Melodeon.net Forums
Discussions => General Discussion => Topic started by: triskel on July 08, 2017, 08:10:18 AM
-
Photobucket endures user backlash after breaking images with 'ransom' demand (http://www.zdnet.com/article/photobucket-endures-user-backlash-after-breaking-images-with-ransom-demand/)
I'm afraid I've woken up this morning to find that nearly all my more-informative posts have been wrecked by the image hosting service Photobucket, which has suddenly ended its free hosting of images - so all my photos have disappeared. They are now seeking a 'ransom' of $399.99 per annum to reinstate them! :o >:( :'(
I think you can take it as read that I no longer reccommend Photobucket (and I have, in the past) for any purpose whatsoever... ::)
-
Photobucket replaces millions of images with 'ransom demand' (http://www.csoonline.com/article/3205765/internet/photobucket-replaced-millions-of-images-with-ransom-demand.html)
PhotoBucket now charges $399 for third-party hosted images (https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/30/photobucket-now-charges-399-for-third-party-hosted-images/)
Photobucket Breaks Image Links Across the Internet (http://uk.pcmag.com/webcom/90124/news/photobucket-breaks-image-links-across-the-internet)
Photobucket messes up Amazon, eBay and other sites after introducing charges for third-party hosting (https://betanews.com/2017/07/04/photobucket-third-party-hosting-charges/)
-
That's truly shocking!
Nevertheless, it does fuel the already existing, and widespread, distrust of these global mega-businesses and their seeming generosity. Perhaps with hindsight, we should all have realised that there really is "no such thing as a free lunch" after all?
-
That's truly shocking!
Nevertheless, it does fuel the already existing, and widespread, distrust of these global mega-businesses and their seeming generosity. Perhaps with hindsight, we should all have realised that there really is "no such thing as a free lunch" after all?
given the importance of triskel's picture archive to this forum,and those researching older models and history. this loss is tragic!! are these images backed up? can they be recovered?
or are we just talking about the convenience of using this method of sharing being discontinued?
is there other alternatives that could be used? is it time for this forum to maintain a picture store? just random thoughts. brian..
-
I'm not familiar with how Photobucket is normally used, but it's apparently only "hotlinking" that they are objecting to and charging heavily for.
That's the practice of displaying images on your web site that are actually served by another site. If your hosting provider limits or charges for your data traffic volumes, hotlinking means you can avoid those charges by getting a free ride on somebody else's site - so effectively THEY are paying for the bandwidth instead.
From what I've just read, Photobucket makes its money from adverts displayed when photos are viewed on Photobucket's own site. When the photos are hotlinked, the adverts don't show.
As for backups: the images should still be there if you go direct to Photobucket, surely? But then you have to host them somewhere else (might not be free) and by far the worst part is that all your links have to be found and changed, if that's even possible, to point to the new location. Like every posting you've ever made to Melnet that included an image link.
What doesn't seem fair, if it's true, is Photobucket doing this without any warning to its account holders, and doing it after years of freely allowing such hotlinking.
we should all have realised that there really is "no such thing as a free lunch" after all?
Mostly true. Melnet may be a rare counterexample.
-
... are these images backed up? can they be recovered?
or are we just talking about the convenience of using this method of sharing being discontinued?
The images still exist but, after what's just happened, they can no longer be displayed here - unless I cough up an astronomical $400 a year! :o
is there other alternatives that could be used?
There probably are other options, but it would be a large and very time-consuming task to transfer and then relink everything. :(
-
I'm not familiar with how Photobucket is normally used, but it's apparently only "hotlinking" that they are objecting to and charging heavily for.
And that's just why I (and probably most other users) joined it in the first place a decade ago - it used to be promoted for just that... :(
-
On a similar theme Apple appears to have disabled wifi photosharing in the latest IOS 10.3 update, it can only be done now from iCloud if your entire library is uploaded, for which storage has to be paid. Perhaps the companies have run out of new ideas and can only monetise new revenue streams, as they would put it. UGH.
-
This has also hit the Fordson Tractor forum badly, again a free to users (and often not very IT savvy ones) site where much of the material is of a historic archival nature like Triskels, compounded by not having any facility for own site hosting.
Its the no warning and astronomical cost of re instatement that infuriates, a proportionate charge to provide a service is one thing but as they have both encouraged and provided the means to generate and copy/paste links to allow pics to appear on other sites without the adverts, they have either built the 'problem' of circumventing their current revenue stream simply to get this level of reliance and then sting us, or are just plain incompetent, either way it stinks.
Currently postimg.org is being used as a substitute for Foto*uckit but they may well go the same way.
Use the 'cloud' at your own risk folks, first it will be your data held to ransom, then processing will occur there so you don't need those nasty clunky desktops, laptops, tablets etc, then it will become pay per keystroke with no alternatives.
I learned my lesson on the way of the future when BT pulled the plug on web hosting with no prior warning and weaseled their way past Ofcom that it was not part of the paid for internet service !!
Soapbox becoming dangerously weak as it has just been drilled for the treble end buttons so I'd best get off it...............
-
I've used Photobucket for years and always wondered when they would start charging. I kind of look at it as a "loss leader" that was left in place too long, so customers came to expect the free service. Probably also explains why the price is so high as they've left it so late it has been widely used as a business service, so that's where they've pitched the price.
For hobby use the implications are nasty though, should all the other providers follow suit it would mean that sites such as Melnet would need to massively increase their capacity to accommodate all the image files directly loaded and bandwidth to be able to communicate it all.
