3 ms·
The parasitic website is displaying the image. No iframe, no image.
by squidbeak 3y ago
The parasitic website is displaying the image. No iframe, no image.
- PeterisP 3y agoBoth legally and morally, intent matters far more than these technical details.
- squidbeak 3y agoI can't answer to the law, which besides will vary - and I reject the implication that a puerile prank is immoral. But that aside, taking it on as if there was any moral dimension, moral clarity is straightforward here: The parasite has to answer for the material it shows its visitors. If a butcher delivers outdated meat to nowhere, knowing his van will be hijacked, how can he possibly be blamed when the hijackers sell it to their customers? Edited to correct can (van!)
- nephanth 3y agoBut he can. He is clearly attempting to poison someone.
- beardog 3y agoYeah, it is for similar reasons that you (legally) shouldn't set booby traps against burglars.
- ericpauley 3y ago> If a butcher delivers outdated meat to nowhere, knowing his van will be hijacked, how can he possibly be blamed when the hijackers sell it to their customers? An obvious corrolary to this is the prohibition on booby traps.
- clort 3y agoI am not sure that actually, the intermediate site is even technically sending the image. As I understand it, the iframe is set up such that the users browser loads your site inside the frame and the intermediate site outside of the frame. If you serve a file then you are serving it directly to the browser. The intermediate site never sees it?
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoThey could've also embraced it, see it as marketing, and replace it with a direct link to their website instead. Youtube doesn't care about people embedding their videos, they can make money regardless.