Because, you know, apparently even after getting their own TV show, paying for their own image hosting is too onerous. Or just tooooo haaaaaaarrrrrd.
Also, may I direct your attention to:
Go fuck yourself, "I Fucking Love Science"
Motherfuckers hotlinked an image from my blog and DDoSsed my server today. They may fucking love science but they fucking hate the web.
Tags: comics, doomed, firstperson, www
20 Responses:
So you've replaced that image file with hello.jpg, right?
I should have goat.se'd them.
It's configured to send them 403s now
I do have a hotlinking image I use for just such an occasion, but that still means I have to serve the bits, so it would not have solved the immediate problem.
I don't know what you're running under the hood, but can't you shove something in your .htaccess-equivalent to just redirect to something awful hosted on imgur?
(Which, granted, is just dumping the shit aimed at your head onto someone else's, but at least they're explicitly made to be hotlinked from.)
Not if you redirect it back to an image on their own website.
True, but then you'd need to configure it per-leecher.
I vote for Lemon Party, if there's a poll.
Related:
-- Maddox on IFLS, 2012.
-- Jason Scott on "Geek Entertainment", 2008.
fully agree.
This reminds me of Jason Scotts hot linking escapades. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1011
Except, you don't appear to have any license terms on your blog or the "about" page.
Therefore copying and redistributing your image is copyright infringement with a potential liability of, what is it these days, $150,000 per violation? As opposed to linking which tells people's browsers to ask your server for your image, which you can then control access to on your server - including based on the Referer header.
For those of us that still respect copyright enough to abide by it (or depend on it to enforce others compliance with the GPL) - even while we're making efforts to get the law changed to something less extreme - it's an important difference.
Maybe you should put some CC or equivalent terms on your site if you want people to copy your stuff rather than linking to it. Or, make the terms more obvious if they're only on display somewhere behind a "beware of the leopard" sign.
You also can go piss up a flagpole, neckbeard.
Sorry, could you clarify? Is your problem with people who respect copyright (in which case I might look into trying to sell copies XScreensaver without copyright or permission notices, in order to gain the respect from you which I so desperately crave), or with a particular implementation detail of CC licensing as a way of telling other people that they're free to redistribute your work?
Neither.
It's a problem of IFLS telling all of it's readers' browsers to illustrate the IFLS article by pulling an image off of JWZ's machine, which then becomes unusable due to overloading.
There are other ways to give attribution than send a million hits per hour to a small site. People have been respecting copyright for far longer than the internet has been around.
Relax dude; go watch the video of RMS eating something off his foot. It will center you again.
See also: http://www.twisteddoodles.com/image/86414780702
Also: http://static.neatorama.com/images/2008-12/mad-scientist-mad-engineers.jpg
Probably unnecessary to you (you surely already know this) but maybe helpful to someone else running Apache:
https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DisableImageHotLinking
That's basically how I do it, but instead of blocking every hotlink I have a blacklist of chronic abusers, e.g., URLs containing words like "showtopic".