4 ms·

Freebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The views

by ihuman 11y ago

Freebooting is not posting a link to someone's original content. It is when you reupload the content to your page/channel/website, and then link that. The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator.

wlesieutre 11y ago
90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to YouTube. The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original creator.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Sure, and that's probably considered "freebooting" as well.
  - r721 11y ago
    I wish imgur did something similar with reuploads of images, now that would be an interesting experiment to watch.
- Systemic33 11y ago
  However, that rehosting is usually not to steal traffic, but because most of the webpages that host the original, would experience what is called the hug of death, when thousands of viewers suddenly flock to their website. So linking to the original content, is best done as a addendum to the rehosted content, to still allow for viewers to check out the original creator.
  - overcast 11y ago
    Yes, I'm sure all the freebooters are just doing this to avoid the hug of death. 99% of the time I see no mention of the original content creator in any imgur link. Often times, someone further down in the comments will dig it up and tell people.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Another reason is that half of the time the original source has slow and shitty webpage. Standardized, mostly bullshit-free interface is what made imgur and gyfcat win.
      - overcast 11y ago
        That's fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem here. People have their work ripped off, without any mention of it.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        This does however suggest something. The problem here seems similar to the problem of piracy in general, in that people choose content delivery format that sucks the least, and then delivery platform that they understand. Consider the case of movie piracy (and for simplification let's exclude people pirating because they don't have money): people often torrent movies because they want to get a decent-quality mp4 file instead of a half-assed player and a third of an operating system that together deliver half an hour of unskippable ads and piracy warnings. Consider the case of videogames - when Steam showed up, piracy went from something everyone does to something shameful among gamers. Or just today at work we're talking about a streaming site that serves soccer league games. One of my cow-orkers pointed out that this is about the only reasonable way to watch soccer games, because otherwise you'd have to buy subscription to half a dozen cable services - as different leagues have deals with different companies. Now imgur is a no-bullshit source of images. People know and understand it. It's no surprise people prefer it, and for non-imgur sources you can often find requests to reupload the image to that site. As for solutions - I don't have one. I don't believe reuploads themselves are a problem. Lack of culture that would encourage attribution is though. But the expectation that you can make money by posting content on the Internet is a bigger problem, IMO. Smart content creators know their work will be copied, reuploaded, shared without attribution, etc. and so they don't base their livelihood on posting stuff on the Internet. Those less smart end up complaining about unfairness, but that IMO makes as much sense as complaining that gravity is unfair. Digital works are inherently copyable, it is in their nature.
  - amorphid 11y ago
    When someone posts a GIF on Reddig, if I am remotely interested in the content, I look for the source, which is usually posted in the comments.
TheLogothete 11y ago
You get to monetize fb videos?
- ihuman 11y ago
  No, but you can monetize videos on other platforms. Even if FB videos don't have ads, the rehoster is still taking away ad money from the original creator (but the rehoster doesn't get the money).
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    But you said "The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator." ??
    - ihuman 11y ago
      In cases like youtube, it does. But that does not apply to FaceBook.

by ihuman 11y ago

wlesieutre 11y ago

90% of content on the default subreddits has been ripped from its original source and rehosted on imgur or gfycat. The remaining 10% are links to YouTube. The people doing it aren't profiting from ads like they would by doing it on Facebook, but they're still taking away the pageviews from the original creator.

icebraining 11y ago
Sure, and that's probably considered "freebooting" as well.
- r721 11y ago
  I wish imgur did something similar with reuploads of images, now that would be an interesting experiment to watch.
Systemic33 11y ago
However, that rehosting is usually not to steal traffic, but because most of the webpages that host the original, would experience what is called the hug of death, when thousands of viewers suddenly flock to their website. So linking to the original content, is best done as a addendum to the rehosted content, to still allow for viewers to check out the original creator.
- overcast 11y ago
  Yes, I'm sure all the freebooters are just doing this to avoid the hug of death. 99% of the time I see no mention of the original content creator in any imgur link. Often times, someone further down in the comments will dig it up and tell people.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Another reason is that half of the time the original source has slow and shitty webpage. Standardized, mostly bullshit-free interface is what made imgur and gyfcat win.
    - overcast 11y ago
      That's fine, but it still doesn't solve the problem here. People have their work ripped off, without any mention of it.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        This does however suggest something. The problem here seems similar to the problem of piracy in general, in that people choose content delivery format that sucks the least, and then delivery platform that they understand. Consider the case of movie piracy (and for simplification let's exclude people pirating because they don't have money): people often torrent movies because they want to get a decent-quality mp4 file instead of a half-assed player and a third of an operating system that together deliver half an hour of unskippable ads and piracy warnings. Consider the case of videogames - when Steam showed up, piracy went from something everyone does to something shameful among gamers. Or just today at work we're talking about a streaming site that serves soccer league games. One of my cow-orkers pointed out that this is about the only reasonable way to watch soccer games, because otherwise you'd have to buy subscription to half a dozen cable services - as different leagues have deals with different companies. Now imgur is a no-bullshit source of images. People know and understand it. It's no surprise people prefer it, and for non-imgur sources you can often find requests to reupload the image to that site. As for solutions - I don't have one. I don't believe reuploads themselves are a problem. Lack of culture that would encourage attribution is though. But the expectation that you can make money by posting content on the Internet is a bigger problem, IMO. Smart content creators know their work will be copied, reuploaded, shared without attribution, etc. and so they don't base their livelihood on posting stuff on the Internet. Those less smart end up complaining about unfairness, but that IMO makes as much sense as complaining that gravity is unfair. Digital works are inherently copyable, it is in their nature.
- amorphid 11y ago
  When someone posts a GIF on Reddig, if I am remotely interested in the content, I look for the source, which is usually posted in the comments.

TheLogothete 11y ago

You get to monetize fb videos?

ihuman 11y ago
No, but you can monetize videos on other platforms. Even if FB videos don't have ads, the rehoster is still taking away ad money from the original creator (but the rehoster doesn't get the money).
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  But you said "The views (and ad revenue) go to the reuploader instead of the original creator." ??
  - ihuman 11y ago
    In cases like youtube, it does. But that does not apply to FaceBook.