Why does this site condone bandwith stealing?

There are a ton of threads inviting people to post pictures they find on the web, or of hot models, or of cars, or of whatever, and most of them are directly linked from other websites that aren't setup for dedicated forum hosting (Imageshack and Photobucket).

Let's say I have NataliePortman.jpg on Xieish.com, and it gets posted in a few threads. The threads on this site can be viewed thousands and thousands of times, and the image is downloaded almost all of those loads, costing me a fair share of bandwidth. Long running threads are much higher still.

In one recent thread, a lot of the images had turned to X's because these forums sucked the site dry of bandwidth.

It's really not ethical, and if you realize that the web owners have to pay for bandwidth, it's stealing. You're using other people's private paid hosting for your benefit without their permission. This site should enforce and edit/deletion of hotlinked images policy, which is no less ridiculous than some of the policies instituted in the past and present.

 

Sort of reminds me of ArtyEwok's thread awhile back.

 

Yes, but that's over 19 months old, and it never really was a policy. It's also getting more and more out of hand.

I think an actual policy should be put into effect. It wouldn't be the worst.

 

I tend to agree with xie here. I imagine it's bad enough for people who have free image hosting (and therefore low bandwidth), but it has to be worse for those who pay for their hosting.

 

Basically, as with such matters as copyright infringement, the responsibility lies with the user, not the administration, to insure that they have all proper authorization to post something.

For example, the matter came up a while back about whether users should be allowed to post entire articles or not. The argument went that it was copyright infringement to post the article in its entirety.

However, that is not the case all of the time. There are some articlez or other works that are available under the Creative Commons Licenses that allow unlimited redistributuion. There are other cases where a user may have permission from the author to repost it (such as if it were written by a friend). How are we (as moderators) supposed to be able to differentiate between such cases and when it is unauthorized?

Similarly, how are we as moderators supposed to identify when a person has permission to post an image or not? Disallow all images? That's as draconian as disallowing all articles. PM every single user who posts an image to ask if they have permission? Quite frankly, that's a waste of time and manpower, and would divert from more important tasks of moderating.

At some point, the users have to take responsibility for their own actions. It is the responsibility of the users, not the administration, to make sure that they have permission.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I would have to side with Kinnision on this situation. Now, I've hosted plenty of sites, and I know exactly how much this whole thing can be if you're being sucked dry of bandwidth, but on the other hand, the administration here has no clue whatsoever on which image has permission or not.

I know I'm pretty much repeating what has been said, but it's the absolute truth, nonetheless. It's a waste of time and energy. The moderation here serves this site alone, and it's job isn't to serve an all-out investigation on every single image posted here, and yet it has no right to stop all images from being poster here.

 

Other sites do it. To be honest it seems like you're just being lazy.

If the URL isn't an image hosting site, or a site known to be owned by a JCer (For example we know I have Xieish.com, Dantooinebase.com) then edit it into a link.

If it was a policy, you wouldn't HAVE to police it, because it wouldn't be as rampant as it is now, where it is totally allowed.

 

There are sites that have linking policies that say that you cannot link to them without prior written approval. Should we edit out links to them (require only plaintext URLs)?

Do we edit all articles out, and require that people simply link to the article?

No. Why? Because that's not our responsibility. It's the user's responsibility to make sure that they have the appropriate permission.

When a person uploads a file to a public server, there is an implicit permission granted to access that file, and no limits are placed on that permission. If the site in question has access controls, or clear statements of what is permitted, that of course changes, but only as an agreement between the site in question and the user who links to it in one form or another.

The JC is not bound by any such agreement. If you wish, I can provide some of the caselaw to support all of that. If any civil or criminal charges are to be brought under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), they would be at the individual who committed the infringement, not the JC.

Just because other sites do it does not mean that the JC should or must implement such a policy as well.

If a site operator does not want to incur the bandwidth costs, then they need to place appropriate access controls on their site. An example of a site that does this is Bugzilla, which refuses links from SlashDot because of the high volume and bandwidth associated with it. This is not difficult to do. I've done it with my own web servers before.

It is not our responsibility, and it would also set a precedent for several other sorts of enforcements of agreements to which we are not a party.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Other sites do it. To be honest it seems like you're just being lazy.

Yes, other sites do it, but that doesen't necessarily mean we should follow. Lazy? Not necessarily.

If the URL isn't an image hosting site, or a site known to be owned by a JCer (For example we know I have Xieish.com, Dantooinebase.com) then edit it into a link.

If it was a policy, you wouldn't HAVE to police it, because it wouldn't be as rampant as it is now, where it is totally allowed.

