Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Ok, I've been guilty of this before myself, but I've noticed a whole lot of bandwidth stealing here (and elsewhere, to pass blame around). What is stealing bandwidth? It's when you post a picture here at FF but the picture is hosted elsewhere and you do not have permission. What happens is, everytime that picture is viewed (which in some threads can be hundreds of times a day), the server where the picture is hosted is utilized. This can result in increased costs for the people who host the picture, and those who have paid to have the picture hosted. It is, in effect, stealing.

So ... are people just unaware of this, or do they not see anything wrong with it?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

This has been hashed and rehashed over and over again. It isn't stealing anything. Posting a picture is no different than telling a bunch of your friends about a picture you found on the internet and them going to the site and looking at a picture. Posting a picture isn't stealing any more than posting a link, which nobody has declared to be stealing. It's only theft if you try to pass it off as your own. If you don't want your pictures to be viewed on the internet for free, there are two things you can do: 1. Don't post pictures on the internet. 2. Get some damn software protection to limit access to approved users.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Since bandwidth stealing costs other people money, it is stealing.

Then why not do that. Or better yet, download the picture to your desktop, then upload it to FF? Instead of using IMG tags and inserting the URL of a picture on another site, taxing their server instead of FF's?

Linking to a site, and directly using their bandwidth are two entirely different things. The first forces the other server to accept FF's use of their bandwidth, the other leaves it up to the individual to decide if they want to go there or not.

I disagree. If your laziness costs other people money, you're doing them a disservice.

I think it's reasonable to expect people to, if they want to view my information including pictures, to access my own site to view it.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

And I thought stealing bandwidth was when I jump on my neighbor's Wireless Access Point.

In all seriousness, I'm not so sure I understand the logic behind this argument. The link provided makes an example of GeoCities that makes money based on viewing content with advertisements. That suggests that blocking advertisements (for example, with an HTTP proxy) is also bandwidth stealing.

And just from the OP, the logic is unclear. If slashdot creates a link to your site, you will get flooded with hits and exceed your quota. If you have popular content, it will consume bandwidth.

If you make your server public, why would you have any expectation of explicit control of the bandwidth?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

It costs the admins money to run this web site. Are you stealing everytime you visit?

You seem like a reasonable person but I'm not following the argument. What makes this a reasonable expectation?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

You pay for bandwidth for a site to allow people to look at the stuff on your site and if they look at it it's stealing. I don't think so. Show me a case that was successfully prosecuted.

I could, and have. What's the difference? It's still "Looky, looky." I admit, out of respect for the message board I'm posting in, a link would be better, consume less of it's bandwidth. But then, that's why some boards have policies about hotlinking, not because it's stealing but because it uses up their bandwidth.

Because then I'm representing it as my own and THAT is stealing. Linking to a picture on someone's website is NOT stealing.

Hotlinks in unopened pages do not do a damn thing. They are not two different things.

Oh, now, it's just a disservice. On that I agree. But, I don't agree that it is theft. If you put one of your paintings in your gallery window, you must want people to look at it. You would probably complain if the fleet of double-decker buses I hire to take people by to look at them because it might make access to your gallery more difficult because of the continuous stream of traffic, but I'm not doing anything illegal. Perhaps you shouldn't post it where people can see it without coming into your business.

There are a myriad of programs that can limit access to those that you chose to limit it to. Who is lazy now?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

GeoCities is a bad example. They use software that doesn't allow hotlinking or even indirect linking. If someone posts an image hosted on GeoCities, you have to cut and paste to the navigator bar to go to it. Oddly enough, that still bypasses the adverts.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

No, because I am patronizing them directly. However, if I start using the FF logo over on my own website, or use their gallery as an image host for my own website, which forces the admins here to pay for my own personal use of their own logo and bandwidth, I'm stealing.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

I have a question about cache - if I look at a hosted photo it is cached in my system right?

when I go back to it later, is it reading my cache or accessing the site?

The reason I ask is occasionally when my server is down, if I go to it - everything still shows for me... if I reload a couple of times then I get broken images.

