Bandwidth stealing..?

[RockMyAmadeus]

The notion of directing traffic and audience attention is not only a pretense,

 

It is most certainly not a pretense in every case. I have seen countless images that I found interesting, and then backtracked to the site they came from.

 

So, no.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So....since the dawn of the WWW as far as the general public has been concerned, the ease of linking pics from other websites has been easy, and, most importantly, not actively discouraged by anyone.

 

However...with bandwidth restrictions, many sites, especially small ones, are getting cranky about pic links. But are bandwidth restrictions in place everywhere? Does it really cost someone, somewhere money if someone links a pic every single time?

 

It depends on who's doing the leeching and the leeched's hosting set up. If a high profile site leeches an image from someone with draconian overage charges it can cost serious money.

 

Speaking as somebody who had a hosting bill go up by 25X one month because somebody grabbed an image off my site, it kind of sucks.

 

This is what I want to have NOT happen. But how do you avoid it without shutting down the concept entirely?

[comicwiz]

The notion of directing traffic and audience attention is not only a pretense,

 

It is most certainly not a pretense in every case. I have seen countless images that I found interesting, and then backtracked to the site they came from.

 

So, no.

 

You're not doing site owners like FD any favours with your bactracking, unless you vouch to cover the overage charges during your visit.

[Comicopolis]

Just save your porn pictures like everybody else does.

[heliosten]

This is only going to become more and more of an issue as the various ISPs start capping bandwidth. In May AT&T is capping usage of their 3 & 6 meg services at 150 GB a month. That may seem like a lot but if you host your own site it could become problematic.

 

Photobucket or a like site is the answer and really, they are very easy to use.

[Comicopolis]

bandwidth charges are the long-distance charges of the internet.

 

Eventually they wont exist, but until then, ISP's see them as a way to milk people for revenue.

 

Most reputable hosts/isp/etc dont charge for bandwidth unless you get into enterprise level throughput.

I do several GB per month in data bandwidth and it's still (and should always be) free...

 

And that's the truth. If your hosting service is charging for extra bandwidth, then switch.

[sckao]

 

What is important to ask is how does the website in question make its money?

 

If it's making it through page views/measurable metrics for advertising banners, then it WANTS your page views. (It doesn't want you to steal an isolated image from their site.) So if it's a comic related article, it wants you to read it while on their site... not on the CGC site where someone has copied and pasted the entire article.

 

If the website is an online retailer and trying to sell you something, then it wants you to be on their site... even if the original impetus was you following an image link. (This is a Mile High Comics trademark as many people link to their images.)

 

Small sites that can't handle the additional bandwidth should switch providers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The notion of directing traffic and audience attention is not only a pretense,

 

It is most certainly not a pretense in every case. I have seen countless images that I found interesting, and then backtracked to the site they came from.

 

So, no.

 

You're not doing site owners like FD any favours with your bactracking, unless you vouch to cover the overage charges during your visit.

 

Well that's certainly not entirely true. There are direct benefits like advertising dollars from hits, then there are unmeasurables, like business generated.

 

If it always costs people actual money to do this:

 

 

(that's my picture, from my listing, for which I paid eBay fees.)

 

...then I don't want to be doing it. But it's unclear that that's actually what happens on a 'net wide basis.

 

How, then, do we know? CAN we know?

 

I understand the issue about exposing sites to random hackers, but really, if I post a Marvel wikia picture here, is that exposing Marvel to hackers any more than their own site does? (I don't know, that's why I'm asking.)

 

Did I expose EBAY any more than they themselves do for posting that picture from my listing?

 

I KNOW I didn't cost eBay anything more in real money, because they own all of the mechanism on which they run anyways.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What is important to ask is how does the website in question make its money?

 

If it's making it through page views/measurable metrics for advertising banners, then it WANTS your page views. (It doesn't want you to steal an isolated image from their site.) So if it's a comic related article, it wants you to read it while on their site... not on the CGC site where someone has copied and pasted the entire article.

 

If the website is an online retailer and trying to sell you something, then it wants you to be on their site... even if the original impetus was you following an image link. (This is a Mile High Comics trademark as many people link to their images.)

