First, let me agree that hotlinking without permission is bad manners, people shouldn’t do it, and it places a burden on the “hosting” site which may be anywhere from trivial to substantial. And, though I didn’t see Mike’s innovative response, I think it was probably well within the parameters of an appropriate response to the situation.

That being said, people who call it “theft” are just wrong. The philosophy of hypertext, from it’s earliest usable implimentation, has been one of free linkability. (Tes it’s true that hypertext conceptual pioneer Ted Nelson projected that all or most linked content would be transparently charged for. However that model did not prevail.) My belief is that when you put content on a publically accessible web server there is implicit permission to link freely. There are probably some lawyers who could generate counter-arguements, but “that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it”. People whose images are hotlinked have a variety of recourses, from requests to threats of retaliation, to removing the image, to clever sabotage a la Mike). What they do not have the right to do is complain that their content was “stolen” (And, no Mike, I don’t mean you. But that attitude is out there and it is one of my pet peeves.)

Now the one counterargument that might hold weight would be to try to class hotlinking under the laws relating to DOS attacks. But for that, I think you would have to show both actual DOS-level damage and intent.

Basically hotlinking is bad manners, maybe a little like spitting on somebody’s car in the parking lot. But it’s not theft.

-Steve

You are my hero.

what are you, 5? grow up.

(Editor’s Note: 32, actually. And growing up more every year! Thanks!)

Well done. I hope your lawyers are, um, all a-ready.

What could they possibly come after him with? Defamation? Not likely. It’s their own fault that this was made possible.