digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

If you do not upload the images again I might have to contact my lawyer!

i97.photobucket.com — Lol !!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • strangeguitar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+414"I don't think you want me to contact my lawyer about this."

    Hahaha! Dumbass.
    • ajoh198, on 10/12/2007, -6/+298Somehow people getting busted after hotlinking pictures always makes me laugh
    • TaeK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+590he doesn't know how to download the internets
    • Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -13/+665The dude should have goatse'd him. We all know how well hilarity ensues after that.....
    • drathosX3, on 10/12/2007, -17/+169Such a great article! I would suggest putting the images up for a few days, then put porn with the same filenames...
    • kent1146, on 10/12/2007, -5/+431We are witnessing the birth of a future Verizon Wireless / AT&T / Cingular / BellSouth executive.
    • unloud, on 10/12/2007, -11/+98http://digg.com/programming/I_stole_your_bandwidth_images_and_now_I_believe_that_I_can_sue_you

      and

      http://www.digg.com/tech_news/MySpace_Gets_Goatse_d
    • fernando26, on 10/12/2007, -11/+101I remember recently reading an article talking about how blurring is not an effective way to block text. Basically you take all possible numbers/letters (62 in all, considering case sensitivity) that could be present, blur them in a similar fashion, then compare to the blurred text. Using curves of best fit, theres a good chance that at least some, if not all the text can be unblurred.

      Anyone care to try so we can contact this guy and offer him some affordable web hosting? =P
    • PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Some people just don't get the internet.
    • Gary13579, on 10/12/2007, -89/+18Hey! This is about 2 years old. Good job.
    • Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -47/+7That would be a pretty impressive algorithm and, assuming it's possible, not something you do just off the top of your head on a whim.
    • feaks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+75fernando26 is referring to this : http://www.digg.com/security/Why_blurring_sensitive_information_is_a_bad_idea
    • Dunadan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+196I clicked on the article link and the image was gone. Someone better upload it again or I may have to call my lawyer.
    • brizzad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30There are so many kids these days that are trying to be webmasters, and they all think using the words "lawyer" and "sue" will let them get their way every time. Hell, I was "sued" 3 times in 06 for things like "defemation of character on a webmaster chat forum"
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Midnightbrewer:
      Well, if you know the font used (we do, since that's a gMail cap), it shouldn't be much more difficult than converting an image to ASCII. Note, however, that it's much more difficult to to it with variable-width text than with fixed width (which is what the article GPP was mentioning is about - the specific example being the recall of a check number from a mosaically blurred image).

      Meanwhile, blurring using mosaics doesn't work that well, but a good Gaussian blur with a blur radius greater than that of the blurred area would do the job (ie: more data in the blurred area comes from outside of it than within it, and you can be assured that all the data within the area has been condensed to effectively one pixel if one COULD isolate only the data from original blurred area).

      Still, as GPP's referenced article states, the best defense in this case is complete obfuscation; just cover the entire area with a solid rectangle. For best asthetics, take the average color of all surrounding pixels, fill the rectangle, expand the selection by N pixels, and gauss to smooth out the edges.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2goatse him!!!!!!!!!!
    • themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3dupe
    • MeltedUFO, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Does anyone remember the story a few days ago about unbluring images.....
    • Couchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7My lawyer is going to kick your lawyers ass
  • MicleMihai, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24The funniest part is when just an image destroy an whole website .. :)
    • noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13at least he didn't get the images redirected to a goatse or something. i'm sure that would've really made him contact his lawyer
  • skored, on 10/12/2007, -0/+359"I am an honest business man"

    Who is stealing your pictures and bandwidth...
    • whyaay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I'd be curious to know what his "honest" business was...
    • bmurph83, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4... or correct grammar
    • Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -52/+4"Honest, but with absolutely no clue about copyright law"

      I'm pretty sure I'll get dugg down for saying this, but evidently neither does the guy making the images.
      I'm willing to bet that all the base images are someone elses copyright..

      But yea, leeching bandwith is bad.
    • r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Markie, I don't think you meant to use the word 'evidently' there. What evidence do you have that the guy is using images that aren't his own? Perhaps you meant to say 'In all probability'?
    • Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2ev·i·dent
      plain or clear to the sight or understanding:

      ev·i·dent (ěv'ĭ-dənt)
      adj. Easily seen or understood; obvious.

      No mention of 'evidence'.
      So yea, 'evident' was exactly the word I meant to use..

      So it's still pretty evident he didn't take any of those photo's.
    • Daveecee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15And yet I see the word "obvious" which it is not.
    • matthendrix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1WTF "honest businessman"...

