Why does this site condone bandwith stealing?

It's like you're saying you can't moderate every tiny little detail so it's best to not even try. The 2 seconds it takes you to edit a couple images out that are hosted on puppiesarecute.com when you know for a fact that the user doesn't own puppiesarecute.com is 2 seconds to you but it might mean a much lower bill for the owner of puppiesarecute.com and you'd advertise their site and it would be a very polite thing to do because I, personally, think puppies are cute and don't want puppiesarecute.com to shut down.

But what motivation is there for the JC to do this? Why should the administration care about what is happening to these sites?

 

The 2 seconds it takes you to edit a couple images out that are hosted on puppiesarecute.com when you know for a fact that the user doesn't own puppiesarecute.com is 2 seconds to you but it might mean a much lower bill for the owner of puppiesarecute.com

What what you aren't addressing is that the managers of puppiesarecute.com MAY have given permission for "user X" to access its images, and therefore isn't doing anything wrong.

If that is the case, then TFN just overstepped its bounds, eh?

But wait, what if "user X" has permission from puppiesarecute.com, but not bunniesarecuter.net?

What then? Would it be required for all mods here to inquire if "user X" has permission to access any and all images posted?

It is unworkable, and more importantly, it doesn't fall under the operation of this site.

 

"can be helpful during high traffic periods."

So it's not something you've ever had to do?


BTW, as owner of puppiesarecute.com, I can assure you there is very little porn.

 

Can I ask a dumb question because I don't own a personal website? I know that I've tried to post pictures before. When I right-click them, it tells me it's not allowed on that site. So isn't it up to the site owner to decide if they restrict distribution of their images by someone remote linking and stealing bandwidth? Is it simply something someone can set up on their own site?


Now, Sapes, don't you know there is no such thing as a dumb question?

YodaJeff, I didn't know there was a way around the right click except to do a save page which would then require you to download the page, cut, paste, upload to your own host, etc.

But yes, it really is up to a site owner to put in the filters which has been said over and over again in this thread.

Why is this still open?

 

YodaJeff, I didn't know there was a way around the right click except to do a save page which would then require you to download the page, cut, paste, upload to your own host, etc.


It's actually a remarkably easy thing to get around.

 

What what you aren't addressing is that the managers of puppiesarecute.com MAY have given permission for "user X" to access its images, and therefore isn't doing anything wrong.

If that is the case, then TFN just overstepped its bounds, eh?

Holy crap yeah, think of the drama that would ensue. If only there was an easy way to get around this, like the person PMing you to say that they have permission.

If this is made a policy, I see one of three things happening:

A person posts a picture that is not on their website and it gets edited to a link to the URL. Puppiesarecute.com gets a few extra hits and maybe some free advertising. Everyone is happy.

A person posts a picture that is not on their website and it gets edited, but it turns out that they had permission to post it. A friendly PM gets sent, everything is cleared up, and puppiesarecute.com is OK to link from. Everyone is happy, even if there is a slight delay in the posting of cute puppies at first.

A person posts a picture that is not on their website and it doesn't get edited. Everyone opening the thread accesses the image. The person posting the image gets a small amount of happiness over getting to type and the site owner takes a hit to their bandwidth, probably making them sad.

(And the thread turns into a 20-page cute puppies megathread and every single person loading the first page bombards the cute puppy website. Puppiesarecute.com can't afford the high bandwidth costs and shuts down and declares bankruptcy and all the puppies have to be euthanized but that's just in my version).

Personally, I just don't think it's too difficult of a thing to err on the side of caution and politeness to other sites.

 

Hasn't the administration made their position on this clear?

It isn't happening. Drop it, go find something else to complain about.

 

Or, the site could e-mail and and complain and we could edit out the image. We've done that in the past.

 

"I just don't think it's too difficult of a thing to err on the side of caution and politeness to other sites. "

You'd be surprised.

 

"I just don't think it's too difficult of a thing to err on the side of caution and politeness to other sites. "
You'd be surprised.

Caution and politeness...

The first time that happened, a 15 page comms thread would be created detailing the "draconian" methods employed by the mods here, along with allegations that civil rights were violated, sprinkled with a few jabs at the site ownership.

Sides would be drawn up, resulting in a flame war between the two camps, before the entire issue blew over with no real change in policy.

Now that the above has been detailed, why don't we simply eliminate the middleman, and jump right to the end:

Or, the site could e-mail and and complain and we could edit out the image. We've done that in the past.

Exactly.

 

Okay, so I haven't read this whole thread, so it's quite possible that this has been covered. If it has, just let me know.

Let's say I have a picture of Hayden up on my nasr.net webspace. Someone posts the image directly from my website on the JC, and I get mad, so I change it to some really nasty porn. Would I get in trouble then, since I'm a JCer? Or would they get in trouble, since they posted a picture without permission?

 

The precedent is that you would get in trouble as well, unless you could prove that you had absolutely no idea it was posted at the JC.

I'm pretty sure this is a big reason why Darth_Diarrhea is banned. Or at least it was. Cbjedi hotlinked an image from his webspace in his profile and it was changed to Goatse.

 

Agreed.

It's better to just change the images to a something non harmful if you can. Any change should get the attention of the posters.

 

That's kind of ridiculous. If someone posts a picture without permission, they should be held responsible for any change, not the person whose picture it is.

 

I agree with Carmen on that. If the owner of whatever site is not responsible directly for the image being posted here, why should they be punished for someone else posting it?

 

That's kind of ridiculous. If someone posts a picture without permission, they should be held responsible for any change, not the person whose picture it is.

What about if I post an image to my site and give you permission to link to it. Then, without warning and after you can edit it, I change my mind and change the image to something that would get you banned?

From what I've read both in Comms and MS, that's very similar to what happened with cbjedi.

As a rule, you are responsible for what you post. That includes if you mistype a TinyURL and it winds up going to a porn site (I had that happen once in the Senate, and quickly fixed it), post an image that is later changed to porn, or simply copying an article that contains some profanity. However, as with most things, we evaluate such offenses on a case-by-case basis.

Kimball Kinnison

 

So if you have permission to post a picture from another user's site and it changes it's the picture owner's fault, but if you don't have permission then it's the picture poster's fault?

 

Well if you decide to link an image here, do so at your own risk.

I don't see how it's any different to people posting links to sites or images - they can still be changed by the site's owners.

As many have said, it would be ideal to provide your own image hosting, then everyone's happy. If a nasty image or link suddenly crops up, then we'll deal with it then and there. There's no need to set a universal rule about it.

 

So if you have permission to post a picture from another user's site and it changes it's the picture owner's fault, but if you don't have permission then it's the picture poster's fault?

Again, this is a case-by-case issue. The rule is that you are responsible for what you post, including images and links. The specific action taken will depend on the specific circumstances, hence the case-by-case aspect.

Kimball Kinnison

 

After reading the thread title did anyone else think xie was also going to ask the mods if they had stopped beating their children?

 

Well have they????

 

Spare the rod, spoil the child, that's what I always say.

 

I'm reporting you to CPS, buddy.

 

After reading the thread title did anyone else think xie was also going to ask the mods if they had stopped beating their children?

I don't follow.

Chaz, a better action would be reporting them to the CPL. You know, the CyberAthelete Professional League. Just because, you know, it's the internet.

 

You question seems very accusatory, as if the mods held a meeting and decided that the best course of action would be to encourage bandwidth stealing. I doubt it is that malicious.