Moderators (requests and notices)

I'd go so far as to say that there is no such thing as bandwidth theft.

That's not to say that bandwidth doesn't cost, but that the protocols, the servers, the configuration... all the tools you need to prevent access exist. If you don't use the tools then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Home taping is killing music and shit isn't loading as it should.

The method of blocking is ludicrous (referrer checking), as is the notion that using bandwidth is "stealing"

The method of blocking provides a good cost/benefit ratio, since it all but eliminates large scale hotlinking for very little cost in time to the host or his favoured guests. Of course it isn't 100% effective, since referrers can be spoofed, and it's not 100% proof against inconveniencing legitimate users since some people have their browser configured to not send referrer headers, possibly for sound reasons, but "ludicrous" is definitely hyperbole on your part.

Using your housebreaking analogy, unauthorised use of bandwidth is stealing, even when the owner is dumb enough to leave cash on the sill of an open window. I'd agree that hosting a file on a publicly available server is more like throwing cash out of a helicopter flying over a city, so basic hotlinking isn't unauthorised and therefore isn't theft. If somebody spoofs the referrer header in order to circumvent the limited protection offered by the technique, that would probably also amount to "unauthorised access to a computer", since the user would have deliberately used false credentials to access that which he could not otherwise have accessed.

chompy has been banned?

When can we have tags back? I miss poking fun at people anonymously.

tags, no thank you

The method of blocking provides a good cost/benefit ratio, since it all but eliminates large scale hotlinking for very little cost in time to the host or his favoured guests. Of course it isn't 100% effective, since referrers can be spoofed, and it's not 100% proof against inconveniencing legitimate users since some people have their browser configured to not send referrer headers, possibly for sound reasons, but "ludicrous" is definitely hyperbole on your part.

Using your housebreaking analogy, unauthorised use of bandwidth is stealing, even when the owner is dumb enough to leave cash on the sill of an open window. I'd agree that hosting a file on a publicly available server is more like throwing cash out of a helicopter flying over a city, so basic hotlinking isn't unauthorised and therefore isn't theft. If somebody spoofs the referrer header in order to circumvent the limited protection offered by the technique, that would probably also amount to "unauthorised access to a computer", since the user would have deliberately used false credentials to access that which he could not otherwise have accessed.

If I type a URL into a browser and hit enter, and the server says "thank you" and gives me the file in question... did I steal anything?

No?

I rest my case.

Please look up the legal definition of theft. It does not apply.

Please examine the scenario I just described, and understand that referrer checking isn't going to help you save your bandwidth.

If bad advice is perpetuated enough, does it become "best practice"? No, it remains bad advice.

chompy has been banned?

He requested immediate deletion.

how come?

Dunno, his decision, I just honoured the request.

strange. He was posting more than normal recently and made me laugh a few times yesterday. Shame.

Yeah, I did notice that. I couldn't fathom it either. But I do respect the requests.

Is it possible to request immediate deletion of other peoples' accounts? Please?

I'd go so far as to say that there is no such thing as bandwidth theft.

That's not to say that bandwidth doesn't cost, but that the protocols, the servers, the configuration... all the tools you need to prevent access exist. If you don't use the tools then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

So if I leave my bag on the back of my chair in a crowded pub, enabling you to take it, that's not theft because I could have put the bag under the table where you couldn't get to it?

Really? Was that a serious response?

It might be; or it could be a coded request for the immediate deletion of his account.

So if I leave my bag on the back of my chair in a crowded pub, enabling you to take it, that's not theft because I could have put the bag under the table where you couldn't get to it?

if you leave your bag on the back of a chair in a crowded pub, and i take a copy of the bag leaving you with the original bag and contents its not theft.

^ sucked in

^but a pregnant lady could wee in the policeman's helmet...

Stealing a copy of something to make lots mores copies is homeopatheft!

If I type a URL into a browser and hit enter, and the server says "thank you" and gives me the file in question... did I steal anything?

No. I think I made that clear in my post.

If you falsify headers in order to access a file, does that constitute unauthorised use of a computer network? Dunno, ask a lawyer. I haven't studied the relevant laws in enough detail to have a worthwhile opinion on that question, but falsifying headers doesn't seem very different from using a password not issued to you by the owner of the service.

Type this into your browser:
http://jorj.co.uk/gallery/gal/bars/PICT0800.jpg
or just click on the link. That file exists, and is publicly available, but it's 3.7MB. I don't care what people do with it, but if it gets hotlinked on a popular forum, you can see why I'd rather serve a 233 byte png every time the forum page gets viewed. Whether my bandwidth is constrained by a transfer limit or a speed limit, I'd rather reserve the capacity for people visiting my site.

Using the referrer header to decide which of 2 possible files to serve may not be "best practice" for your needs, but it is cheap and effective for mine. I don't need to take your word for this, I've seen my server logs and watched this simple and largely unobtrusive technique drop the number of times a particular set of images was served by a factor of 100, bringing them into line with similar sets which hadn't been fusked.

if you leave your bag on the back of a chair in a crowded pub, and i take a copy of the bag leaving you with the original bag and contents its not theft.

This is silly, but equally I think it is a bit silly saying that you can take a finite thing (bandwidth) that someone has paid for, and that this is ok because they are too stupid to stop you.

it is a bit silly saying that you can take a finite thing (bandwidth) that someone has paid for, and that this is ok because they are too stupid to stop you.

There is a level of stupidity below which it is not the job of the law to protect people from themselves.

Ok, so if it's really easy to take something, it's not stealing.

It's probably doing them a favour, in fact, thicko that they are.

^this