      Since were businesses honest about anything???
  • Coven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+336I say put the pictures back up for a few days. Once he's settled in and thinks he's won...its goatse time.
    • Providence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Throw in a couple from Lemon Party as well!
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I say this guy should reply to the email, apologizing for removing the pictures and asking nicely for how long the other guy has been using them. Then draw up a web hosting bill and demand this "legitimate businessman" pay up or he'll definitely be speaking advice from his lawyer.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Sorry to burst your bubble, but this story made it to the front page of Digg 5 months ago, so I highly doubt that the images in question are still being used.
    • mikeflynn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1This is super old. I'm guessing that the original submitter and the submitter of this story aren't one in the same. He may not even read your suggestions.
    • vagarach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2He should have just saved them and used them on his site, it amounts to the same thing as hotlinking. Substituting for goatse and tubgirl though is maybe taking things too far, just maybe :D.
    • Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2So overdone. Better to go find a NAMBLA image, blow it up to about 5 MB, and put that in the images' place.
  • pants428, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8should have just set up a redirect to teh goatse...
  • svtfocus, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Just add some p0rn pics with the same filenames he is stealing. I would like to see that email.
    • benlundquist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You may not be familiar with "goatse'd" but this is pretty much what everyone is advocating.
    • samgab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wikipedia is your friend...
  • xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+70Anyone want to take advantage of the "blurring images is unsafe" digg story, and figure out the name of the person in the email?
  • TheInfamousOne, on 10/12/2007, -33/+19forget the fact that he's leeching pictures and bandwidth, whats funny here is he:
    a)Thinks its his right to do so.
    b)Thinks he has some kind of legal manuvering that he can do to get them back.

    I just hope the business he is starting isn't a web hosting site :)
    • nicktripp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56Thanks for laying that out for us. I had no clue why this was funny prior to your post.
  • lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+84Why cover up the phone number. That's just wrong. I may have to contact MY lawyer because you're just a tease.
    • adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I think I'll have to contact MY lawyer after that to make sure that I also get a copy of it. We really should start getting more lawyers involved in this!
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Hello, I am Gloria Allred.
  • JonatanP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+144I'd put the images back in GIF format, and add a goatse every 50 sec. I bet he wouldn't look at them long enough to notice >:)
    • mddubs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17no one would look at them long enough to notice
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42After it flashes across the screen, they'll probably sit and stare to see if it happens again.
    • jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14It's not like it would FLASH across the screen; those who downloaded during the "goatse" flash would have that in their cache, and it would just be there until they did a shift-refresh.

      Unless you made it an animated GIF, I suppose. But I like the first one better. Phone call: "There was this HORRIBLE picture on your website!... wait, it's gone." roflmao. A script that swapped the files for ten seconds out of the minute would do it. :D
    • xXRobbyXx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14lol..kinda like the movie "Fight Club" when Brad Pitt puts that huge penis in the film and the little girl freaks out :d lol good times
    • stevecole, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's surprising that jstevewhite is getting dugg down. It seems apparent that he understands the joke, options, and workings of this better than the other posters.

      Whetever. I really like the idea of swapping the linked image with goatse for one second every minute or so. It could take the "honest businessman" weeks to believe that this image really appears on his site as some visitors report.

      And for all of the people saying this played out months ago, it's still a worthy discussion because this hotlinking happens every day.
  • nerdingout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16wow.

    the utter stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
    • arnar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25it makes me angry..
    • vbrtrmn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9-- it makes me angry..

      Welcome to Earth, you're going to lead a very long and angry life... find something better to spend your energy on.
    • aboutblank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I've seen this before, maybe a few months back, with the backstory - but I can't find a link to it now. The guy writing that threatening mail (we'll call him n00b) had linked directly to some images on some other guy's (we'll call him host) server. Host discovered this, and these were images belonging to Host, being used without permission. Host replaced images with hardcore porn, with overlay text saying "Stop stealing my images" (essentially). n00b gets pissed and writes that email.

    I'll keep looking for the whole thing.
  • shaun1018, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8If I got that email all the old image links would be immediately replaced with the foulest porn I could find.
  • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16people who steal images should get the goatsecx.

  • timoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12NICE. I would love to meet that guy in real life and talk politics with him or something.
  • pierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5i want to smack that person. stupid people and their lawsuit threats...my god.
  • daveyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I would love to go to court over something like this. I would encourage him at every opportunity if I was the one he was complaining about. I'd love to mount a defence just by sitting there and letting him do the talking.
  • paulmalenke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2when I find that people are stealing my images and using them, I always put fake images up that say stuff like "visit paulmalenke.com" or something of that sort. put those up and see what he does!
  • Caeric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18If you go to http://s97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/Ymdar/Motivator/?start=all , you can see all of his Pics. Very well done on some of them, and definitely DUGG!
    • unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Which is worse, the guy who complains that the images he is stealing has disappeared?

      OR the guy who steals other peoples images, and complains when other people steal from him?

      Geez, all of the images there are copyrighted material! I was expecting something original.
    • Nitron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I see no indication that the owner of the photobucket account is the person whose images had been hotlinked.
  • BigBadger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I almost had a stroke! I can't believe people like this actually exist.
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Hahaha... Let him contact the lawyer, and see what happens.
  • Diggnified, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3what a freaking idiot. goat this a'hole!!!!
  • olenick, on 10/12/2007, -25/+28I'll probably get flamed for this but I feel a little sorry for the guy. He obviously doesn't know what he's doing is wrong and working through the technological and legal issues of running a website are probably over his head, leaving him frustrated and upset. There are countless times I've had to gently counsel customers, and even family members, that it isn't ok to spam, deep link, or break any number of no-no's (some of which are bad, and others illegal).

