Why the paranoid coding of links?

[ddlshack]

Why are most webmasters so paranoid about giving away their site url to rapidshare by having live links? I mean I just don't get it, why would rapidshare want to catch people? Don't you think rapidshare realise that they make 99.9% of their money off piracy? And even if they did want to catch people, what use would a site url be? I mean why not just go on google and type in 'warez site'? Don't you think people should be more concerned about giving away their paypal address to them? That can be used to directly identify you and your credit cards, bank accounts, home address, telephone numbers.

So why are webmasters so gay about it? It really fucks me off.

ddlshack Reviewed by ddlshack on 24th Nov 2009. Why the paranoid coding of links? Why are most webmasters so paranoid about giving away their site url to rapidshare by having live links? I mean I just don't get it, why would rapidshare want to catch people? Don't you think rapidshare realise that they make 99.9% of their money off piracy? And even if they did want to catch people, what use would a site url be? I mean why not just go on google and type in 'warez site'? Don't you think people should be more concerned about giving away their paypal address to them? That can be Rating: 5

[shadow.prx]

not all about that most webmasters don't really care about rapidshare tacking them the the problem with live links is that people can make a phishing link look legit with live links eg

This link takes you to rapidshare honestly

[K3V]

The reason why warez forums ask people to use the code tags
is because active links (clickable links) leave a referral of the forum. That's not very helpful for warez boards because they can be tracked and then we have legal problems.

It also helps keep links stay alive for longer. Some people share their files on their own site for certain people and then when they see a referral of an other site linking to their files without permission, they delete the files.

Il just leave this here ...
http://www.besthostingforums.com/sho...d.php?p=151138

[ddlshack]

OHHH RIGHT I get it
Thanks lol

[ddlshack]

In that case, why don't people remove the standard

[\URL="http://LINK"]NAME[/\URL]

parser in the bbcode and replace it with

[\URL]LINK[/\URL]

and

[linkbox][/linkbox]

for groups of links which will be 'auto-linked'

[JmZ]

Coded links look nicer.

[-Im.z2ight-]

^ +1 I agree.

[ddlshack]

Coded links look nicer.

You could have the same css as in coded links and have links just underlined? thats if you use the [ linkbox ] setup. Also, why do u have services like anonym.to then? Isn't that for hiding the referrer?

[JmZ]

People don't care about the referer anymore, they just do it because it looks better and easy to copy/paste.

You have to remember also that forum software tends to shorten anchor text, so:
"http://rapidshare.com/files/384444/crapbucket.rar"
May become:
"http://rapidshare.com/.../crapbucket.rar" (or similar)

So not having them live removes that problem too.

[ddlshack]

Hmm I guess. The reason I asked this is because people were complaining about my javascript link checker making the links live. I don't get why this was a problem. I assumed that it was because of referrer. The phishing and text shortening doesn't apply to this scenerio, so I really don't get it