Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Can we please stop hotlinking pics?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

March 30, 2010 10:25 a.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

JeffHarbert wrote:

And thanks for taking the time to actually discuss this rather than trying to make me look stupid like most other people who've posted in this thread.

With a not so friendly thread starter like this:
JeffHarbert wrote: Knock off the picture hotlinking. Stop being lazy. Download and save pics to your own service or site. Hotlinking is stealing bandwidth, period.

And really? Once a site stops your hotlink and exposes you for the cheap schmuck you are, interest has been lost in whatever the heck it was you were talking about in the first place.

So, avoid the schmuckitude and host pics yourself.

You are getting waaaay less grief than you deserve.
March 30, 2010 10:26 a.m. 4cylndrfury SuperDork
March 30, 2010 10:33 a.m. carzan Reader

JeffHarbert wrote:

carzan wrote: If I simply provide the link of the image to a forum instead of hotlinking and everyone on the forum views it, I'm no longer "stealing" even though collectively, the same amount of bandwidth was used by those viewing?

It's only the same amount of bandwidth if everyone clicks the link every single time they view the page. This is unlikely. Even so, this also opens up a whole monetization argument. In a nutshell, when a link to an image is clicked, that click is registered as clicked-through traffic, and the owner of that website can use those click stats to make money by selling CPM ads on his site. Looked at it from this angle links are best, and hotlinking is potentially stealing twice - once for the bandwidth and the second time for the potentially denied ad revenue.

Why? I thought the image would be cached in the computer so it would be downloaded once regardless of being hotlinked or not. Is this not true? Regardless, whether or not hotlinked, hyperlinked or cut-and-paste, they would be using bandwith (no matter the amount) and by your own definition, it would still be stealing. If that is the way it is being interpreted, then I would be guilty of stealing anytime I lead someone to an image on a website other than an image hosting site (and they viewed it) and I suppose they would, too.

Anyone running a website knows the potential for it becoming very popular, very quickly if it contains the right content. If they have a problem with people hotlinking, they have the means to prevent it. Looking at your personal email at work (even on break) could be considered stealing, but many businesses don't mind. The ones that do, have the means to block it.

JeffHarbert wrote:

carzan wrote:

But you are saying if I DOWNLOAD that image and transfer it to my own server or another hosting site and share it, it's ok...it's...um...not stealing? Can I do this with music and movies, too?

This gets into the area of copyright law. It's only stealing if you cost someone a sale. This is why sharing MP3 files (obviously excepting one that are intentionally offered for free by a recording artist) is illegal - it costs the recording artist a sale. But yes, you can save an image to your own site and serve it from there, using bandwidth that YOU pay for, as long as you're not costing someone a sale by doing so.

As pointed out above, saving copyrighted material to your computer is regarded as illegal. That was my point of my last question. Hotlinking may be frowned upon, but the alternative you suggest may be worse.

You complain about how this thread has turned out, but look at your original post. It came off as accusatory and insulting with remarks like "lazy", "schmuck" and insinuating thievery over an issue that the overwhelming majority feel is a non-issue including website owners? Really, what did you expect?
March 30, 2010 11:08 a.m. Tommy Suddard SonDork
March 30, 2010 11:22 a.m. Trans_Maro Dork

Jeff, it's ok..

My first beer hit me pretty hard too.
March 30, 2010 12:04 p.m. poopshovel SuperDork
March 30, 2010 12:32 p.m. carzan Reader

JeffHarbert wrote:

In reply to carzan:

Where you do draw the line? At what point is it no longer ok to steal from someone?

Well, maybe it isn't so black-and-white, right-and-wrong. Teh iNtArWeB doesn't come with a set of instructions.

Using a low-tech example: If a bathroom facility is located in a mall and there is nothing about it that would indicate otherwise, those in the mall are going to assume it is for everyone. If it is not, the owner needs to either step up and indicate that it is for his customers only, or allow the use to continue.

