IB hotlinking my site

[jonsidneyb]

So what actually happened here? Was it the person making the custom smilies, was it IB?

I think whoever did this should be drawn and quartered but I think it is important to know exactly who did what first.

 

[Coop1979]

So what actually happened here? Was it the person making the custom smilies, was it IB?

I think whoever did this should be drawn and quartered but I think it is important to know exactly who did what first.

It appears that the original owner of the site used the OP's smilies (hyperlinked them), then IB recently bought the site and apparently didn't notice it until the OP changed the images to instead be the XF advertisement.

I always find it funny when IB buys a site, never updates its OWN software, and uses 3rd party software like vbSEO.

 

[Luxus]

This thread has just killed me.

 

[high1976]

What you host on your own server is your own right. You can not help it if someone is foolish enough to link it into their own site (stealing).

it just may help if you think that through again with some real-life examples

 

[AdamD]

I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to hyper/hot link to tiny smilies?

I mean each time a thread/post is loaded, it has to lookup the website url, then download the smilie to that persons computer, rather than doing it from their own server? lol

I did something similar on my own site once, but used the orly owl image instead.

 

[Taylor J]

I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to hyper/hot link to tiny smilies?

I mean each time a thread/post is loaded, it has to lookup the website url, then download the smilie to that persons computer, rather than doing it from their own server? lol

I did something similar on my own site once, but used the orly owl image instead.

It only has to download the smilie once per user, after that they will most likely be cached for that user.

 

[Adam Howard]

it just may help if you think that through again with some real-life examples

I have and applied it a dozen times.

 

[Digital Doctor]

While I do agree this is pretty funny, I think it's probably as Joey described above and due to the previous owner. As much as we all like to bash IB, they are a pretty big company with more important things to do than this...things like this are usually done by juveniles and not Fortune 500 companies.

IB is definitely too big a company to care about making good forum software. That much is true.

 

[Adam Howard]

The time is 7:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, on Wed June 20th, 2012

It is important that I note that time, because I'm going to prove that Internet Brands watches this forum, more than they do their own.

How do I know? I posted this in the customer's forum and it is just sitting there.
Who wants to bet that this is gone ASAP after I show this here?!? (Anyone?!?)

 

[steven s]

This thread has gone from entertaining to pathetic.

 

[Blue]

They locked the thread.

 

[a legacy reborn]

The time is 7:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, on Wed June 20th, 2012

It is important that I note that time, because I'm going to prove that Internet Brands watches this forum, more than they do their own.

How do I know? I posted this in the customer's forum and it is just sitting there.
Who wants to bet that this is gone ASAP after I show this here?!? (Anyone?!?)

View attachment 30782

I just need to post out that it's leech, not leach. Sorry about that but I had to do it...*phew* OCD over with.

Not the best decision to post about what you did here as it looks like you are getting closer to "bashing" the competition which is not allowed on this forum but I am still waiting for an official response from IB. I tweeted them and have yet to receive a response. The least they could do is offer up an explanation of why they were hotlinking instead of trying to coverup this incident, or maybe they are going to use this in their court case against xF, which would be very low and pointless because xF never gave permission(to my knowledge) to use the xF logo.

 

[EQnoble]

What is done is done...if I have an image let's say on this post...that originates from my server...

I am granting by posting here the use of the material...that is part of the terms of basically any website that you can publicly post at.

It is not someone's right other than myself or xf to in conjunction with their public website then use the images location to have me host an image to be loaded when opening up a page on their server. It is petty theft but it is surely a way to try and make someone's site look like it is loading slow.

When you use a service that is a free and public image host and you actually upload the image yourself...there is still a chance of it being removed, lost , expired or whatever. If you use a service that is other than you're own something can be down while your site is up...but you will never see a switch of your image to another one.

However, if you look at someone not even asking if they can use remotely hosted images and just doing it...it is not any right of their own at all to complain if the images are changed to something they don't agree with.

Knowingly or not...the fact of the matter is that an individual with no legal connection (I am not a lawyer) to the company (xf) other than being a member of their forum and a customer who bought the software and contributes his time to others in the community excised his right's to change a or many images on his server which his site is dependent on and any collateral damage of that action can not be held against him seeing that showing support to a site that he has a proven record of showing support for is hardly malice. Any damages incurred can not be the fault of the site which was hotlinked simply because there was no agreement stating that he must keep a or many images there, it was their duty to ask if they could leech the bandwidth from him and without asking it was plain theft, you can't break into someones house and sue them because they are broke can you? How can you steal and be mad at what you ended up getting.

