<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Content Thieves Coming Out Of The Woodwork</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/</link>
	<description>Bill Rini's Poker Weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11198</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11198</guid>
		<description>Stephen,

Sorry you got caught hotlinking to my content.  

I have a very simple and generous copyright policy.  The only people who are impacted by me enforcing things like "no hotlinking" are people who have opted to ignore one of the few rules I do place on using my content.  

Just as an example, the first guy I mention above just cut and paste the post and put it on a high traffic message board without ANY attribution.  Then it got picked up on Digg and there was a huge traffic spike.  Since he hotlinked all of the images, guess who gets to pay for all of the bandwidth without getting ANY credit?  

See the big issue here is why does one need to cut and paste my content onto a message board or even their own site?  There's absolutely no reason.  Why not a link?  What's the goal of reproducing the content elsewhere?  In the vast majority of cases, it comes down to the fact that the copyright infringer wants to obtain traffic (or credit) from my work but doesn't actually want to send people to the original source.

But what about if they put up a link back to my site?  Well, that's why I have rules about atrribution.  

Lastly, because you weren't clear, you said that I changed the images on my own site to prevent hotlinking.  That's incorrect.  My original posts ON MY SITE have the correct images.  If you are seeing a "No Hotlinking" image it's because your browser has cached the No Hotlinking image after viewing it on a site that has hotlinked the content.  Clear your chache and reload.  Should work just fine.  

Again, the whole problem goes away if people don't hotlink (and follow the author's copyright).  If you own a website or have spent more than 15 minutes on the web, you should know that hotlinking is wrong.  Just Google for hotlinking and you'll note that this is a HUGE problem for webmasters.  

Bill</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen,</p>
<p>Sorry you got caught hotlinking to my content.  </p>
<p>I have a very simple and generous copyright policy.  The only people who are impacted by me enforcing things like &#8220;no hotlinking&#8221; are people who have opted to ignore one of the few rules I do place on using my content.  </p>
<p>Just as an example, the first guy I mention above just cut and paste the post and put it on a high traffic message board without ANY attribution.  Then it got picked up on Digg and there was a huge traffic spike.  Since he hotlinked all of the images, guess who gets to pay for all of the bandwidth without getting ANY credit?  </p>
<p>See the big issue here is why does one need to cut and paste my content onto a message board or even their own site?  There&#8217;s absolutely no reason.  Why not a link?  What&#8217;s the goal of reproducing the content elsewhere?  In the vast majority of cases, it comes down to the fact that the copyright infringer wants to obtain traffic (or credit) from my work but doesn&#8217;t actually want to send people to the original source.</p>
<p>But what about if they put up a link back to my site?  Well, that&#8217;s why I have rules about atrribution.  </p>
<p>Lastly, because you weren&#8217;t clear, you said that I changed the images on my own site to prevent hotlinking.  That&#8217;s incorrect.  My original posts ON MY SITE have the correct images.  If you are seeing a &#8220;No Hotlinking&#8221; image it&#8217;s because your browser has cached the No Hotlinking image after viewing it on a site that has hotlinked the content.  Clear your chache and reload.  Should work just fine.  </p>
<p>Again, the whole problem goes away if people don&#8217;t hotlink (and follow the author&#8217;s copyright).  If you own a website or have spent more than 15 minutes on the web, you should know that hotlinking is wrong.  Just Google for hotlinking and you&#8217;ll note that this is a HUGE problem for webmasters.  </p>
<p>Bill</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11196</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11196</guid>
		<description>Dont be so stupid...you have actually changed the images on your own site to prevent hotlinking...
How dumb can you get?
Your actually removing your own content so others cant use it, what about people that do include a link to your site?

Stop being so pedantic and get a life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dont be so stupid&#8230;you have actually changed the images on your own site to prevent hotlinking&#8230;<br />
How dumb can you get?<br />
Your actually removing your own content so others cant use it, what about people that do include a link to your site?</p>
<p>Stop being so pedantic and get a life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StatikKling</title>
		<link>http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11183</link>
		<dc:creator>StatikKling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11183</guid>
		<description>Re: BG

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Umm.. Punch and Pie.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: BG</p>
<p>AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.</p>
<p>Umm.. Punch and Pie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BG</title>
		<link>http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11155</link>
		<dc:creator>BG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.billrini.com/2006/03/09/content-thieves-coming-out-of-the-woodwork/#comment-11155</guid>
		<description>You guys are all stupid.  If maybe you spent more of your time in navel-gazing posts about how your old corduroy pants are blousy and make you look like you have a crotch goiter, then maybe you wouldn't be running into problems like this.  Since the content thieves have figured out that bitching about an ex-wife doesn't sell affiliate codes, I've been in the clear.

It's your own fault(s), really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You guys are all stupid.  If maybe you spent more of your time in navel-gazing posts about how your old corduroy pants are blousy and make you look like you have a crotch goiter, then maybe you wouldn&#8217;t be running into problems like this.  Since the content thieves have figured out that bitching about an ex-wife doesn&#8217;t sell affiliate codes, I&#8217;ve been in the clear.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s your own fault(s), really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
