Cyclocross - Awesome Photo!!! Check it out!

Cyclingnews.com photo of cross race in Belguim

http://www.cyclingnews.com/cross.php?id=/photos/2009/feb09/SPhoogstraten09/WCR_7698B

LOL that's some nasty lookin stuff.

Mucky muck. I'm glad I didn't have to clean out his drivetrain.

geez, poor shoes.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2009/feb09/SPhoogstraten09/WCR_7698B.jpg

(i'm going to hell for hotlinking)

(i'm going to hell for hotlinking)I've never understood what's wrong with it. I mean, they've already published the photo online, right?

You get to view the photo without viewing their sponsored adds.

Look at his front wheel in the rut . . . I wonder if he went down right after this was snapped.

Nope, discs would not be useful in cyclocross. not at all.

You get to view the photo without viewing their sponsored adds.

And you are stealing their hosting that they payed for.



Cool photo.

Look at his front wheel in the rut . . . I wonder if he went down right after this was snapped.

If that mud's anything like Holland's, probably not. That stuff is suprisingly easy to ride through, with a base of high traction sand underneath. The antithesis of what I sometimes rode through in Canada.

Hell on the drivetrain, though. The mud is high grit, with a low stick-factor. Look at his front tire, basically clean.

I think a lot of the front runners actually ran down that.

And you are stealing their hosting that they payed for.I always presumed they were hosting the photos in order that they might be viewed. If they don't want their hosting "stolen" they can always take the photos offline.

I always presumed they were hosting the photos in order that they might be viewed. If they don't want their hosting "stolen" they can always take the photos offline.

Or they can disallow hotlinking in their .htaccess file.

I always presumed they were hosting the photos in order that they might be viewed. If they don't want their hosting "stolen" they can always take the photos offline.

Here's how it works: You have a cap on bandwidth usage provided to you by your hosting service. If you go over that, you have to pay for a higher bandwidth package. Every time someone loads this page, they use some bandwidth. If a lot of people are viewing this page (and any other page hotlinking to that photo), their site or that picture could go down temporarily.

By your logic, if an author doesn't want their material plagiarized, they shouldn't publish it.

Here's how it works: You have a cap on bandwidth usage provided to you by your hosting service. If you go over that, you have to pay for a higher bandwidth package. Every time someone loads this page, they use some bandwidth. If a lot of people are viewing this page (and any other page hotlinking to that photo), their site or that picture could go down temporarily.

By your logic, if an author doesn't want their material plagiarized, they shouldn't publish it.Your analogy is exactly wrong. If I downloaded and copied a photo, hosted it myself, and pretended that I had taken it myself, that would be analogous to plagiarism.

Using an IMG tag is simply another way of sharing a publicly accessible URL. It's no more malicious than simply posting the URL itself. Either method could potentially cause bandwidth problems.

Your analogy is exactly wrong. If I downloaded and copied a photo, hosted it myself, and pretended that I had taken it myself, that would be analogous to plagiarism.

Using an IMG tag is simply another way of sharing a publicly accessible URL. It's no more malicious than simply posting the URL itself. Either method could potentially cause bandwidth problems.

Except, as mentioned earlier, the bills are payed through advertising on the website. By posting a link to a page, the host is getting 'credit' from the advertisers when someone visits their site and they get paid, with which they can upgrade their hosting if necessary. Hotlinking a photo does not get the host this credit.

And my analogy is an appropriate comparison to your statement: "If they don't want their hosting "stolen" they can always take the photos offline." If an author doesn't want their writing "stolen" they can always not publish it.

Great picture


Except, as mentioned earlier, the bills are payed through advertising on the website. By posting a link to a page, the host is getting 'credit' from the advertisers when someone visits their site and they get paid, with which they can upgrade their hosting if necessary. Hotlinking a photo does not get the host this credit.

And my analogy is an appropriate comparison to your statement: "If they don't want their hosting "stolen" they can always take the photos offline." If an author doesn't want their writing "stolen" they can always not publish it.

Or if they were really worried about it they could disallow hotlinking.

Great picture



Or if they were really worried about it they could disallow hotlinking.

You are completely correct, and it is a solution for them, but it doesn't make hotlinking acceptable.

I think a lot of the front runners actually ran down that.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2009/feb09/SPhoogstraten09/WCR_7678B.jpg

Don't know why but that first photo looks almost like he's riding thru volcanic ash

You are completely correct, and it is a solution for them, but it doesn't make hotlinking acceptable.How do you feel about people leaving their old magazines at the dentist's office (but tearing out the perfume ads first)? Illegal? "Acceptable"? How about cutting out a cartoon from your (legally purchased copy of) the New Yorker and pinning it up on the bulletin board in the hallway?

How do you feel about people leaving their old magazines at the dentist's office (but tearing out the perfume ads first)? Illegal? "Acceptable"? How about cutting out a cartoon from your (legally purchased copy of) the New Yorker and pinning it up on the bulletin board in the hallway?

In both cases, the magazines were purchased, so the analogy is a little weird. The main thing is that the material is not being displayed in a manner in which the poster claims it as their own nor is it having direct negative consequences on the rightful owner. If you want to talk more internet philosophy, you can PM me. We are talking (in this long tangent) about whether it is harmful, and thus not OK, to steal someone's bandwidth and material, not some theoretical dentist office perfume-sniffer.

And do dentist offices not subscribe to the magazines you find there?

In both cases, the magazines were purchased, so the analogy is a little weird. The main thing is that the material is not being displayed in a manner in which the poster claims it as their own nor is it having direct negative consequences on the rightful owner. If you want to talk more internet philosophy, you can PM me. We are talking (in this long tangent) about whether it is harmful, and thus not OK, to steal someone's bandwidth and material, not some theoretical dentist office perfume-sniffer.

And do dentist offices not subscribe to the magazines you find there?My last words:

There is no "correct" analogy in the print world for whether or not sharing the URLs of freely and publicly available photographs is legally or ethically wrong. People using IMG tags on this board are not doing so maliciously nor are they going to cause any bandwidth problems. If you have a beef with IMG tags, I'd say you have much more of a problem with bikeforums.net, which actually does profit from advertising used on this site, than the users who put up the URLs. If the person hosting the photos in question wants to more tightly bundle the image with the ads, they have any number of ways to do so; watermarking, dynamic updating of file names, etc etc.

I will continue to use IMG tags in these sorts of forums, just as I would have no qualms about snipping that cartoon from the New Yorker and putting it up on my office door.

My last words:

I will continue to use IMG tags in these sorts of forums, just as I would have no qualms about snipping that cartoon from the New Yorker and putting it up on my office door.

Ok, but you might still go to hell for it :)

It would truly be sad if those really were your last words.

Cyclingnews.com photo of cross race in Belguim

http://www.cyclingnews.com/cross.php?id=/photos/2009/feb09/SPhoogstraten09/WCR_7698B

I bet he was tired. :P