Quantcast

Responding to Mike Power’s Comments on Image Leeching

Mike Power over at “Mike Power’s Website - Not a Blog” (He is right - it is not a blog as you cannot comment, so I’ll do it here :-) has commented on my article Acknowledging an Apology: Blog Leeching, featured in this week’s Britblog Review. He makes some excellent points:

I get a little pissed off when people throw around the term ‘theft’, as in ‘image theft’ or ‘bandwidth theft’ because in most cases the person complaining has actually lost nothing at all.

I get a little pissed off too, which is why I didn’t use the term “theft” anywhere in the three articles I wrote about it…

With over 4,500 gigs of bandwidth available for my image hosting (increasing by 16 gigs every week) the leeching of a 20kb image isn’t going to cause me sleepless nights … Even if I did pay for bandwidth like I pay for my electricity the cost to me of 10,000 image calls would be a massive 2 pence.

That sounds as if Mike is on Dreamhost. I can recommend them if you can cope with a service that is not quite as reliable as the best. Very good for starters - or if you are stuck on a Blogger domain.

My approach is that I would block direct linking, except to particular directories set aside for public files.

However, I come partly from a podcasting background, and “podcast leeching” created havoc in 2004 and 2005. If Mike’s 10,000 calls were to a 20Mb podcast or a 50Mb videopodcast then even Dreamhost would charge him a lot extra (at $1 per Gigabyte).

Leeched by the Daily Kos

One case I looked at was not a mere 10,000 image calls - it was the Daily Kos leeching from Joe Schmidt, which receives a mere 1,000,000 pageviews each day. In that case the leeching absorbed half the bandwidth of the entire site.

So, my approach is to run as tight a ship as is practicable.

Of course, in return for the leeching the “leeched” site obtains a free advert for however long it lasts.

It might be polite to ask before hotlinking but, frankly, I am not about to call you a thief if you do it.

Neither am I - but I will be a good deal less tolerant when the site making the mistake belongs to an Internet Security Company, who should know better, and when the published article does not contain a link back to acknowledge the source.

Tags: , , , [tags], , , [/tags]

About the Author

admin

Matt is an internet consultant, commentator, freelance writer and Project Manager based in the UK. He is available for hire. Matt edits the Wardman Wire, and writes at Poligeeks, Total Politics, and occasionally in several other places.

3 Responses to “ Responding to Mike Power’s Comments on Image Leeching ”

  1. And there it all is:

    …and when the published article does not contain a link back to acknowledge the source…

    One really must acknowledge. I know sometimes, actually often, we can be a bit slack about it. Also, the unlinked images I post have all come from either my computer long ago or else they’re Wiki and I really must start acknowledging Wiki.

    Perhaps this is a little different to systematic leeching.

  2. Yes - I’d agree with that.

  3. Yes - agreed James.

    Although sometimes, it is very clear that we are being leeched deliberately!.

    (Sorry that I missed this comment earlier.)

Leave a Reply

Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>