The other alternative is for us to change the links so that we embed a link rather than loading the picture. Many people do this to other sites, but it means that the flow of a discussion is interrupted whilst we effectively open a new window and wait for a response from the image hosting site.
Rob
-
The other alternative is for us to change the links so that we embed a link rather than loading the picture.
On Melnet , we can upload direct anyway. They are stored on Melnet's server, so eventually there will be a storage limit exceeded, or it'll hit a bandwidth limit. The file size restriction on uploaded images is intended to make sure those limits aren't hit too soon, but if the entire Melnet posting history is retained forever, those limits will eventually be reached.
I have one or two bits and pieces of melnet-related files on my own hosting, but this might be a good time to mention that there's room for a few more if needed. Only 62MB used so far, and I'd not object to donating 1GB of file space to more of the same.
-
An alternate hosting location guide...
http://www.hyperscale.com/imgurtutorialmo_1.htm
-
I use Flickr, which seems to work OK so far.
SJ
-
jimmy as a query about rigolletto accordions. " any info??" the images from 2015 are no longer clickable. is this an example of the photobucket problem?? any one just happen to have an image of a rigolletto box on their computer?? is this just the start of problems for this forum with old images?? brian..
-
jimmy as a query about rigolletto accordions. " any info??" the images from 2015 are no longer clickable. is this an example of the photobucket problem??
It is, yes.
any one just happen to have an image of a rigolletto box on their computer??
I'll see if I can do something via melnet, but I no longer have a host for my images... :( :( :(
is this just the start of problems for this forum with old images??
Not just this one brian - most (maybe all?) internet hobby forums, and lots of blogs, are destroyed by this. >:(
-
I'm not familiar with how Photobucket is normally used, but it's apparently only "hotlinking" that they are objecting to and charging heavily for.
From what I've just read, Photobucket makes its money from adverts displayed when photos are viewed on Photobucket's own site. When the photos are hotlinked, the adverts don't show.
Actually, that's misleading - even to simply link to pictures on Photobucket now costs €100.00 per year... :(
-
any one just happen to have an image of a rigolletto box on their computer??
I'll see if I can do something via melnet, but I no longer have a host for my images... :( :( :(
Sorry, I forgot about the Rigoletto image - was it the helikon-bass one?
Or the Vienna model?
I've a concertina photo too...
-
If the links were being used for something which made money for me, then I might be willing to pay for the privilege of using Photobucket - but it in my case it is information about how to sew things - kilts, smocks and also fixing knitting machines where it really helps to see what is happening - or what is supposed to happen but isn't.
I keep getting 'upgrade now' messages - but I don't charge for my advice so there is just no way I could shell out that sort of money.
-
Good news! Maybe? ???
I'd been living in hope that Photobucket might see sense about hobby use of their services, and had suggested something of the sort to them when they conducted a survey a few months ago (as, no doubt, others did too), but nothing seemed to come of it. So, in the last few days I'd made a start on reinstating some of my photos (here and elsewhere) on some significant threads where they were badly missed - but that can be problematic here because you can post only four, small, images, at the bottom of a thread, instead of interspersing maybe twelve, larger, ones into it, so I've had to break a major old post up into three, and it's all very time consuming... :(
However, tonight I was surprised to get an email from them offereing:
We would like to offer a tailored plan for users just like you - our Premium plan for $99.99 / year.
The Premium plan will provide 3rd party hosting for non-commercial use on your forums, blogs, and personal websites*. Additionally, you will be able to store up to 300,000 photos.
We are working on some exciting changes for 2018. This is our exclusive introductory price and this offer will expire in 7 days.
"EQUIVALENT TO 27¢/DAY" (http://photobucket.com/p500/) they say on the website, but maybe rising (?), and it's yet another subscription/cost connected with research... :-\
-
300,000 photos?
My library was less than 100 photos, and after getting loads of 'expand your business' type emails from them I cut off connections. I suspect that the hoped for income has not materialized and the people in charge are now panicking.
-
It's cheaper to purchase some ordinary web hosting space and a domain, and put your photos on that, if you're not in the "300,000 pictures" league and you just want somewhere to link to pictures.
A couple of melnetters are using my web hosting services (https://www.treewind.co.uk/webhosting/) - basic rate of £20/year for 1 GB of file space. They are using it for web sites, but you could just store images there.
You can even get free web space from some suppliers, and for some users the traffic and storage limitations wouldn't be a problem. Their strategy is to make you upgrade to paid-for when your bandwidth limit is exceeded.
-
I
coughed up the (now-reduced) ransom subscribed $99.99 for Photobucket's new "Premium Plan" (for non-commercial 3rd Party Hosting) last night, so tonight all my images should have been reinstated.
I know there were potentially other options (and thanks for suggesting them), but it's an awful lot easier this way than re-uploading, and re-linking, everything - which would have been extremely time-consuming... :-\
If you find any broken links, please let me know and I'll try to repair them.
-
A couple of melnetters are using my web hosting services (https://www.treewind.co.uk/webhosting/) - basic rate of £20/year for 1 GB of file space. They are using it for web sites, but you could just store images there.
And very good it is, too! (:)
R
-
Good news for Photobucket users!
https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2018/05/17/photobucket-drops-pricing-that-angered-millions.html
Test photo
(http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq292/rchrss/DSCN5856_zpsf0ivq1dx.jpg)
-
I can see the test photo !!
... but they removed 5 buttons >:E
-
I can see the test photo !!
... but they removed 5 buttons >:E
And me, but it might need a little work.
-
You can always pay PB extra to reinstate them when you want to play it >:E