Again....I am not a lawyer...this is just my view of what should be common sense according to responsible freedom. To me this is a chuckle of an example of tit-for-tat, you steal from me I zing you back. Case closed.



It was funny...I would do the same thing if they were stealing from me.

alas...we should just leave it alone now and enjoy the fact that they got caught and it is known and public and just keep it moving...

 

[Joeychgo]

Didn't know that at the time I wrote the article, I was pretty fast in posting it

Thats what happens when a blogger or "journalist" cares more about being sensational then accurate.

 

[Cal]

Missed this one...but wow. Awesome. Good job Mutt!

 

[Paul M]

The time is 7:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, on Wed June 20th, 2012

It is important that I note that time, because I'm going to prove that Internet Brands watches this forum, more than they do their own.

How do I know? I posted this in the customer's forum and it is just sitting there.
Who wants to bet that this is gone ASAP after I show this here?!? (Anyone?!?)

I'll bet it stays exactly where it is.
God, you must be really bored if this is how you have to entertain yourself.

 

[Pereira]

Thats what happens when a blogger or "journalist" cares more about being sensational then accurate.

How is he being "sensational". I don't understand the difference it makes.

IB appear to be an investment company so posting on vB would be about as bizarre as posting on Invision. As far as I can tell, IB own hundreds of high ranked websites, so to me this has nothing to do vBulletin. More so the lack of care their parent company has for managing their websites. I think it's a shame every time IB are mentioned, it automatically means it has something to do with vB. However I think it's equally as bad when we appear to have a few acting on the defensive, as if people were being critical of vB whenever IB are mentioned.

The two entity's are separate, as I understand.

 

[Shelley]

How is he being "sensational". I don't understand the difference it makes.

IB appear to be an investment company so posting on vB would be about as bizarre as posting on Invision. As far as I can tell, IB own hundreds of high ranked websites, so to me this has nothing to do vBulletin. More so the lack of care their parent company has for managing their websites. I think it's a shame every time IB are mentioned, it automatically means it has something to do with vB. However I think it's equally as bad when we appear to have a few acting on the defensive, as if people were being critical of vB whenever IB are mentioned.

The two entity's are separate, as I understand.

For some people the truth matters, for others people will lie all there lives and think nothing of it. I'm not knocking the author but I think the honest thing to do is post the truth, amend the article. The smilies weren't xf smilies so I'm unsure why the xf logo made a guest appearance. If I go read an article or blog I like to think that the author posted all the facts and not half truths.

I'm not knocking anyone here just stating fact. The smilies were not XF smilies, sure the smilies were hotlinked from but have you ever considered IB was not aware of that? It is a possibility.

 

[Pereira]

For some people the truth matters, for others people will lie all there lives and think nothing of it. I'm not knocking the author but I think the honest thing to do is post the truth, amend the article. The smilies weren't xf smilies so I'm unsure why the xf logo made a guest appearance. If I go read an article or blog I like to think that the author posted all the facts and not half truths.

I'm not knocking anyone here just stating fact. The smilies was not XF smilies, sure the smilies were hotlinked from but have you ever considered IB was not aware of that? It is a possibility.

I don't see how he was trying to lie. He has admitted the mistake of not knowing at the time and the article has since been amended.

was using smilies from a Xenforo site and was even hotlinking to them!

I think you would have a point if it was deliberate and the author was trying to deceive but I don't even think the point of the story is about what the images were. It's more about where they were coming from.

To me it's doubtful they wouldn't have known. Especially if you look at how many admins there are on that site (most of which have IB in their name). You would have to blind to miss something like this.

 

[Shelley]

I don't see how he was trying to lie. He has admitted the mistake of not knowing at the time and the article has since been amended.


I think you would have a point if it was deliberate and the author was trying to deceive but I don't even think the point of the story is about what the images were. It's more about where they were coming from.

To me it's doubtful they wouldn't have know. Especially if you look at how many admins there are on that site (most of which have IB in their name). You would have to blind to miss something like this.

Obviously it wasn't deliberate by the author, I'm not saying it was, as walter stated, he posted it quickly so I assume posted without getting all the facts. It seems now the article is amended which goes a long way in my books.