If the proprietor chooses to allow non-customer use of his facility, are those non-customers stealing? If he simply chooses to ignore them, are they stealing?
March 30, 2010 12:52 p.m. ManBearSTIG New Reader

They are stealing the poop waterz!
March 30, 2010 12:56 p.m. xd New Reader

JeffHarbert . If the site owners cared a E36 M3 about hotlinking they could simply block it in their htaccess file. So clearly if it in not blocked they don't give two E36 M3s. So shut up and go on with your self .
March 30, 2010 1:13 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork

I've been caught stealing; once when I was 5... I enjoy stealing. It's just as simple as that. Well, it's just a simple fact. When I want something, I don't want to pay for it.

I walk right through the door. Walk right through the door. Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine. Mine all mine!
March 30, 2010 1:13 p.m. Chris_V SuperDork

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Again, youre upset aboutthe entire reason the web is created? Liniking is the POINT of the web You son't want youre E36 M3 linked to, don't put it on the web.

Her'es stealing: you create a website, someone dupkicates that website and says it's theirs. I made a website once about the buildup of my V8 RX7. I found later someone had redone my website in french and rehosted it in Canada as their own.

Posting my pictures that i'm hosting in some other forum somwhere? not stealing, even if it's using up some of the bandwidth that i pay for.

Here's the rub: you put it on the web for people to see. If you get pissed about people posting a picture on some other website, like a forum, then you ALSO have to get pissed at them visiting your site to see said photo as it uses up the same bandwidth. And doing so is, sorry to say, patently stupid, as putting it on theweb is specifically to have other people see it. if you only want YOU to see it, you already HAVE it on your computer and can look at it at any time.

So if i post a picture of my car:

And you like it and want to show someone on another forum this car you saw, then you simply post the picture there (which is why the img src code was invented) and others get to see it. It makes no difference whether people see that picture posted on that forum, this one, or go to my website to see the entire set. None. It's ONLY stealing if you take the picture, change the watermark to your own, then host it yourself as though it's YOUR picture.

Linking is how the web works, how it's designed to work, and how it SHOULD work. If you can't handle that simple fact, you need to leave it alone.
March 30, 2010 1:14 p.m. Shaun Reader

JeffHarbert wrote:

In reply to carzan:

It is black and white when it comes to bandwidth, and I've explained why. Using bandwidth you don't pay for without permission is stealing. It doesn't matter if they don't know you're using it. I would know I'm doing it, and I know it's stealing, and so I don't do it.

I had no idea that I was hotlinking, and no idea that it is considered bad "NetEtiquette". I searched and the discussion seems to center on blogs that experience high traffic that hot link some poor shmucks site and the shmuck gets blasted with hits that are not being leveraged into income so it costs said shmuck money and or slams their home server. I can see the problem there. Does the sort of hotlinking done here, which is essentially banter between 2 dozen people in a small chat room, fall into the same category? I didn't see that as part of the discussions I read.
March 30, 2010 1:15 p.m. oldsaw Dork

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.
March 30, 2010 1:55 p.m. oldsaw Dork

In reply to JeffHarbert:

If a grove-owner didn't want anyone picking-up fallen fruit, he/she would take appropriate steps to prevent it from happening.

This, in no way, mitigates the "theft" to which you allude. But, making this such an issue is no more effective than equating drivers who go 5-over with drunken, texting pedophiles speeding 20-over to get to a playground.
March 30, 2010 1:59 p.m. EastCoastMojo SuperDork

Now, don't be bringing the drunken, texting pedofiles into this!
March 30, 2010 2:17 p.m. carzan Reader

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. The I read it is that you already know the grove owner won't use fallen fruit, which means you have permission to pick up an orange off the ground. I'm sure that's not what you meant since you're trying to prove me wrong, so could you please clarify?

WHAT???!! How does knowing the grove owner won't use the fallen fruit equate to "permission" to take it? By your definition, if he didn't expressly say you could take it, the fact that it was there and not used by him is irrelevant. It's still stealing.
March 30, 2010 2:49 p.m. oldsaw Dork

carzan wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. The I read it is that you already know the grove owner won't use fallen fruit, which means you have permission to pick up an orange off the ground. I'm sure that's not what you meant since you're trying to prove me wrong, so could you please clarify?

