Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things

Deep Linkage

by BBQ (Deacon)
on Jul 21, 2000 at 04:00 UTC ( #23512=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Okay, the funniest thing just happened to me. I was scanning my weblogs for most used browser versions and I noticed that although most of the referer's come from the Hex images article on perlmonks, there is one other site that is giving me a healthy chunk of referers as well. The site is

Apparently someone at Distorted Youth came by my pic on perlmonks and thought it was:
  1. way cool
  2. way horrible
  3. silly enough to post on his site
I'm laughing my ass off since I've never been refered to before (at least not THAT way). Anyway, I found it amusing, and I'm pretty curious to know which perlmonk linked my pic. But, anyway, that got me thinking on something else:

The two days ago, there was this big discussion in the chatterbox (and I was in it as well) about a certain monk (don't remember the name now, I think it was airgut(?) or something...), thinking that his picture had somehow been tainted by being posted on jcwren's very cool stats page. I couldn't point a better example of how stuff we post on the internet will move out of our control as soon as we upload / post / link and whatnot. The entire "deep-linking" issue is just plain bullshit in my book. Once you upload something, its out there.

Sure, you have copyright over it if you've registered it. But, take my case for instance. Does anyone actually think I have the right to be even remotely offended for having been "deep linked" to Distorted Youth's site??

Nah! I'm laughing my head off. Certain peole should take their self-image more lightly as well, me thinks. But hey, that's just my personal opinion.

# Trust no1!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(Ovid) RE: Deep Linkage
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Jul 21, 2000 at 20:49 UTC
    BBQ, while I applaud that you take your self-image lightly, I have to say that I have a problem with what Distorted Youth did. They did not just steal your pic and post it. They have the HREF for it linking directly back to your site. That's very rude and inconsiderate. I'm not talking about content stealing or copyright as that's already being hashed out. I'm talking about bandwidth stealing. Maybe you don't care if you get a few hits from Distorted Youth. What if someone posted your pic on a large site? Just a brief mention of a site on /. is often enough to take it down.

    If you don't mind the person using your pic, ask him/her to at least extend the courtesy to you of hosting the pic on their own server so they can use their own hard drive space and bandwidth (and maybe provide a "compliments of" link).

    Update: I forgot to mention the incredible stupidity of anyone linking directly to another site's images without permission. All one needs to do is rename the image and then insert a "creative" image in the old image's place. If an offending site won't stop the linking voluntarily, this usually stops it pretty fast :)

    Oooohhhhh... I'm not sure I could resist the opportunity to use that to craft a "personal message" to Distorted Youth's readers.

      Well noted Ovid... Under those circumstances, yes I would have a problem with my pic being posted. Mind you though, that if it turned up on the cover of the New York Times (regular paper), I would have no problema with it whatsoever. But, as I tell my co-workers, "I live for bandwidth: the more I have, the happier I am" (and isn't this common geeks behavior? :))

      If bandwidth became a problem, yes, I would take it down myself. For now, its not a problem and any bottlenecks I could possibly have would probably show up on Brazil's backbone first. Sad but true.

      I'm rambling again. What I meant to say is: you have a very valid point.

      # Trust no1!
RE: Deep Linkage
by spectre (Scribe) on Jul 21, 2000 at 04:35 UTC
    The legality (And morality, in my opinion) is that ANYTHING posted to the internet is public domain as far as linking goes.
    I am in total agreement here, BBQ, once it's posted to the WWW (Legally declared a public place) it's fair game to use for a link.
    Being as I work for a company for which this is an issue (My company aggregates data, that is to say we search multiple other sites and show the customers all the data we collect), this topic has been tossed around here alot.
      Well put spectre. I guess the point I was trying to make was more on the self-image (or too much of it) than the legal aspects of deep linking some monk's image. But yes, I guess that was part of what came up in the discussion in the chatter-box. Therefor, not only should people take the usage of their image more lightly, but they should respect the way the internet works!

      I can see this topic branching in several different directions, la a good OLD Slashdot thread: warez vs. free software, Napster and MP3's, comercial deep linkage without credit, and even more personal aspects of what happened to me... I mean, I could be highly offended by being associated with "Distorted Youth" (WTF do those guys do anyway???) but I'm not! I found it amusing. Even if they HAD, let say, altered my image, or refered to my pic as being an example of how ugly one can be, I still wouldn't be offended.

      I have come to learn that its better to laugh with people, than laugh at people. Even when you're the one being made fun of. Life's too short to get all pissed and prissy with small issues like these.

