Site A links to site B.
O.k., as a senior, "we" are plagued by "fuzzy" thinking-issues...and this is one of them, to be sure...for me...
Sorry, about digressing into a less then technical area...
I can see your point, and totally agree with what you say...I think...but...I also think that that would only hold true [the profit motive], if the "linker" was gaining from the link [to B] ...otherwise, I see it as a "service" to the linked-to site [B]; -to direct readers to that link owner's site [B]. There is no advantage one way or the other to the secondary site [A-mine for instance] for linking my site [A] back to another site [B] that would offer the reader an advantage, should he/she want to take advantage of it. Hosting an image is a one time issue at minimal size ...maybe 25kb or so...it's not as if the host site has to dig it up from somewhere, expend resources to remount it, and then rehost it everytime a link is made to it...the link-image is just "throughput" a "base," like in baseball.
For example, the SysChat logo, et al...I am gaining nothing from offering the link [from A to B] back to SysChat [B], but I feel the reader would gain tremendous "profit" from both its content and its dialoguing. It is to the reader's advantage to "visit" SysChat [B], not mine [A]. I gain nothing from it. Better to be referred to a site [B], then to just stumble upon it aimlessly without the benefit of a pre-clearing as to usefulness and worth...that's how adsense works...hits are profitable.
If I am wrong-thinking, then how?
This is one link, that only
is activated,
if activated, and only a hypothetical drain on resources
when and if used.
Again, hypothetially, relatively few, if any, are going to put a SysChat [B] link, using a logo, on their blog [A], and a still smaller number would activate the link [tap on it], and a still smaller number would linger there [B]...and once linked, the use for the linked image is no longer needed, thus no more resource drain...which was only for a moment at best, to begin with...
mmmmmmmmm...a puzzle?
Maybe I am benefitting...they do "pretty up" a blog...all those images
Now, all that being said, I totally agree with the "stealing" of bandwidth, or whatever, if a site [A] were offering another site's [B] contents up as a benefit to visiting site A.
A had B's logo on it, with the intent of "stealing" the content from B's site to enrich/benefit/profit A's site. That is all logical.
For example, if I was to offer up a link to a site [B]...SysChat...that would benefit my site [A] in any way, that would be dishonest... I would be making an indirect claim that the SysChat site [B] was part and parcel of a supposed service offered by my site [A].
False and wrong. I would be indirectly "forcing" the reader of my site, to visit an embedded link to a supposed resouce on site A, but really an independent resource, site B.
Clear? or still murky? This is, in malodorous terms, what, I believe, is called "spoofing;" if there is malicious intent for the linkage.
I won't belay this issue unless someone else wants to. My last word: I don't see any "theft," if nothing is gained from it...all the benefits accrue to the linked-to site [b]. With respect...I see it as a "service." And part of the cost of "doing business" on the internet, where everyone is in everyone else's backyard...
P/S images can be "blocked" from all angles, forcing the viewer to have to capture images and thus host them on their own computer. They do not have to be redirected back to any other site in a "live" manner.
PP/S: this is a technical issue. Some of my upper case [B]'s (as it did just then) in the message prep level are coming out as lower case [b]'s in the saved level that goes to print. I've tried to edit, but to no avail.
.
