linking images inline is bandwidth theft

January 20, 2004 3:18 PM

bandwidth theft
posted by adampsyche to Etiquette/Policy at 3:18 PM (45 comments total)

yup.
posted by dabitch at 3:19 PM on January 20, 2004

Can anyone who runs a server here actually talk about the cost of bandwidth when an image on their server is linked in a MeFi thread? Is the traffic ever going to be so great that it will cause your own site to become unavailable or your ISP to have a fit over the extra bits? I think there may be a lot of misplaced outrage here, but I want to make sure first. And remember I'm talking about MetaFilter. The time your mom was used as a winning entry in a Fark photoshop contest doesn't count, since this isn't FarkTalk, it's MetaTalk, so we certainly can and should limit our discussion to what takes place on this site.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:43 PM on January 20, 2004

the filters been very slow today.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:09 PM on January 20, 2004

Hypocrisy.
posted by keswick at 4:09 PM on January 20, 2004

depends on how they pay for their hosting - I've hosted at places where i get X gig for a flat monthly fee, but any started gig above that X is 50 bucks. I've also had hotlinkers push me above that X limit, now them 50 bucks might not have hurt as much if it were someone visiting my site, rather than a livejornal user using something large as a forumavatar in a hundred odd places. See what I mean?
posted by dabitch at 4:13 PM on January 20, 2004

I've had my bandwidth "stolen" by having one of my images src'ed to a MetaFilter thread. The cost? Nothing -- it was served from my unmetered home connection. The real cost? My measly little 128kbps upstream pipe getting completely and utterly crushed for about 20 hours until Mr. Haughey took care of the problem (promptly, I should add -- he dealt with it within half an hour of my request for administrator hope).

Sure, all it cost me was mere inconvenience, but that's bandwidth I and other people who aren't you rely on having available, for purposes that are none of your business. Subjecting it to an unsolicited hammering with every single load of some MetaFilter thread is entirely out of the scope of my intent for it.
posted by majick at 4:32 PM on January 20, 2004

it's a major issue at my sites. bandwidth theft, i mean. when i post an image i'm hosting, i'm choosing with open eyes to spend the bandwidth. whoever runs katiehorn.com didn't get that chance. someone here just decided to spend it for them.

metafilter can generate some massive traffic. it's not akin to a slashdot or CNN mention, certainly, but a mefi comment linked to your site can result in many thousands of hits without breaking a sweat. (also - i've found that many people read mefi "in the past", so even days later you'll find there's still plenty of traffic.)
posted by quonsar at 5:01 PM on January 20, 2004

I like to think of it less as bandwidth theft, and more as an opportunity to spread the cheeks of goatse.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:05 PM on January 20, 2004

How about every time someone ttries makes a post with an <IMG> tag, their preview box warns them not to link to an image unless they own the site it's hosted on? I've never actually done it myself, but it's only in the last six months I've really been aware that it can be an issue - maybe other people out there need an education as well.
posted by Jimbob at 5:32 PM on January 20, 2004

How about every time someone ttries makes a post with an tag, their preview box warns them not to link to an image unless they own the site it's hosted on?

Then you might as well disable the IMG tag.

There is a warning thats asks: "If you're going to make a post related to Iraq, please reconsider, as the topic has been discussed previously many times." and we see how often that is listened to.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:36 PM on January 20, 2004

I have posted pictures on MeFi before and tracked the number of hits it ranges 2000 to 5000. Matt would know exactly the number in this case.

A 36k picture @ 5000 hits that is about 180MB of traffic (or 1.4Gb depending how you measure). It's never been a problem for me as I have near unlimited bandwidth at 100Mbps near a core backbone in VA at a flat rate and look for ways to use it. It's like driving a Hummer, finding outragerous ways to blow resources. MeFi is good for that.
posted by stbalbach at 6:27 PM on January 20, 2004

I asked Metafilter about this a few weeks ago. "Don't do it" was the response.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:30 PM on January 20, 2004

I have no problem with people complaining that their bandwidth is "stolen", as long as they don't later go into long rants about how they're not "stealing" music since RIAA is evil.

Isn't there a way to stop people from hotlinking to your images? And if so, why don't more people use it?
posted by The God Complex at 6:33 PM on January 20, 2004

Isn't there a way to stop people from hotlinking to your images?

Yeah, it's called common netiquette. Simple, commonly-understood rules for getting along in a flexible and open social space.

And if so, why don't more people use it?

