What is Digg?183 Comments
- Ottersmash, on 10/10/2007, -4/+163The only reason people are all up in arms about the fact that someone took a photo of a book and released it 3 days prior to its due date is because of its popularity. Seems pretty goofy to me. I can only imagine that the release of the pictures on bittorrent only spurred the popularity a 'bit more' (no pun intended). And at looking at the jpgs that the guy took, it would be a real pain in the ass to actually sit in front of your monitor and read those pages.
And for the guys would were transcribing it to pdf... I hang my head in sadness. I wonder how far they got before A.) Realized that the actual book was at Barnes and Nobles. B.) Realized that they had failed at life and they couldn't start over. - mulling, on 10/10/2007, -8/+73Am I the only one that's freaked out about my camera's serial being in every photo I take?
That number can be tied to your personal information and compromise your privacy. While it's all fun and games to track down the leaker in this case, I really hate the idea that anyone who downloads photos I take can pull out my serial. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+66Uh.. big deal? What if the guy isn't the first owner of the camera?
"yeah I registered it after I bought it, but I sold the camera on eBay/flee-market months ago. Sorry."
They'd have better luck tracking the book via the Little Yellow Dots. - mescad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45Your local bookstore.
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -0/+36You can erase EXIF data pretty easily if you're that worried.
Use 'save for web' instead of save as in PS, or else there are countless freeware apps out there that do the same thing. - LethalAmbition, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40It's a Canon dude. You fail.
- Tigdigger, on 10/10/2007, -9/+41If only they catch the leaker's face when/if he's busted . . . that would be a true Kodak moment.
- g4blows, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32A group of people actually took the time to transcribe the entire book from his images. That made it a hell of a lot easier to read.
- andburn1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27hahahahah, go suck a *****.
- g4blows, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Thats still really only circumstantial evidence.
- resplence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Get a room you two. With a calendar.
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Lol, he had to register it... I might be the only one here, but I never bother to register stuff that I buy. If it breaks, it usually breaks in the first 30 days( store return), or it breaks after a few years, and then it was time to get a new one anyway.
- jpop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Well, if the current owner is a guy that works at a book store and he had direct access to the pre-release books...
- noseeme, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18There was also a difference of almost four hours between the time the first picture was taken, and the last picture taken. Poor guy. :)
- STARTSOMETHING, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19they make laptops
- xtr3m, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Doom? Oh, please... The number is useless.
- nene7070, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18wow... a bit angry, are we?
its just the dupe police. - mortigon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16U agitatin my dots?
- mikata, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13This, indeed, really is the EXIF of EVIL!
- AladinSane, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Every time I think I've grown jaded to the limits of human insanity, something like this happens. Look, it's not that someone posted spoilers to a book. It's that someone was bat-*****-crazy enough to take digital pictures of EVERY PAGE of a novel that (from the look of my wife's copy) has to be a minimum of 800 pages. Who the hell is mentally imbalanced enough to do something like that? And why? It's a book, for heaven's sake. You don't get a cookie for knowing the end sooner than someone else. What's even crazier is that I'll bet any amount of money that some equally crazy Diggers are going to Dig me down just for saying that snapping 800 pictures of a book is nuts.
- Akir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Wrong news article buddy.
- dude187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10While that works if you buy the camera specifically for something like putting the Harry Potter book online, it becomes drastically less effective if you use that camera to, for example, post pictures on your blog. That same serial number will be stored in every picture you put online and if any one of them can be linked to you with that same serial number then you're no longer anonymous.
- bean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9These suggestions for ways to remove the serial are helpful. But even better would be a camera setting to not add them to photos in the first place. That would save you a lot of work later on.
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yes, but probably enough to get a search warrant, and for their sake that camera better be taking a holiday elsewhere when that is executed.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11And winners never leak?
- michaelzhao, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You know you can edit out the serial numbers using programs right?
A quick google search brings out a few programs. Exif Pilot being one of them. - andburn1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Hey remember the part where you're an *****?
- revenge7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10The only bad thing about this leak is that is gave ***** a chance to get all the spoilers and ruin the book for other people.
