Can we please stop hotlinking pics?

Hotlinked with pride!

JeffHarbert wrote: GRM and its forum members would rightfully be pissed.

We wouldn't be pissed, we'd just wait for Baxter to take his hammer to the server. It would be back up in no time.

Edited because not only can I not hotlink, I can't make the damn quote thingy work right either.

Tommy Suddard wrote: Hotlinked with pride!

Anarchist!

What is this Hotlink you speak of?

Mmmm, now those are some hot links.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: What is this Hotlink you speak of?

Wally wrote:

Brokelink, hotlinker!

^

ClemSparks wrote: Serious cat has me laughing out loud... I wish there was an abbreviation for that...laughing out loud.

I think there is, but if we say it we would be stealing from whomever said it first. It is easy to say that everyone types some abbreviation for laughing out loud, but that doesn't make it right. Using that abbreviation without proper permission is no different than stealing a box of pens from Microsoft and driving off with Ken Block.

ClemSparks wrote: Serious cat has me laughing out loud... I wish there was an abbreviation for that...laughing out loud.

Here ya go!

This thread is only missing one thing:

ClemSparks wrote: Serious cat has me laughing out loud... I wish there was an abbreviation for that...laughing out loud.

JeffHarbert wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: I'm not sure I understand the argument against hotlinking. I host lots of photos on my own personal photobucket, which is cool because it gives me the ability to track where clicks are coming from. Even if somebody copies my source code and posts it somewhere else, it will still work. If they copied the photo and hosted it themselves, I wouldn't be able to see those statistics. If I run short on bandwidth, I could choose to take it down. If it's something valuable, I can watermark it and keep the full-res, unwatermarked versions for myself. The way I see it, as the originator of this content, it's my responsibility to control what's made available to the world, not the world's responsibility to re-host my pictures. To the OP- help me understand why I am wrong.

Photobucket, Flickr, Imgur, and other photo hosting sites are obviously fine - that's what those sites are for in the first place. But I'm not talking about photo sharing sites. Take the pic that slefain posted. It's hotlinked from http://ferdyonfilms.com/. Unless that's slefain's site, he's stealing bandwidth from that site for that pic every time it gets loaded (browser caches aside) by a GRM reader. Let's say GRM had one of their pics hotlinked on a popular website that got posted to a thread on Fark, Digg, or 4Chan. With millions of potential hits, the bandwidth hit to GRM could surge and the site could be brought down. GRM and its forum members would rightfully be pissed. Hotlinking and saying the bandwidth doesn't matter because everyone has broadband now? That's the same argument that people use to justify pirating Microsoft software or take home a box of pens from work. It may not put a big dent in their bottom line, but it's still stealing.

I'm still a little unclear on this. So what you are saying is that when you search Google and find a picture on a site that is not a photo hosting site, by hotlinking, you are "stealing" that sites bandwidth? Are you not also "stealing" their bandwidth by simply viewing that image yourself? Is Google also guilty of "stealing" (or at least an accomplice) because the image is provided and displayed through them. 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? 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?

JeffHarbert wrote: wooohaaawwwhjhsdfhslkdhgjsdlghjlshdjlfgs

JeffHarbert wrote: Photobucket, Flickr, Imgur, and other photo hosting sites are obviously fine - that's what those sites are for in the first place. But I'm not talking about photo sharing sites. Take the pic that slefain posted. It's hotlinked from http://ferdyonfilms.com/. Unless that's slefain's site, he's stealing bandwidth from that site for that pic every time it gets loaded (browser caches aside) by a GRM reader. Let's say GRM had one of their pics hotlinked on a popular website that got posted to a thread on Fark, Digg, or 4Chan. With millions of potential hits, the bandwidth hit to GRM could surge and the site could be brought down. GRM and its forum members would rightfully be pissed.

Since you're using our site as an example, I feel comfortable with saying "meh, not so much."

Linking (hot or otherwise) to our site drives up our google stats, shows more site traffic and generally spreads the word about what an awesome place this is to hang out at. I'd much rather people link to material here rather than steal it, host it on their owner server, and claim it's their own.

zomby woof wrote:

ClemSparks wrote: Serious cat has me laughing out loud... I wish there was an abbreviation for that...laughing out loud.

JeffHarbert wrote: You used the magic word - link. If an image is hyperlinked, yes, it would help your Google stats. If an image is merely embedded without a link, it doesn't help you at all. I just went through all the images in this thread. Only one is hyperlinked. How often do you think images taken from GRM are actually linked?

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's still a net gain for our site.

To prove it, somebody should link to THIS PICTURE and generate enough hits to make my internet bandwidth radar ping. If that doesn't also create a spike in site user traffic, I'm buying Jeff a beer and/or coffee.

To make your hotlinking experience easier...

We aren't trying to make you look stupid, we're just having fun at your expense.

JeffHarbert wrote: ...This gets into the area of copyright law. It's only stealing if you cost someone a sale....

I am pretty certain this is NOT true. It is true you are only really causing harm if you cost sales, but that does not mean using someones copyrighted image without a profit is not violating the copyright.

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.

You may have a point with your concern, but it is also somewhat of an amusing complaint and reminds me of something else I experienced once:

I was on the island of Catalina (small island off the coast of Los Angeles) which has a fair share of very "environmental" types. On a tour, one of the guides mentioned how many of the things are not native (good luck defining that) and that the local enviro types want to remove anything that is not native (again, native when?, the Jurassic period? anyway...). One of those things that is not native is Mustard Grass. Now I don't know if you have ever seen the hill in the southern California area around spring (now), but many are nearly covered in mustard grass (bright yellow). Remove it?!? Good luck with that:

(sorry about the hotlink)

That reminds me of the default xp desktop image.

< edit >Oops, well the mustard grass one does anyway.

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.