Photobucket has disabled third party hosting

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Someone check PhotoBucket's Twitter feed. I bet they're issuing the usual "Photobucket is always listening to their customers needs" Baloney/Sandwich...
 
Flamongo????............what Flamongo????........I think you folks been sniffin' too much bleach! And for you SWG folks, you know they make shot glasses for a reason right? Measure first before you add too much:cool:

(holds a moment of silence for the Great Pink One) and I got NO notice from photohostage
 
They are telling every one that uses 3rd party links to go to heck

If the standard for a few hundred gb of webspace is $400 a year, Ive found my next business.
I can rent a dedicated server with a ton of space for $100 a month... I just need about 50 slightly annoyed Photobucket users and Im golden.
My cost ~$1500 a year - revenue $20,000 a year ...
 
woodyp said:
Flamongo????............what Flamongo????........I think you folks been sniffin' too much bleach! And for you SWG folks, you know they make shot glasses for a reason right? Measure first before you add too much:cool:

(holds a moment of silence for the Great Pink One) and I got NO notice from photohostage
Click to expand...

<<<<<Dignity of a mod restored by a one-in-a-million chance event....."Flamongo" will now go down in pool ownership lore much like the mythical Big Foot or Loch Ness monster....
 
woodyp said:
Flamongo????............what Flamongo????........I think you folks been sniffin' too much bleach! And for you SWG folks, you know they make shot glasses for a reason right? Measure first before you add too much:cool:

(holds a moment of silence for the Great Pink One) and I got NO notice from photohostage
Click to expand...
New pool owner. Pool toys/floats recs?
 
I wonder if this amounts to a big chest thumping by PB to show all users how much power they have. You would think that any normal company would give its users some warning of this pending policy change. Do they really think that most Tom and Jane's around the world are going to fork over $400 just to use their image hosting services? They can't have honest expectations that people will actually pay that kind of money when there are plenty of sites out there that will do it for free.
At those storage and price levels it has to be geared towards the business/. Professional blog folks that will be paying.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
Teald024 said:
I wonder if this amounts to a big chest thumping by PB to show all users how much power they have. You would think that any normal company would give its users some warning of this pending policy change. Do they really think that most Tom and Jane's around the world are going to fork over $400 just to use their image hosting services? They can't have honest expectations that people will actually pay that money when there are plenty of sites out there that will do it for free.
Click to expand...

As other's have said on internet discussion boards - we're not dealing with a very technically savvy company here (and that's me cleaning up the language A LOT to describe PB). They were hacked back in November of 2016 by a "kid" in Colorado that created a simple program to retrieve private photo data off their servers and he sold access to his code for $20 a pop. Hackers used the code to steal sensitive photos from thousands of users (many were used for blackmail). I believe that's what happened to my data and why I was given the bogus excuse of "one in a billion software glitch...".

The fact is, Photobucket has just shot itself in the foot. It will lose huge amounts of users because of this and why would anyone in their right mind sign up with a company that treats it's customers this way - radically altering the terms of service through a corporate blog post on their website (which hasn't been updated since 2015) on the Friday before a major holiday weekend....that's just underhanded and sneaky.

- - - Updated - - -

zea3 said:
I wonder if it is the individuals they want to pay $300 a year or the websites where the photos are linked?
Click to expand...

They want individual users who use Photobucket for third party hosting to cough up $39.99/month or $399/year (oh wow, what a deal!) for the right to use IMG and HTTP links. They are targeting their customer base, not 3rd party forum owners.
 
Copied and pasted from ghacks.net:

Just a userFri Jun 30 2017

Imgur terms of service also prohibit third party hosting: "Also, don't use Imgur to host image libraries you link to from elsewhere, content for your website, advertising, avatars, or anything else that turns us into your content delivery network. If you do – and we will be the judge – or if you do anything illegal, in addition to any other legal rights we may have, we will ban you along with the site you're hotlinking from, delete all your images, report you to the authorities if necessary, and prevent you from viewing any images hosted on Imgur.com. We mean it."

I haven't checked on imgur to verify, but now I will be careful before choosing a new photo hosting site.
 
woodyp said:
Flamongo????............what Flamongo????........I think you folks been sniffin' too much bleach! And for you SWG folks, you know they make shot glasses for a reason right? Measure first before you add too much:cool:

(holds a moment of silence for the Great Pink One) and I got NO notice from photohostage
Click to expand...

As if we don't have back ups. Pffttttt
dbtgallery.php


dbtgallery.php


dbtgallery.php
 
Back to the topic at hand - the internet is pretty lit up over photobucket's decision. Who thinks there's going to be a lawsuit over this??

I'm already reading posts about eBay sellers that have had images of stuff they're selling go down and I wonder if there are any blog sites out there that depend on these links??

All it takes is to show injury (financial) and a decent lawyer and there's standing to bring a court ordered injunction until the broader arguments can be heard.
 
They likely can't be sued because their limitation of liability will be limited to the total monies charged to their customers. Which is $0. We do seem have a very high expectation for our $0 spent. Go ahead and hit me. :)
 
pooldv said:
They likely can't be sued because their limitation of liability will be limited to the total monies charged to their customers. Which is $0. We do seem have a very high expectation for our $0 spent. Go ahead and hit me. :)
Click to expand...

But that's not really the point of a lawsuit. One could sue for damages incurred, i.e. Your change in TOS and subsequent pull down of images caused me XXX $'S in damages. But the real point of a lawsuit would be to force them to roll back the TOS changes and grandfather in images prior to a specific date.
 
OK guys what do you suggest I do when I want to post pics. I just posted on another post that I got 3rd party blocked by photobucket.
 
Photobucket already forces you to wade through tons of obnoxious ads just to look through your own photos. $39.99 is an outrageous amount of money to charge per month just to host a handful of links.

I'm looking into Google photo to store my backups. Is flicker still an ok site to host links?
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply