(no subject)

[ewx]

Someone has started using this image as their icon on some dutch web bulletin board. This has produced around 160Mbyte of outgoing traffic in 28 days, all of it paid for by a friend of mine (though I'd be as annoyed if it were me paying for it).

I'm open to suggestions as to what I should change the image to say.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Except the point it makes isn't the point we want to be making; people should be free to link to web pages without having to ask permission. It's when you inline other people's content that there's a potential bandwidth and copyright problem.

(S)

[kensei.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting point of view and I'm intrigued as to your definition of inlining content vs linking to web pages. I quite agree that people should be able to link to web pages without having to ask permission (of course, one hopes people are intelligent enough to link to static content, rather than dynamically generated pages which may disappear without warning).

The point about the above link (which I gave in an href, rather than an img src) is that it was a replacement for a picture which I was using in my web pages at lacunae.org - content if you will. People were linking to that image directly, rather than copying it and using it. I therefore replaced the picture I had with the one in the link above, and checked to make sure the people inlining it had their web pages suitably disrupted.

Hope thats clearer now.

[gerald_duck]

Then again, a lot of people would prefer that you didn't copy their work, but are fine with it being linked to, even inline.

I think the only solution is to consider things on a case-by-case basis, applying common sense.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Inlining is a subset of linking, and if we object to (unauthorized) inlining but not to other kinds of linking, there is an obvious wrong word to use when we express that objection.