Because September never ended.
posted by majick at 7:00 PM on January 20, 2004

And the RIAA thing is a worthless comparison: I'm not evil, and misappropriating my network resources without at least dropping me a polite note is not equivalent to "sticking it to the man." Not to mention, you're not "making a copy" of my bandwidth when you src one of my images; you're depriving me of a limited supply that I've paid for -- bits per second -- away from me.
posted by majick at 7:05 PM on January 20, 2004

It's like giving bandwidth back.
posted by namespan at 7:37 PM on January 20, 2004

1.4Gb depending how you measure

or 0.14Gb if you measure accurately. :-)
posted by quonsar at 7:38 PM on January 20, 2004

majick: common netiquette's for sissies, do an experiment and see how somethingawful.com handles it. Much more effective.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:40 PM on January 20, 2004

Isn't there a way to stop people from hotlinking to your images?

no, but there are ways to make your server stop sending them in most cases. and i use them.
posted by quonsar at 7:41 PM on January 20, 2004

Google is handy for this type of thing.
posted by bshort at 9:44 PM on January 20, 2004

I use an .htaccess file to restrict access to my images. What amazes me is how many people (mostly livejournal) use a hotlink to one of my images as a body background property, and then leave it there despite the fact that the image is not showing up.
posted by taz at 11:25 PM on January 20, 2004

By the way, I've found a couple of sites that allow you to store images and support hotlinking: CyberTarp (.jpg and .png only) and Yoxio. Not a lot of space, but for anyone who doesn't have web hosting, these are fine for just uploading images as you need them.
posted by taz at 11:33 PM on January 20, 2004

no, but there are ways to make your server stop sending them in most cases. and i use them.

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant.

And the RIAA thing is a worthless comparison: I'm not evil, and misappropriating my network resources without at least dropping me a polite note is not equivalent to "sticking it to the man." Not to mention, you're not "making a copy" of my bandwidth when you src one of my images; you're depriving me of a limited supply that I've paid for -- bits per second -- away from me.

My sticking-it-to-the-man memo was misplaced awhile back and then I forgot how bloodless our revolution is. I'll go get my jolly roger flag ;)

You are right, though: it's not really that similar, except for the theft (if you want to call it that) of an intangible item that doesn't result in any direct loss, only a higher service price in one case--if you pay by the GB--and a lack of sales in the other. I think one could probably make a case for at least general similarities and a common lack of respect, if one was so inclined. I'm obviously not ambitious enough to go that far, however, so I'll just keep flying the flag. They ain't proud colors but they're true colors of my home.
posted by The God Complex at 12:59 AM on January 21, 2004

taz, when they check their own site upon preview the image is still cached in their browser - so it works for them. It's only when they restart their browser or when a friend hits the page that the blocking works.
posted by LukeyBoy at 4:26 AM on January 21, 2004

You are right, though: it's not really that similar, except for the theft (if you want to call it that) of an intangible item that doesn't result in any direct loss, only a higher service price in one case--if you pay by the GB--and a lack of sales in the other.

Actually, the better comparison might be spam, since the basic argument is someone else "forcing" you to absorb the costs of bandwidth, so where spam is push, hotlinking (images, movies, any high bandwidth file) is pull.
posted by bclark at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2004

Google is handy for this type of thing.

This thread got me thinking about Google's image searching. Do they make a copy of your image (copyright infringement) or show the one off of your site (bandwidth theft) when someone's image search turns up one of your pics?
posted by ODiV at 7:13 AM on January 21, 2004

They make copies. It's probably not any more infringement of copyright than caching a copy of a web page is.
posted by gleuschk at 7:16 AM on January 21, 2004

and they add the fine print "This image may be subject to copyright" - which is nice of them to point out.
posted by dabitch at 7:33 AM on January 21, 2004

heh. So they tell you they're copying images without the owners' permission and they acknowledge that it "may be subject to copyright"? That's a little odd.
posted by ODiV at 7:55 AM on January 21, 2004

innit? they obey the robots.txt file though, you can tell google not to index.
posted by dabitch at 8:06 AM on January 21, 2004

yes image search engines make a copy of your files but they link that copy to the original on your site, making your files a tad more accessible to hotlinkers.

this is my robots.txt file if anyone wants to copy it. i'm blocking alta vista, ditto, google, alexa/wayback machine, & picsearch
posted by t r a c y at 8:56 AM on January 21, 2004

Near as I can Google only saves the thumbnail of the image. If you click on the image, it makes that weird frame thing, but it's loading the image from the original URL and not from any of Google's servers.
posted by skynxnex at 9:37 AM on January 21, 2004

or 0.14Gb if you measure accurately. :-)

