RANT: HOT LINKING to other sites

[quarkx]

I just wanted to warn people and remind them about proper 'net edicate. DO NOT HOTLINK photos to other sites PLEASE. Set up a photobucket or other free account and go nuts.

The reason I bring this up is some "wing nut" out there hotlinked one of my blog pictures to www.pouet.net and bandwidth has shot up through the roof, so much in fact that I am now on my web hosters "BAD" list. I don't really care if you "steal" my photos and I love it when you come to my site, but Hotlinking is just wrong and my host is blocking Pouet.net all together.

[tribz]

Go on then, I'll bite. Was it an AW member that did it ... it is likely to be a problem here?

[quarkx]

I really do not know or Care who did it, but Pouet.net came up in another thread. Kind have though it was a coincidence that I had just been on the phone for an hour with my web hoaster getting my *SS chewed off over it. Seems I have had over 10 thousand hits just to that photo in the last few days alone, but only a hundred or so actual page hits.
anyways, only Wayne would now if it is a problem here.
It's just common sense. Open up a free hosting account, right-click and save as. No one will care if you post it all over the net then.

Install an anti-hotlink mod and that'll solve it.

[tribz]

If they had linked back, wouldnt it have had the same effect anyway? 10k hits doesnt sound like a lot. Is your hoster stingy with bandwidth?

[Hans_]

tribz wrote:
If they had linked back, wouldnt it have had the same effect anyway? 10k hits doesnt sound like a lot. Is your hoster stingy with bandwidth?

It's not the same. If someone links to your site, then you have people visiting your site. If, on the other-hand, someone hotlinks to one of your image, then they are showing one of your images on their site, and using up your bandwidth. That's not fair; a website should pay for the bandwidth of its own visitors, instead of using up someone else's bandwidth.

I once had a European computer store hotlink to one of the images on my website, and I was getting my bandwidth used up by people who weren't visiting my site at all. I solved it by renaming the image so that it broke all their image links.

If you want to show someone else's images on your site, get permission, and host it yourself.

Hans

[B00tDisk]

Goatse 'em!

[Trev]

Kind have though it was a coincidence that I had just been on the phone for an hour with my web hoaster getting my *SS chewed off over it.

You pay these people money, and you let them berate you? For something that's not even your fault? I would have been livid.  Screaming. Threatening, perhaps. There's nothing I hate more than poor customer service.

[Trev]

It's not the same. If someone links to your site, then you have people visiting your site. If, on the other-hand, someone hotlinks to one of your image, then they are showing one of your images on their site, and using up your bandwidth. That's not fair; a website should pay for the bandwidth of its own visitors, instead of using up someone else's bandwidth.

Well, except by hot linking, the end user is only downloading the image. If you linked to the page hosting the image, they'd also be downloading the hosting page and any other referenced elements, i.e. using even more bandwidth. It's a lose-lose situation. Bottom line, if one doesn't want the public downloading one's stuff, one shouldn't publish it  in the first place.

[quarkx]

Wayne wrote:
Install an anti-hotlink mod and that'll solve it.

My host is doing it right now.

My host is generously donating the space fore my site, but when it starts costing him money due to over bandwith usage, that's when he gets upset. But that is not the issue here.
The issue is Common curtsy and net educate.-Don't Hotlink . Period. You are burning other people's bandwith/money

[buzz]

I would say that if you cant/dont have the bandwidth for people to hotlink, then these measures should have already been put in place. And it doesn't sound that generous to me from what you have said was the reaction etc.

Good luck with educating the internet.

[Hans_]

Trev wrote:

Well, except by hot linking, the end user is only downloading the image. If you linked to the page hosting the image, they'd also be downloading the hosting page and any other referenced elements, i.e. using even more bandwidth. It's a lose-lose situation.

The point is that with hot-linking your bandwidth is being used up by non-related traffic, whereas linking to your website results in more visitors. Those visitors have to click on the link, whereas with hot-linking, they just use up your bandwidth. Yes, that may result in even more bandwidth, but it's the result of actual visitors. With some sites this is just a nuisance, but if you're making money from your website (e.g., an online shop, or a popular blog with adverts), then someone else using up your bandwidth for people who don't even visit your site is a big deal.

Bottom line, if one doesn't want the public downloading one's stuff, one shouldn't publish it  in the first place.

This isn't about whether someone should be viewing the images or not, it's about one publisher using up someone else's bandwidth.

I'm fine with paying for extra bandwidth if I get a large influx of visitors from another site; I'm not okay with paying for bandwidth used up by another site embedding my content into their pages.

Hans

[quarkx]

Hans_ wrote:

Trev wrote:

Well, except by hot linking, the end user is only downloading the image. If you linked to the page hosting the image, they'd also be downloading the hosting page and any other referenced elements, i.e. using even more bandwidth. It's a lose-lose situation.

The point is that with hot-linking your bandwidth is being used up by non-related traffic, whereas linking to your website results in more visitors. Those visitors have to click on the link, whereas with hot-linking, they just use up your bandwidth. Yes, that may result in even more bandwidth, but it's the result of actual visitors. With some sites this is just a nuisance, but if you're making money from your website (e.g., an online shop, or a popular blog with adverts), then someone else using up your bandwidth for people who don't even visit your site is a big deal.

Bottom line, if one doesn't want the public downloading one's stuff, one shouldn't publish it  in the first place.

This isn't about whether someone should be viewing the images or not, it's about one publisher using up someone else's bandwidth.

I'm fine with paying for extra bandwidth if I get a large influx of visitors from another site; I'm not okay with paying for bandwidth used up by another site embedding my content into their pages.

Hans

Exactly my point, it seems everyone wants to blame everything on other sources and even turn my web host 'Into the bad guy" but I see his point. I really appreciate the free site, but if the bandwith gets too much, without people actually coming to see my site, then I will have to fork over some cash or shut the site down. I don't mind forking over a few bucks, but if it so people can see funny pictures on someone else's site, then I guess I will pull the site. I can think of a million other things to spend my money on (like more Amiga stuff).

[buzz]

I'm fine with paying for extra bandwidth if I get a large influx of visitors from another site; I'm not okay with paying for bandwidth used up by another site embedding my content into their pages.

fine then don't allow it. you can check the referrer easily enough. of course if someone makes their browser hide referrer information, there isn't much you can do.

but there is no point complaining about it.

[LoadWB]

A simple mod_rewrite rule in Apache will end that.