^Long sentence. - oneiroi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"but it's an illustration of just how hard it is to obscure one's tracks in the digital age"
I easily lose most of my EXIF data if I save in certain ways (like "save for web" option in photoshop). It isn't that difficult. - tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Does anyone?
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6@Goner: Yeah, because cameras cost millions of dollars in collisions every year.
- bob12321, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Ok so you just need to go find an obscure blog that is in some little corner of the internet and scan all the photos and see if a image matches. you find out that is hosted on a free blogger account and now your plan is screwed.
- combatchuck, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15I went out and bought the book for 25 bucks on Saturday, and I got to lay in my bed reading, instead of sitting at my computer. I win.
- surfing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I bet it turns out that the camera is registered to Scholastic.
- xShad0w, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It was completed wednesday afternoon-night, my friend got to chapter 10 by friday and i saw the quality, the transcribed was fine
- dubloe7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7what if you don't want to carry an 700+ page hardcover book around with you on the off chance you feel like reading it, so you put it on a portable media device instead. i have digital copies of many books that i own that i keep on my iriver clix, sometimes i rip books on cd to mp3 for when im surfing the internet, or otherwise to occupied to stare at text.
or what if i don't want to wait for shipping? I, personally, like instant gratification, I'm more likely to buy a book, software, etc if I'm going to be able to use, read, play it immediately. i bought my copy of deathly hollows within an hour of preorders starting, but when the book was leaked 5 days early (and the pdf 3 days early) i decided to read that instead since it was both more convenient, and instant.
i actually have the last 3 of the books on my iriver, since i was rereading some of the previous books before the release, so you can enjoy carrying around 3 ~700 page books with you, i prefer my media player that only weighs a few ounces. - Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU BITCH! YOU BITCH!"
Fixed it for you. - lukeyd2006, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6you *****!!! i hate you.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Because nobody cares, so shut the ***** up calling dupe and just mark it as one you *****
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5He bought ALL of them?
No wonder people are waiting in line. - brutalentropy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6well thank god *Hermione* lives! Really weird how there's a character with a name so close to hers, I don't remember that at all...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4actually yea
- jhaks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The pictures were total crap especially considering they were taken with such a nice camera like the Canon Rebel.
- andburn1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8@ quarkie: (session expired error, ***** *****.)
Oh really? I call your ***** and raise you a shut the ***** up.
I like having the text on my computer because I like being able to find and then copy & paste selections from wherever, to aid discussions. I have lots of potter fan friends, and we like to point out scenes we thought were interesting or lines we thought were weird or maybe even speculate about some deeper thematic content we know isn't there. For this, you need textual support. Hence the transcript. I have the book.
Oh and yeah, by the way, it's not gunna be in the ***** bargain bin for years to come, so you might as well just give up on that hope. - trezegol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7ok...i think i have seen this on the frontpage a few days ago... and there was a direct link to a screenshot if im not mistaken..
- houndeyex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wow, who really cares. Everyone bought the book anyways. It's bigger than a friggin' dictionary. No one wants to read all that with crappy pictures on their PC.
- andejp12, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I couldn't agree with you any more on this except for the small pluralization of Barnes & Noble. I just can't figure out why that always seems to happen (my friends do it too).
- grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4(Disclaimer: IANAL)
I believe they will have trouble getting a conviction
1. They must have registered their camera
2. They would need a court order to get the details of Canon
3. EXIF data is easily spoofed and not tied to any watermark of the image. There are tools that can batch edit EXIF data, and any defense lawyer would be stupid not to argue that it was possible the data was manipulated.
4. Owning the camera does not prove you took photos nor does it prove you distributed those photos. They would have to find evidence through your computer or ISP to show this.
So I doubt the publisher has much chance at a conviction even if they find the guy. They may have a chance at an out of court settlement (RIAA style) for an undisclosed amount where the publisher can come out still looking tough. - HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Subpoenas aren't THAT easy to get, especially for such far-reaching snooping around in mere hopes of MAYBE finding a link to a person.
- wooptoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Strip the EXIF info:
jhead -purejpg *.jpg
http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is