I've noticed that occasionally, someone will link to an image here that just won't display, even if the URL is carefully copied from the original page.

(In most browsers, you can get the exact URL by right-clicking the image and choosing "display image." The URL that results in the address bar at the top of your browser will be true URL.)

Apparently, many sites are now taking steps to prevent you from doing this. They consider this "bandwidth theft" -- you're using their server just to display an image without actually visiting their site (and looking at their advertising[g]).

Look for this to become more common in the future, too. If you want to see it from their viewpoint, check out this article at The Site Wizard.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), January 04, 2002

Answers

This reminds me of the Caller ID wars. First you had Caller ID, then Caller ID Blocking, then you had Block the Caller ID Blocker. That last one pretty much ended it. You cannot Block the Blocker Blocker.

But THIS cat and mouse game could go on indefinitely - as long as there are ever more powerful tools out there like the Proxomitron so we can re-write web pages to display the way we want them to.

I do see it from their point of view. If ads are blocked, then free (ad-supported) content is in jeopardy as a model for what we have now come to EXPECT from the internet. Whatever is the answer to this, I'm not sure, but I know what it ISN'T (Central Control)

-- Debbie (dbspence@pobox.com), January 06, 2002.

There are actually very few instances where borrowed images are being viewed excessively by other locations. In those cases, if the volume of hits on the image is actually causing a considerable reduction in advertising revenues, then this mechanism should be used.

In the instances in which I have seen this being used, it seems to be totally unnecessary, mostly just another way for tight-ass greedy penny-pinchers to satisfy their desire to be as selfish as possible.

-- (don't worry @ be. happy), January 06, 2002.