180 million bytes times 8 (8 bits in a byte) = one-thousand 400 hundred million bits = 1.4 Gb

0.14Gb = 140Mb = 17.5MB
posted by stbalbach at 10:20 AM on January 21, 2004

To begin with, thought Matt didn't like us posting images on the site, so it was a "no no"?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:51 AM on January 21, 2004

Yes, although Matt posted an inline image that's hosted on Amazon not that long ago.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 11:48 AM on January 21, 2004

thanks, LukeyBoy - I thought of that, but it didn't seem like it would stay cached for such a long time... So, when they are viewing their page, and seeing the image from the cache, does this somehow "re-cache" it, and so on, and so on? 'Fraid I don't really understand the cache that well.
posted by taz at 12:12 PM on January 21, 2004

I like the way SomethingAwful handles this. If they find that someone is serving a page elsewhere with one of their images inline, they simply replace the image (with same filename) with a jpeg of the most broken-down tranny you've ever seen, half-naked, with cock hanging halfway to knees and besotted by excement, with the words "I LIKE TO STEAL BANDWIDTH" in red across the image. Presumably, this image starts appearing on the other site immediately.

Not to put the onus of detection on the victim, here, but it's not impossible or even very difficult. A little automated log-sniffing is all that's required.
posted by scarabic at 12:48 PM on January 21, 2004

... the theft (if you want to call it that) of an intangible item that doesn't result in any direct loss ...
Unless you consider hard-earned money going out of my pocket to pay for someone else's web site to be a direct loss, which I do. Hotlinking is bad bad bad and I have noticed a steady increase in it lately on MeFi, but have said nothing because I assume that the high calibre of MeFites means they have permission from the image owners.
posted by dg at 3:58 PM on January 21, 2004

0.14Gb = 140Mb = 17.5MB

exactly why i never use caps, stbalbach. :-)
posted by quonsar at 5:26 PM on January 21, 2004

"if you want to call it that" indeed.

I've got a lemon tree sitting on my porch. It's a young tree, but since it's on the south side it gets good sun, puts out decent sized fruit. Not too many of them, since it's still getting established, but it bears nonetheless.

This morning, there was one ripe lemon left on it but by the time I got home, some passerby -- probably one of the neighbor's kids -- picked it. No big deal, I've still got the tree, it'll make me another lemon, won't even cost me anything but sun and water.

Except now I've got to wait a few more months to get a lemon, or pony up 30-odd cents at the grocery store, just because some random person decided to pick my tree. Didn't even stop in and ask, and I'd probably have agreed if someone wanted my lemon badly enough to request it.

This isanalagous to bandwidth theft: petty theft with a cost most often being inconvenience except in the most extreme cases. But it's still petty theft.
posted by majick at 5:48 PM on January 21, 2004

So to sum up: Google copies your image without permission, alters it, and then displays it on their website?

And yeah, I know about robots.txt. And no, I don't currently have anything on my site that I mind being on google. But the onus shouldn't be on me to stop Google from doing the above. Then again, an webwide image search is useful... No, I don't have an answer either.
posted by ODiV at 8:29 PM on January 21, 2004

pretend your website is a cherry tree and all them search engine bots out there are crows, the robots.txt is the green net you hang on your tree to protect the fruits. ;))
posted by dabitch at 2:32 AM on January 22, 2004

Maybe that's how you protect the fruits in your part of town, but where I come from, we just take their car keys away after happy hour.
posted by taz at 2:50 AM on January 22, 2004

"Google copies your image without permission..."

I hate to break it to you, but they do this with the text of your site as well unless you go to some lengths to be excluded. What's more, they do this in a scheme to create a product from which they are profiting.

What they do with images is really no different, just more bandwidth intensive. Nothing special about the fact that it's images we're discussing here.
posted by majick at 6:01 AM on January 22, 2004

It is true that Google essentially copies the entire contents of your site and uses it to create a product that they then profit from. The difference is, I believe, that they add something back into the community in the process which we all profit from, in many cases financially, by receiving more traffic. Contrast that with someone taking an image that is hosted on a server paid for by you and inserting that content into their own site - they profit from (theoretically) your property and give nothing back in return. The analogy of stealing fruit from a tree is an apt one and Google is more like someone taking some of your lemons and leaving you with a box of oranges - now you have lemons and oranges.
posted by dg at 1:42 PM on January 22, 2004