That isn't a half-bad proposal, actually, but as Kinnision said, there's no real law preventing things from being the way they are right now. I wouldn't call it "rampant", but there can be plenty of problems caused by this. The bad thing that there is really no way to fix it within reasonable standards, so it's the JC's legal right to leave things the way they are.

 

Just because other sites do it does not mean that the JC should or must implement such a policy as well.

I meant that it was possible to do, rather than just saying we don't have the resources.

 

I'm kind of confused(being completely computer-illiterate) What does 'hotlinked' mean? And bandwidth?(Yes, I know I'm really dumb, but I don't want to be doing anything I shouldn't.)

 

Bandwidth is how many packets the media can switch and route at one time measured in megabits per second.

Hope that clears things up!

 

if its the admins job to safeguard stuff from lucasfilm then why they cant they safeguard the property of other websites eh eh eh kimball?

 

if its the admins job to safeguard stuff from lucasfilm then why they cant they safeguard the property of other websites eh eh eh kimball?

Under current copyright law, TFN is prohibited from reproducing copyrighted material (pictures, videos, sounds, text, etc) without permission from the copyright holder.

However, TFN, as a service provider, is protected under the DMCA Safe Harbor provision as long as it removes the infringing material upon notification from the copyright holder or a designated agent. Additionally, Lucasfilm has other leverage with TFN (such as the ability to shut down the fanfic portion of the boards, or copyright infringement for use of many images in banners, etc), and so more leeway is given to LFL.

However, when it comes to the images, TFN is not reproducing the images. The images are accessed directly from the owner's site. A linkis no different than telling someone "the image you want to look at is on page 23 bottom right corner", and showing them the image.

That other website offers that image for public access (and has the means to restrict access to only be viewable from certain pages, again that is easy to do). There is no law against directly linking to or displaying an image that is left open for public access. You are not required by law to view images or web pages only from certain links agreed to by the author. (Circumventing access controls is a different matter, though.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

I post images hosted on my site all the time. The bandwidth they use up is minimal. The actual amount of people surfing threads in JCC seems to be smaller than we think.

 

so it's ok because it's just a little bit of theft ?

I support xie - bandwidth theft is rude and really is stealing, and I have campaigned against bandwidth theft here in the past.

These days there is absolutely no excuse - there are countless entirely free image host providers that users can take advantage of. Furthermore, most ISPs give a certain about of webspace no matter which hosting package you use (typically 25 to 50Mb). And finally, you can buy your own hosting space for only a few dollars a year.

The bottom line is that people are too lazy to upload images because it is much easier and quicker to hotlink. The host could easier change their coding to prevent hotlinking, but that obviously prevents themselves from hotlinking their own images.

As far as the JC goes - we shouldn't have to be responsible for the source of the images that are posted here. Despite what some people think, we are not Internet Police.

However, if a user is abusing the bandwidth of another user here then I think we should step in and do something because we do have a certain level of responsibility to the people who are members here.

 

Most of the time, not always I'm afraid, I upload the image I want to use onto my own webspace. So I'm still taking the image, but only using my own bandwidth.

EDIT: The bottom line is that people are too lazy to upload images because it is much easier and quicker to hotlink.

Yes. The inclination often isn't there to upload to one's own space. And often too, the particular witticism the image would provide requires a quick post. THe time it takes to upload often prohibits that.

 

You can't police bandwidth 'theft'. If I say the random url I link to was uploaded by me, who's going to say it isn't?... anyone going to take the time to check with every provider of every suspicious url? Hell no. The whole issue is not worth the drag... just respond to complaints, and leave it at that.

 

Heres my question?

Can a person put a personal pic on their website and then someone take that same pic and copy it to a photobucket account and show it here on the boards.

Is it considered stealing or anything else?

because this happened to me and I got a PM from the website about using the photo and even linking to the website. The mod at the forum took everything down but didnt see a problem with the pics.

 

Believe it or not, I think I attempted to address this as well in the Informational Thread revisions...

I'll check again...

 

Can a person put a personal pic on their website and then someone take that same pic and copy it to a photobucket account and show it here on the boards.

Is it considered stealing or anything else?

Depends on who holds the copyright on the image you've uploaded.

For example if user A creates some SW fan art, and posts it on their website. You could copy and upload the image to your photobucket space, then link to it here, but you can't do that without permission from the user who originally created the image.

If the creator gets incontact with us and shows some evidence of the image belong to them, then we'll take action.

Similarly if you have personal photos of your on your website and another user copys and uploads them to photobucket - they can't link to them here without your permission.