WHAT???!! How does knowing the grove owner won't use the fallen fruit equate to "permission" to take it? By your definition, if he didn't expressly say you could take it, the fact that it was there and not used by him is irrelevant. It's still stealing.

This seems a contradiction to a certain post about using non-designated restrooms in a mall environment.
March 30, 2010 3:00 p.m. Jensenman SuperDork

I gotta hotlink this thread somewhere.

Y'all reckon it could eventually rival the 'Ignore' thread?
March 30, 2010 3:10 p.m. Tommy Suddard SonDork
March 30, 2010 3:11 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork

oldsaw wrote:

carzan wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. The I read it is that you already know the grove owner won't use fallen fruit, which means you have permission to pick up an orange off the ground. I'm sure that's not what you meant since you're trying to prove me wrong, so could you please clarify?

WHAT???!! How does knowing the grove owner won't use the fallen fruit equate to "permission" to take it? By your definition, if he didn't expressly say you could take it, the fact that it was there and not used by him is irrelevant. It's still stealing.

This seems a contradiction to a certain post about using non-designated restrooms in a mall environment.

SWEET MOTHER OF GOD! Do not take the fallen fruit or the hedgehogs will evolve to climb trees. Then we are all doomed.
March 30, 2010 3:21 p.m. oldsaw Dork

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

carzan wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. The I read it is that you already know the grove owner won't use fallen fruit, which means you have permission to pick up an orange off the ground. I'm sure that's not what you meant since you're trying to prove me wrong, so could you please clarify?

WHAT???!! How does knowing the grove owner won't use the fallen fruit equate to "permission" to take it? By your definition, if he didn't expressly say you could take it, the fact that it was there and not used by him is irrelevant. It's still stealing.

This seems a contradiction to a certain post about using non-designated restrooms in a mall environment.

SWEET MOTHER OF GOD! Do not take the fallen fruit or the hedgehogs will evolve to climb trees. Then we are all doomed.

Yup!

Next thing, you know, those damn mutants will invent plumbing.
March 30, 2010 3:31 p.m. Marty! HalfDork

Ok, not to pick on Jeff here because this site has had some pretty redickulous discussions before, but that's when I tend to learn things.

I know about bandwidth and all but how much money are we talking here???

I have no idea what the going rate is for MB's is or how much a 110kb pic that is hotlinked costs. I need some numbers here before I take sides. If somebody has a commercial site I would think that would be considered part of doing business (kinda like using a squeegee at a gas station). Now if I cost a site $1.59 every time I do it I might knock it off. Enlighten me here.

And just because I can
March 30, 2010 3:36 p.m. John Brown SuperDork

On all of my websites I through-link to Google Images (picasaweb) so when someone hotlinks my stuff it goes through my site and belongs to the one I do not pay for.

When you see this:

From picasa web hosting via Google for free forillydoe
March 30, 2010 3:40 p.m. carzan Reader

oldsaw wrote:

carzan wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

In reply to JeffHarbert:

Isn't that like accusing someone of theft if they pick-up an orange the fell from a tree, when the grove-owner will only accept fruit that is still hanging off the limb?

When the owner considers fallen-fruit as a "cost of doing business", that seems to be his decision and no one else's.

I'm not sure I understand your analogy. The I read it is that you already know the grove owner won't use fallen fruit, which means you have permission to pick up an orange off the ground. I'm sure that's not what you meant since you're trying to prove me wrong, so could you please clarify?

WHAT???!! How does knowing the grove owner won't use the fallen fruit equate to "permission" to take it? By your definition, if he didn't expressly say you could take it, the fact that it was there and not used by him is irrelevant. It's still stealing.

This seems a contradiction to a certain post about using non-designated restrooms in a mall environment.

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to ME?!! No contradiction on my end. I was making a statement using what appears to be JH's logic (hence the "By your definition" part of the second line). How did he come to the conclusion that it was ok to take the fruit just because it was lying there (concluding that he had permission because it wasn't going to be used) and still so vehemently defend the bandwidth theft argument?
March 30, 2010 3:53 p.m. EastCoastMojo SuperDork

I miss the pics of hot links.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You'll need to log in to post.