 | | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) However you might want to make a complaint to eBay and any other commercial auction site, since they are essentially proffiting from the innapropriate use of your resources. (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Just to make sure, since you don't open the copyright on the LEGO images listed on Lugnet you don't have a problem with me downloading them, then hosting them on a machine of my own, right? Not asking you for permission, I'm just asking for (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
I just happened across a couple unauthorized links from eBay auctions directly to images of sets hosted on the lugnet.com server. What people are doing is linking from various places (mostly eBay auctions) directly to the JPEG images. This is a big (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) You got it! I don't own the copyright to any of the LEGO images that TLG has created -- I'm just hosting them as part of an informational database for LEGO enthusiasts online (subject to my interpretation of TLG's "Fair Play" policy*). So even (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Auctions are ephemeral so this is not that big a deal in the long run. You can make a utility argument to discourage those that don't see why it is WRONG. (...) This really is the crux. Now, I have to confess, I think there is a very slight (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
I need to have something clarified: Is it ok to tell people to go to www.lugnet.com and do a search for a set (not a direct link)? I don't sell too many completed sets on eBay, but I would like to know for future reference...like when I find a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I was surprised how it actually adds up in the long run. There are a couple of reasons why it actually adds up: First, a hundred different people all linking from their eBay auctions, even if each lasts only for a week, still represents a flow (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Ok, crystal clear now. Thanks, Julie (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Absolutely, yes, 100% OK. But better yet, give them a link to the page showing the set, for example: (URL) or (URL) please don't link directly to the underlying JPEG image files, i.e.: (URL) or (URL) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) OK, this evening I just wrote a little CGI script to do this for images in the sets-DB. So, the dynamically generated HTML pages, i.e. (URL) link to this CGI script -- which acts as a buffer -- rather than to the raw JPEG image file. Thus, the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Whoops. Sorry, I did not state that very well. I realise the amount of traffic is significant. Very significant. What I meant to say, let me try again, was that the argument that the links are likely to change, which is a good "utility" (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Wow... head spinning here, thinking about this. Isn't this just about the same bandwidth load? Only lightening is that some people won't click on the link, so the image won't be served up. Any thoughts on what % "some" is in the above (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) It may be that there is little bandwidth change in the long run (I have _no_ idea about the numbers here), but the point is that people can't link directly to the file. This way, someone looking at Joe Blow's Lego Auction does not (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Yup -- that's the idea. There is also another reason: Linking to the HTML page currently just happens to plop up whatever size JPEG image happens to reside in the DB. But it doesn't have to be that way -- many of the images are 100+ KB, which (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) As you stated, the number of people actually clicking on the link would be fewer than the number of people merely looking at the image as it is automatically loaded, but that's not the issue. If I understand correctly, Todd's not saying we (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Neither, just a question. (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Todd - Instead of frustrating both the image pirates and their prospective customers, why not turn this situation to your advantage? Suppose that each time an HTTP request is made for an unauthorized image, you serve up a substitute image (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I believe the technology to do this exists. Xoom serves up just such an image if you try to link directly to an image you've placed there, or did. I'm not sure I'm keen on seeing adverts for MegaBlocks, but SC, Amazon, and TLG all come to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) That's an intriguing idea. I've seen similar sorts of things where a static (maybe 2KB) image is plopped up in place of the real image, and it typically gets scaled by modern browsers and looks all chunky and like that. But you're talking (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Well, couldn't you have several JPEGs of various dimensions ready to go, along with a database of the dimensions of the original images, and then feed the one whose dimensions are closest to those of the requested image? Actually, it probably (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) By the way: David, there is no way that an HTTP server can know the size of an image that a client/browser is expecting. That is, the HEIGHT and WIDTH attributes of the <IMG> tag are known only to the client/browser and to the originator of (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Ah. Yes. I see. Given the filename of image that the client wanted (which could be extracted from the URL), the actual dimensions of the image could be looked up (quite easily, in fact). So, yes, I misspoke. In general, it's not possible for (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Hi Todd I saw today your oops gif on ebay and thought its a good step. you might consider adding to the gif under the sad face: unauthorized direct links to lugnet images is prohibited use of our bandwidth please connect using(insert your url here) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) OK, thanks for pointing that out. I added the text: Direct Image Links Not Supported Note that "Not Supported" is more technically accurate than "Not Allowed" or "Not Permitted", since the detection mechanism (which relies on the browser (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Yeah, I don't think they can change it after submitting, but at least from now on they should be able to tell immediately that their theft of server space and bandwidth isn't going to work. Seems the person from the third example got a little (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I didn't see the original (been out of town all weekend) but this one seems very clear and easy to understand. (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I think it's a great idea. The unsmiley face works well. If Todd were more emotional about, it could have been a Fright Knight's face or even a pirate face! Aaarrrrrrr!! But Todd is very good about giving people the benefit of the doubt, much (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I thought his tirade had some valid points, though clouded in negative emotions. (Thanks for pointing me back there to look, BTW.) To paraphrase, he made the following points: 1. Apologized to his bidders for the non-functional image. 2. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) In a fairly bitchy little way. :) (...) Hrmmmm, assumptions, relying on ignorance, and multiple wrongs possibly making a right, all roled into one. :) (...) That's the only really legitimate thing I think he said, and you can solve that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) OK, this occurred today. At one point earlier today, there were three different eBay auctions, each of which accounting for more than 100 accesses per day of various set images (6988, 4011, etc.). Since the first changepoint, the outgoing (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I agree with all of the above (in principle); those were some of my first thoughts as well. But like I said before, "All of these [gripes of his] are tangible concerns which are likely to resurface again and again among the general Internet (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
#6 is not valid. Or at least it was not. There are sites that exist specifically to host auction images, which do so for free. (I think they tack an advert on the bottom of the image or something). (25 years ago, 8-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Hi Todd, (...) Even though I have to admit that I have used direct image links (but with credit for the source) in some of my eBay auctions, I have to agree with this argument, and will copy images in the future. (...) Looks like you already have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Horst, Here it is (attached below). Note that there are four lines in it that you'll need to redefine with your own server-specific stuff: 1. The path to perl (top of the file) 2. The directory where your images are stored (top of the code) 3. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
I just want to know what you used on the server to stup the refers... -- Z. Unger dzz@mindspring.com ICQ: 14375008 ===...=== LEGO Fusion : (URL) Universe : (URL) leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering... Todd Lehman (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Oh, I think a _Nasty_ graphic would have been more fun. alt.binaries.images.tasteless - the seller would have really had something to whine about if you had been out to harm him. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Is it possible that this could be a member service? When are there going to be members? (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
Sooo it is a CGI... All I needed to know... -- Z. Unger dzz@mindspring.com ICQ: 14375008 ===...=== LEGO Fusion : (URL) Universe : (URL) leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering... Z. Unger <dzz@mindspring.com> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
I had been claiming that there were sites set up explicitly to serve images up for auctions. Well, the "rarest lego ever seen" listing on Ebay uses one. (URL) they're out there. Hope that's of some use. Perhaps this is a FAQ? maybe not. (25 years ago, 17-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I think it would be -- in the lugnet.admin.general area, tied in to the whole image piracy thing? Hmmm... The issue *is* "official" LUGNET policy, and may be asked more than once. I'll file this one away for reference when I can get back into (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Not me personally, no, but this IS the internet, if someone's doing it, someone else almost certainly is as well. Heck... a quick yahoo search using auction and image yielded a few. I have not examined these at all. (URL) Larry Pieniazek (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.faq)
|
