google gives context as it links to your site

learn htaccess for anti hotlinking

that's what I meant to say

Sending an image request to an HTML document is pointless, when you can just 403 it instead. If that page happens to be script generated, the fusker can easily overload your server. :winkwink:


I remember an ICQ message I got a few months ago from someone who had their server repeatedly crashing. I SSHed in, and dumped the logs (which took forever), and finally found out what the problem was. He had created a page in his CMS with goatse/*******/etc, and was trying to redirect the hotlinkers to that via htaccess. Each of the image views was causing a hit on a dynamically generated page :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

a dime a dozen on gfy a dime a ozen low intelletucuals........shame

hotlink protection in htaccess
yes its that simple

yes... htaccess, that simple... but it doesn't take away from the fact that certain programs are buying traffic and accepting to do business with sites that steal.

I wish you people would read the thread - I am protected with htaccess, and yes, it works... but you now what? You get enough requests to your server that you have to handle with htaccess, your box still slows down.

Get back to the point: Fusker sites steal from other people, and some companies are content to profit from theft.

Juicy, can you please answer the question DIRECTLY?

thanks

Alex

Let me add this. Let's say you run a hotdog stand. Guy rolls another stand up next to you, sells for half the price, and when someone asks for a dog, he reaches into your cart to get the dog.... and doesn't pay you.

Truly an unfair advantage.

Alex

Why did you single out Fleshlight and not the other 2 sponsors?

http://www.nymalegigolos.com/fl/juicyglow.gif


http://www.gl4l.com/fl/juicy2.jpg

http://www.nymalegigolos.com/teaser/fleshjuicy.jpg

What you want answered?

htaccess

Alex,

Read my earlier post btw.........you post this stuff on weekend when we are off and enjoying the weekend......today is monday

Now a simple email would have been the professional thing to do and so on...

Looking into it.

Not that I like these guys, but they aren't doing anything illegal, the stuff is still on your server all they do is link. If you put an url on the hotlink protection image you might even get some traffic from it. Should everybody use hotlinking protection there would be no fusker sites.

Those sites that let users host images is a bigger problem.

milambur, umm, you cannot redirect an image request to a page - and serving a banner with your URL on it might get you a few hits, but nothing compared to the bandwidth the serve the sucker. I could get much better return on investment buying hits from adwords.

Juicy, the answer is simple: You are posting on here all the time, you have profile, and your promotion machine is turned up to 11 all the time. Asking the question here is the shortest route to get the best answer possible. It also helps to remind other scammers that your program won't pay for this type of traffic. Use of the content on their web pages without 2257 documents or a license is breaking the rules (the content is presented as integral to their site. There is no easy way to know that it is coming from a different server. They control their web page, they are responsible for what is on it - if this was not the case, they could load up on CP and display it with impunity, which we all know won't fly)

You are not the first. I did exactly the same to AVN and adbrite in the past. Even got that nice guy Pud to post on an adult board (he is involved in adbrite).

I am not treating you special. I picked the biggest banner on the page and it happened to be yours.

So, what is the status of fusker based accounts?

Alex

does it matter if he didn't point out the 2 other sponsors... is it that hard to give out a straight answer?

Put a gif with black text on white background, you can get the size down to like 2k. The cost for displaying your URL a million times would be like $0.20 , if you don't want that traffic I can give you an image you can redirect to.

milambur, you need to work on your calculations... you left a couple of zeros out.

******* gets the call in my world.

Alex

Perhaps he thought he'd get a quick reply here - since you are whoring out fleshlight every single day.

Or perhaps he was giving you a heads up?

Either way does it really make a difference? A straight answer is not asking for much.

2 000 x 1 000 0000 = 2 000 000 000 = 2GB, I pay about 10 cent per GB so that would be 20 cent or $0.20
What zeros did I get wrong?

100 :)

*_*
\/

Your mistake is assuming that everyone in the world is paying 10 cents per gig. I just checked, example, blue gravity. $1.00 per gig (off their semi-dedicated page).

Your second mistake is assuming that serving 1 million images per day didn't somehow going to take away resources from other things. You are also forgetting server overhead, network overhead, etc.

In the meantime, Juicy, how are you doing on those guys? Do you feel bad because you have to review and approve each account and now you are on fusker?

Alex

This kind of crap isn't anything new and if only one or two affiliates are going to see threads like this as more than just another chance to spam their sigs, where's the incentive for sponsors to deal with it?

Almost a week and three of this board's best-known sponsors are still up on that page and not a definitive comment from any of them. Pretty sad...

Interesting point. That kind of defeats the purpose of reviewing and approving ?

Isn't it Tuesday today?

they are piece of cakes in ass

http://static.flickr.com/10/15426586_4f7d78e2af_o.jpg

simple as that ;)))

This brings up a good question. If you were getting paid pretty well by one of the sponsors on the page, would you stop using them because of their assumed continuous support of these kind of sites (passwords, warez, torrent, fusker, etc) ?

pretty sad that people can't learn how to protect themselfs or take advantage of the situation and have to complain to everyone and everything.

I have done it several times. I visit GFY to catch up on the sponsor news that for whatever reason they choose not to mail out and to watch for threads like this. Sponsors' reactions, or lack of them, tell me much more about them than any self-promos.

There are no "golden" sponsors any more, so replacing one doesn't cost a thing. I cannot stop a sponsor who wants to help keep this industry like the wild west, just so he can bank a few more dollars this year. But I don't have to support him.

In the case of AFF for example though, you spend a lot of time and money building a good recurring income with them. I know you're very well aware of how attached you can grow to a great recurring sponsor. I was asking myself the same question, as I posted it here. I do use AFF, and have a decent recurring with them. They seem to accept traffic from anyone, ethical (for whatever that seems to mean around here anymore) or not. I don't know the answer yet, whether I would drop them or not because they are continuing to support these Fuskers.

There are a lot webmasters that came into this business because the could sell ice to Eskimos. Some has a more technical background. Not everybody is technical enough to put up a hotlink protection, and it's not a requirement. Copyright theft is illegal, no matter how you look at it.

Supporting illegal sites like Fusker interferes with honest webmasters business.

Honestly, that sounds like the answer of a man who would take money from anyone for anything.

If you bothered to read the thread, you would know I am already well protected, thanks very much, and that isn't the issue in the slightest.

The question comes to this: Why are the companies from some of the largest posters here comfortable to see their advertising on the pages of people who's sole business model is to steal from others?

I understand that "make money" theory, but affiliates should know that they are competing for those sales with people who have much lower costs than they do to do business, and steal to make sure it happens.

Sponsors should wake up. I am surprised that nobody has DMCA'ed a sponsor for aiding theft of copyright materials.

Alex

Whatever, like I said, if you don't want the traffic, I can take it.

This business is very slowly maturing and eventually support of the kind of sites you mentioned will no longer be acceptable. But no-one can do more than guess at the timescale nor as to which sponsors will clean up their acts soon enough to remain successful. On the other hand you might switch to a a sponsor with higher professional standards but proves not to have what it will take to be around 10 years from now.

In the end I figure only time will tell if I made the right financial choice, so I might just as well do what I believe is right.

Lars replied in another thread, jayeff.