      # Trust no1!
        It is far beyond your right or place, to tell another person what they may, or may not be offended by. I will be offended by anything that offends me, and it is ridiculous to suggest that your way is automatically superior. Is it wrong of me to remove my image in protest of something I dislike?
        Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572    |    205065726c204861636b6572
RE: Deep Linkage
by JP Sama (Hermit) on Jul 21, 2000 at 04:44 UTC
    As a co-worker (and not being blind), I look at you every day... And, IMHO, you are WAY TO UGLY barbie!!

    #!/jpsama/bin/perl -w $tks = `mount`; $jpsama = $! if $!; print $jpsama;
      Thanks Joo! You've got a pretty ugly mug yourself but I still love you.

      BTW, you all can (and you must) agree with me on this one if you just take a look at him.

      # Trust no1!
RE: Deep Linkage
by Aighearach on Jul 21, 2000 at 13:43 UTC
    "airgut?" how creative.

    I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about morality. For one thing, it is a highjacking of this site. If people want to look at the pic I posted here, they can damn well look at my home node and vroom's banner while they are at it. That is how I feel, and is not for you to judge. jcwren was offended that I even might want a say in how my copyrighted image is represented, so I removed it from this site. I hardly think we need to resort to name-calling.

    Also, I don't know if you are aware of American copyright law, but you don't have to register something. The person who creates a document automatically is the copyright holder of that material, unless they have assigned it to somebody else.

    Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572    |    205065726c204861636b6572
      "airgut?" how creative.

      I'm honestly sorry, dude! But, you must concede that you do have a rather difficult handle! I even asked the people in #perlmonks and the best they could come up with was Aigh.

      I wasn't talking about legality, I was talking about morality.

      So was I! I am no authority on internet law, and can't argue in that field. I was discussing morality as well!

      For one thing, it is a highjacking of this site. If people want to look at the pic I posted here, they can damn well look at my home node and vroom's banner while they are at it.

      Whoa! Slow down big fella!! You're trying to say that jcwren, sets up a page with vroom's consense, and its highjacking of the site? I consider jc's page to be almost an extentsion of this site! The content was exactly the same, same users, same pics, just arranged in a different manner! That is hardly highjacking! Deep linking? Perhaps, but not highjacking... Highjacking would be if I took you're pic and copied it onto my machine. Then you might have a valid point. (more on this later).

      That is how I feel, and is not for you to judge.

      Dude, we aren't on trial here. I have my opinion, and I am allowed to disagree with yours, just as much as you are allowed to disagree with mine. We all make use of our judgement on a daily basis, it would be hard not to judge someone else's opinion. It's part of civilized interaction. Who are you to judge what I can or can't judge? ;)

      I hardly think we need to resort to name-calling.

      Sorry, you lost me on that one. Care to explain?

      Also, I don't know if you are aware of American copyright law, but you don't have to register something.

      As I said before, I have no idea of what the american law is, and to be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn... We aren't in America, we are on the Internet. Yes, perlmonks is located within the U.S. But my machines aren't... That's why I copied your image to my server, to make a point.

      I just wanted to ask you this: is all of this mess worth a picture of you at a picnic? A picture that hasn't even been altered, or isn't obscene, or offending (at least not in any way that I can see)?
      Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough. -- Larry Wall

      # Trust no1!
        And now you are suggesting "Aigh" and "air-gut" are the same thing? You insult me again! Yeah, they came up with Aigh, that's what I tell people... just call me Aigh... so of course they did. My having a difficult handle does not make name-calling okay.
        Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572    |    205065726c204861636b6572
      Images and content posted to the internet are legally declared "posted to a public place" - And, since it's all public information, linking to it is NOT a legal issue. Copying it and reproducing it IS an infringement of copyright, but linking is NOT. Your argument concerning copyright law is not applicable in this case.
      Your argument about morality is laughable at best - Posting something to a public place is in effect giving permission to link to it. If you dont feel that way I suggest you dont post things to public places anymore.
      It's common practice on the internet to link to images in this manner, it if offends your sense of morality you're in for a lifetime of being offended, which is fine by me, of course, however I wouldnt want to go through life constantly being offended by an act that is this common.
        Yes, and if I choose to think things that common practices are wrong, I am free to protest as I see fit. I hardly see the need for Flog Nodes to be created. What is the point of this whole thread, other than, Aighearach complained in the chatterbox, and is wrong? As for claims of legality, those that have followed the court case know that it is not in fact a clear issue at all, yet, only certain specific instances have been determined. Although, that is somewhat besides the point. If I was making use of somebody elses _private data_ to gain popularity for my site, and they wanted the link not even removed, but slightly altered to point the user at the containing page, I cannot imagine refusing to do that.
        Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572    |    205065726c204861636b6572

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://23512]
Approved by root
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (5)
As of 2018-06-20 23:13 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?

    Results (117 votes). Check out past polls.