IMO anyone who has to worry about bandwidth theft has a really shitty package. With domains/hosting service and servers as low priced as they are these days you should have a huge amount of traffic included with your deal virtually impossible to go over, or unlimited.

People need to shop around.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

That is a piss-poor excuse to justify bad behavior.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

OK, now it's just bad behavior, bad nettiquette, I suppose. Boo-freakin-hoo. Doesn't mean it's illegal.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Doing something illegal can reasonably be called bad behavior. If I took 10 dollars out of your wallet without your permission, that'd be bad behavior, would it not?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

TomJoe, you are just re-asserting your argument, not explaining it. I really don't understand how it's stealing.

The admins pay the cost. The admins decide to post pictures in a public place. Why should the FF admins expect that you will not use it for your own "personal use"? Why do the admins have any reasonable expectation about how you will use the publically available data? Especially when that expectation is not stated explicitly. On the contrary, I think if you don't want people to link to your site or include content from it, you should have to say so. Even then, given the technology of the Internet, it hardly seems like a reasonable expectation.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Maybe so, but if I left my wallet on a table out by the street with the money sticking out of it, I should share in the fault for it going missing, perhaps even expect it to happen. In fact, I'm not even sure it would be illegal in that case. Perhaps I should take some steps to secure my wallet. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

I think there is a difference between downloading the information, uploading it to my own servers, and displaying the information on my own website, thereby using resources paid for myself ... as opposed to using the images off of their own server, and forcing them to pay for my use of them.

You mean to tell me you see no difference?

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Your analogy is faulty. I'd equate a server to your house. The doors may be open, and your wallet may be on the table ... however that still does not give anyone the right to enter your house and take the money out of your wallet ... no matter whether it was in plain sight or not. It was still in your house.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Not true. It isn't inside my house. It's out where anyone can come by and look at it. Seriously, you need to check into this further. If it can be viewed by bypassing the home page, then it's out there where anyone can get to it. It is EXACTLY like leaving my open wallet out in the street.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Well, you disagree with my disagreement. I still think my adjustment of your analogy is correct. That information must be stored somewhere.

Like I said ... the information/image is stored somewhere. It's not as if it's just floating in the ether. Someone is paying for the bandwidth that image requires everytime it is accessed, and if you're using that image for your own purposes/gains and forcing someone else to foot the bill ... it's stealing.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

This is going nowhere. You say it is stealing. Post proof or retract.

There are thousands of sites that SAY it's stealing and it's illegal, but that doesn't make it illegal. Show me and everyone else the law that says it is, or the court decisions that say it is.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

Well how about this then.... ?

I don't know, I don't care... blow it out your underwear :wave:

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

It normally depends on the number of images, the number of people I think are accessing that image, the sort of site, etc.

For instance, I have no qualms about linking to images at BBC news sites. I do have qualms about linking to sites owned by an 'average Joe', and normally save the image and upload it onto some small webspace of my own I've got with my ISP (unless I'm in a hurry or forget).

It also depends on how popular the message board is. For instance, here on FF, I can't imagine we have a huge number of people reading the threads. It wouldn't put that much of a strain on someone's server. If I put it on a huge thread on IIDB or CF that lots of people read...that might be a problem.

Am I stealing? I don't know - the pictures are online for you to download. It may be rude, but it's not illegal, and it's probably not stealing. Even if it is by some definition 'stealing', I wouldn't be too fussed - as I said, I try to only link from people I think wouldn't mind.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

I have not seen any proof offered that posting a link and saying 'hey go check out this site' is any different then posting a pic.

I have 4 web sites.. 1 personal/3 for business, one of my sites is insane with traffic and I have never had an overage. I cannot imagine that someone hotlinking a pic would bring me to my knees, - it would however bring more customers to my door.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

You haven't been Farked yet then. But, then Farking is just a regular link to a webpage.

Re: Stealing bandwidth, and internet morality ...
 

That's why I (usually) also specify where my image is hosted. People seem to like traffic at their sites, and a link helps boost their traffic.