 

Small sites that can't handle the additional bandwidth should switch providers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are fascinating questions being raised, here....

 

[heliosten]

Did I expose EBAY any more than they themselves do for posting that picture from my listing?

 

I KNOW I didn't cost eBay anything more in real money, because they own all of the mechanism on which they run anyways.

 

Yes.

 

Actually you did. Ebay just like everyone else pays for bandwidth. Now Ebay has a huge pipe so the impact of your single link isn't going to make that much of a difference, but imagine if everyone did it, there would be a definate impact. It may be cents, but yes, you did cost Ebay money if you were to link to that jpeg.

 

When using Ebay as an example the cost/damage is much, much less than if I were hosting my own website on a server at my house. But the impact is still there.

 

I certainly don't want to come across harsh, it is what it is and millions of people all over the planet are doing it as we speak and most don't even think about the impact. I'm a Network Admin. It's my job....

 

[comicwiz]

I kind of see what you're saying. Why would it be okay to direct link an image from eBay, but not from a small site run by, say a community member from these boards? I think the approaches and methods have a lot to do with the way we perceive proper or improper use.

 

I think the awareness element is also an important aspect to the discussion. If we're somehow made aware of the consequences of improper use through financial penalty, then perhaps we ought to be a little more responsible in understanding how our actions impact others.

 

Just because Google image search allows you to quickly recall thousands of images on your computer screen doesn't mean you can take the images and do what you want with them. And yet I was a victim of a Web design company that had used rights managed images on a company site without receiving permission or license to do so - a firm a past business partner insisted was the right choice. When the owner of the images came looking around for answers on why these images were used without their permission, the Web design company was no longer in business, and I was left footing a VERY expensive bill.

 

As far as hacking threats are concerned, the Google Hacking Database and similar projects scratch the surface as far as known methods, both instructional and detailed, on how hackers expose Website vulnerabilities using Google. Knowing that you're image is being direct linked and used in online environments is half the battle against hackers, so while some sites may appreciate you padding the flat count of views, attribution and permission can go a long way in ensuring your don't expose the site owner to undue risk.

[FlyingDonut]

The notion of directing traffic and audience attention is not only a pretense,

 

It is most certainly not a pretense in every case. I have seen countless images that I found interesting, and then backtracked to the site they came from.

 

So, no.

 

You're not doing site owners like FD any favours with your bactracking, unless you vouch to cover the overage charges during your visit.

 

I 99% of the time don't care, because I have massive amounts of bandwidth. One month my usage spiked monstrously. I spent a really pleasant hour of my life on the phone with the remarkably unfriendly tech support people at Earthlink.

 

Then I sicced Mrs. Donut on them and went to watch the game. You don't want to get Mrs. Donut on your on IT matters, because she's just going to mess you up. They're lucky they didn't end up paying me.

[theVisitor]

Prevent it - .htaccess

 

 

[comicwiz]

Prevent it - .htaccess

 

 

You realize that one of the known hacks on site image folders occurs through a planted .htaccess file? It's one thing to put an .htaccess file in place after you know about the attack, but there's also a remote possibility that when this type of attack occurs, your site passwords have been compromised and you wouldn't even have access to put this security safeguard in effect.

 

In fact a member recently contacted me asking for help with a site problem and I didn't want to alarm them but it seemed like it might have been related to a compromised .htaccess file.

[mikenyc]

Prevent it - .htaccess

 

 

You realize that one of the known hacks on site image folders occurs through a planted .htaccess file? It's one thing to put an .htaccess file in place after you know about the attack, but there's also a remote possibility that when this type of attack occurs, your site passwords have been compromised and you wouldn't even have access to put this security safeguard in effect.

 

In fact a member recently contacted me asking for help with a site problem and I didn't want to alarm them but it seemed like it might have been related to a compromised .htaccess file.

 

Not for this thread per se, but you make some pretty well thought out arguments. Intimidating for those like myself who make outrageous statements muddled with some homoerotic humor and deflection.

 

Thanks for keeping us classy!

[heliosten]

I kind of see what you're saying. Why would it be okay to direct link an image from eBay, but not from a small site run by, say a community member from these boards? I think the approaches and methods have a lot to do with the way we perceive proper or improper use.

