site then banners can be viewed. > [@](#): > > \*\* > How many people look at the address bar every time they click on a link? And how is this relevant to the issue of “bandwidth theft”, since the address bar doesn’t change until _after_ you load a page, incurring bandwidth costs for the site owner? > > Here’s a serious question: If an \ link isn’t acceptable, is an \ link to an image file acceptable? After all, it’s only loaded by direct user interaction (except for spiders and caches), and the address bar changes. But the artist still misses out on banner ad revenue, copyright notices, and so on, just like linking to an article on a news site.\*\* Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot to mention it earlier 😉 Actually, an \ link to the image file is more acceptable than an \ link, because the viewer must click on the link first before any bandwidth is stolen. With IMG tags, the image is loaded automatically when the user visits the “third party” site. At least with \ links the user actually has to click before the image is loaded (which can make all the difference). Of course, alot of this comes down to a matter of opinion. ---
**Author:** ![netscape\_6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8c91f0/32.png) [@netscape\_6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/netscape_6)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560/140 "2003-06-25T03:05:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > \*\*I will now assume that anyone reading my posts and determining that all I am doing is pointing out that this is illegal is in a state of mind I cannot reach with simple English. \*\* well then what are you pointing out? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hatch-says-destroy-the-downloaders-computers/182560.md?page=8)