 

so it's ok because it's just a little bit of theft ?

How is it theft?

They placed a file in a location for public access, and did nothing to limit such access.

Is it stealing to use the bathroom at a fast food place without buying any food? After all, they are paying for the water, the electricity, the paper towels, the toilet paper, the soap, etc. Usually the restrooms are meant for paying customers only, but you almost never see signs saying that.

If a large group of people stop at the restaurant to use the bathroom, and the cost gets significant for the restaurant, whose fault is that? If the restaurant tried to hunt down the non-paying restrrom users, and sue them for the costs involved, what would happen?

They would be laughed out of court.

The responsibility lies with the owner of the property to restrict the access. That's why some places require a key to use their restrooms. It's an access control method. Otherwise, and in the absense of any notices to the contrary, there is an implied permission to use the restroom.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, Kinnision, I'd have to say that you've done your homework well.

These days there is absolutely no excuse - there are countless entirely free image host providers that users can take advantage of. Furthermore, most ISPs give a certain about of webspace no matter which hosting package you use (typically 25 to 50Mb). And finally, you can buy your own hosting space for only a few dollars a year.

Yes, I know how much it can suck, but under the laws provided, there's nothing to stop anyone from posting any random image they might find off of Google.

However, if a user is abusing the bandwidth of another user here then I think we should step in and do something because we do have a certain level of responsibility to the people who are members here.

And yet, you just said you're not the "Internet Police". I repeat myself yet again, it's that user's every right to post that image, as much as it may suck for the other user. I can understand how wrong that is, but it's overkill for the administration here. It's not in your authority.

You can't police bandwidth 'theft'. If I say the random url I link to was uploaded by me, who's going to say it isn't?... anyone going to take the time to check with every provider of every suspicious url? Hell no. The whole issue is not worth the drag... just respond to complaints, and leave it at that.

Excellent point.

Can a person put a personal pic on their website and then someone take that same pic and copy it to a photobucket account and show it here on the boards.

Is it considered stealing or anything else?

It's happened to the best of us, I have to say. It is stealing, but then again there isn't much to do about it. When it gets to that point, it's out of the original pic owner's hands.

That definately is something I'd like to see stoppped, but we'd need a good amount of luck figuring out how to stop it.

For example if user A creates some SW fan art, and posts it on their website. You could copy and upload the image to your photobucket space, then link to it here, but you can't do that without permission from the user who originally created the image.

If the creator gets incontact with us and shows some evidence of the image belong to them, then we'll take action.

Just curious, what might that "action" be?

 

Just curious, what might that "action" be?

Edit out the linked images and ask the user not to do it again. (That's just my opinion, and doesn't represent that of the entire MS).

Is it stealing to use the bathroom at a fast food place without buying any food?

Yes it certainly is, and very frequently in this country you do see signs reminding people that the bathroom are reserved for paying patrons only.

Of course, seeing as this is Great Britain, someone who neeeds to use the bathroom would purchase a £1 milksake before going.


Alternative view :- zoos keep hundreds of animals for viewing. You can view them as much as you like while you are in the zoo, but you are not permitted to take an animal home with you to show your friends who didn't go to the zoo.

Yes, measures are put in place to stop you taking the animals home, but I'm sure you see my point.

The responsibility lies with the owner of the property to restrict the access.

Yes, if a site owner doesn't want his images leeched then he can change his coding to prevent this. However this would also prevent him from hotlinking, thus defeating the purpose of paying for hosting to be able to display images across the internet.

I agree with you KK that policing bandwidth theft is not our problem, and we shouldn't have to deal with it - however, bandwidth theft is *still* theft :- you are taking something that someone else paid for without asking.

edits clarification

 

Can a person put a personal pic on their website and then someone take that same pic and copy it to a photobucket account and show it here on the boards.

Is it considered stealing or anything else?

Actually, no it is not considered stealing or theft from a legal perspective. What it may constitute is copyright infringement. Theft/stealing is usually a matter for local enforcement (at least in the US) unless it relates to federal property. It is also primarily a matter for criminal law. Copyright infringement is covered under federal law (Title 17 of the US Code) and is primarily a matter of civil law.

What does that mean? That means that it is primarily a matter between the rights holder and the infringer. In this case, TFN is only a service provider, not the infringer (assuming the image was copied to a different server).

There was a case a few months ago where one user complained about an icon that was based off of one of his pieces of art (a Sith Holocron). In that case, once the rights holder contacted us about the matter, we removed the icon from our servers and removed all links to the infringing files that we knew of. However, that action was contingent upon the complaint from the rights holder.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Kimball Kinnison