 

I think the awareness element is also an important aspect to the discussion. If we're somehow made aware of the consequences of improper use through financial penalty, then perhaps we ought to be a little more responsible in understanding how our actions impact others.

 

Just because Google image search allows you to quickly recall thousands of images on your computer screen doesn't mean you can take the images and do what you want with them. And yet I was a victim of a Web design company that had used rights managed images on a company site without receiving permission or license to do so - a firm a past business partner insisted was the right choice. When the owner of the images came looking around for answers on why these images were used without their permission, the Web design company was no longer in business, and I was left footing a VERY expensive bill.

 

(thumbs u

 

As far as hacking threats are concerned, the Google Hacking Database and similar projects scratch the surface as far as known methods, both instructional and detailed, on how hackers expose Website vulnerabilities using Google. Knowing that you're image is being direct linked and used in online environments is half the battle against hackers, so while some sites may appreciate you padding the flat count of views, attribution and permission can go a long way in ensuring your don't expose the site owner to undue risk.

 

(thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

The notion of directing traffic and audience attention is not only a pretense,

 

It is most certainly not a pretense in every case. I have seen countless images that I found interesting, and then backtracked to the site they came from.

 

So, no.

 

You're not doing site owners like FD any favours with your bactracking, unless you vouch to cover the overage charges during your visit.

 

I 99% of the time don't care, because I have massive amounts of bandwidth. One month my usage spiked monstrously. I spent a really pleasant hour of my life on the phone with the remarkably unfriendly tech support people at Earthlink.

 

Then I sicced Mrs. Donut on them and went to watch the game. You don't want to get Mrs. Donut on your on IT matters, because she's just going to mess you up. They're lucky they didn't end up paying me.

 

 

Are Mrs. Donut's services for hire...?

 

I'm getting damn tired of AT&T.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Did I expose EBAY any more than they themselves do for posting that picture from my listing?

 

I KNOW I didn't cost eBay anything more in real money, because they own all of the mechanism on which they run anyways.

 

Yes.

 

Actually you did. Ebay just like everyone else pays for bandwidth. Now Ebay has a huge pipe so the impact of your single link isn't going to make that much of a difference, but imagine if everyone did it, there would be a definate impact. It may be cents, but yes, you did cost Ebay money if you were to link to that jpeg.

 

When using Ebay as an example the cost/damage is much, much less than if I were hosting my own website on a server at my house. But the impact is still there.

 

I certainly don't want to come across harsh, it is what it is and millions of people all over the planet are doing it as we speak and most don't even think about the impact. I'm a Network Admin. It's my job....

 

Are you absolutely sure it has anything greater than a zero impact on eBay's actual costs?

 

Again, I have no problem with it, because I paid for the right as part of the fee package. But that's eBay.

[rob_react]

One thing to point out is that bandwidth isn't free or unlimited for everyone. There are plenty of people (business, mostly) who are very strictly metered for every bit that goes out over the network because they're using a Content Delivery Network (CDN.) Here's exactly what I pay Amazon when someone hotlinks to one of my images.

 

Transfer Out United States

First 10 TB / month $0.150 / GB

Next 40 TB / month $0.100 / GB

Next 100 TB / month $0.080 / GB

Next 100 TB / month $0.070 / GB

Next 250 TB / month $0.060 / GB

Next 250 TB / month $0.050 / GB

Next 250 TB / month $0.040 / GB

Over 1000 TB / month $0.030 / GB

 

Requests

Per 10,000 HTTP requests $0.0075

Per 10,000 HTTPS requests $0.0100

 

So, for most cases it's an impossibly small number, but there's still a calculable cost.

 

[theVisitor]

Prevent it - .htaccess

 

 

You realize that one of the known hacks on site image folders occurs through a planted .htaccess file? It's one thing to put an .htaccess file in place after you know about the attack, but there's also a remote possibility that when this type of attack occurs, your site passwords have been compromised and you wouldn't even have access to put this security safeguard in effect.

 

In fact a member recently contacted me asking for help with a site problem and I didn't want to alarm them but it seemed like it might have been related to a compromised .htaccess file.

 

I was not aware.... Thanks for the info! (thumbs u

 

Phil