    What's needed is an HONEST "so ... you wanna use the web" website that explains the different options, goes through -- in plain language without trying to insult or sell -- what is acceptable and unacceptable, and offers help. In many ways the web is segregated into four groups: those who inherently understand what they're doing (many of whom are found here), those who just want to surf (the old AOL-type crowd), those who need -- but don't necessarily want -- the web for their business, and those who just ignore it. It seems like the letter writer is from that third category: there are plenty of them and they're at the mercy of some pretty obnoxious predators.
    • BigBadger, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5So what's your plan? That we all go out and "save the internet one idiot at a time"? Please, maybe that's how you figure you'll get into heaven, but the rest of us have lives to lead.
    • Tripcast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Sorry, but too many people think they can just throw up a website and start a company. People should research before doing so, and if they don't know what they are doing - consult a web designer or other expert first. Many hosting companies (except the really bad ones) will have some kind of consultant you can get in contact with about setting up a company website.
    • jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Ignorance is no excuse.
    • jwecker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44I don't think he deserves any sympathy. If he had written saying "Those pictures are down, did I do something wrong?" that would be one thing. But he threatened and bullied. Clueless bullies don't deserve your sympathy. They probably don't deserve a lot of the other remedies listed here either, but that's another story...
    • DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4There's nothing wrong with deep linking.
    • benenglish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@olenick

      Deep linking is bad? You're kidding, right? Being able to go directly from *here* to *there* is pretty much the whole point of hypertext. Yes, if you don't want deeplinking into your own site you can defeat it, but for most pages on most sites, deep linking is a virtue. Indeed, it's one of the biggest virtues of the WWW.
    • jjbud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I for one do not feel sorry for him... like so many other cheap business owners... they decide hiring a professional web designer is not worth the money... so they do it themselves.... then their businesses website all the sudden has goatse on it.. LOL.. serves em right.
    • thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@olenick

      I see that you have never worked tech support.
      I have no sympathy for these people.
      I would have set up a WMF expliot (the clueless never update), but meh, goatse would have been good too.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"He obviously doesn't know what he's doing is wrong and working through the technological and legal issues of running a website are probably over his head"

      Sorry, I disagree. Threatening someone with a lawsuit is no substitute for reading "Web Hosting for Dummies". What this guy did was ignorant and just plain not neighbourly.
  • bazmail, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and call ***** on this one.
    • tdskate, on 10/12/2007, -25/+1And i'm gonna go ahead and second this comment.
  • Caluen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I loved this, made me giggle at the officer, in between emails, about as dumb! xD
  • chojin42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Time to put in use the recently dugg story: http://dheera.net/projects/blur.php (http://digg.com/security/Why_blurring_sensitive_information_is_a_bad_idea)
  • mcflynnthm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Guy: I'm using this guy's pictures and he moved them on his server. Can I sue him?
    Lawyer: ... No. Don't be a n00b, imo.
    • adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Hahaha, this is America! Of course he can sue!
    • stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8He just won't win.
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Lawyer: Yes, you can sue him, no you won't win.
    • koick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4you forgot the ending:
      Lawyer: ... No. Don't be a n00b, imo, now give me $500 bitch.
  • PhilUk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1what tosh
  • CompleXz, on 10/12/2007, -47/+9What an idiot!!! Only in the USA can anything like this happen LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

    • mddubs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25Riiiighhhhttt, like this couldn't happen anywhere else. Go hate on America elsewhere.
    • senfo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6No, idiot, it can't happen in America. Go away.
    • CompleXz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4No way in Europe would you here of something like this being so stupid. In the USA everyone sues everyone over nothing
      just to get the "american dream" wake up and smell the ***** in the kitchen :)
    • RealityCheque, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Speaking of idiots, it's HEAR not "here".

      How about learning to compose simple sentences before making an assault on another person's intellect, Junior?
    • senfo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Apparently some of you are having a hard time understanding what I mean, so I'll explain it. First of all, I completely believe this story to be fake. If, however, I am incorrect, my point was that there's no way that this case would stand up in court, for obvious reasons. People seem to have some false sense of how America operates and for whatever reason, they believe that cases like this actually pan out, which is certainly not the case.

      And if I'm being dugg down because of the duplicate comment, mddubs and I posted within seconds of each other, so my bad. I would have deleted the comment if there was a delete button, but oh well.
    • vesperado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not trying to defend, just explain: what we in europe see of your legal system is mostly bs- there's no news value of uninteresting, but normal lawsuits- so media gives us the impression that
      1- sue
      2- ???
      3- profit
      no matter what. based on ridiculous stories like suing mcdonalds for serving too hot coffee etcetera.
  • h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Unblur the guy's name and phone number!
  • quodlibet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Aren't we getting enough of this? I think I saw this mail on digg at least 5 times before.
  • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I followed that story about the guy who replaced a cartoon drawing with porn because of all the myspace leechers... I had a similar issue, when I was apparently the sole provider on the internet of a Subway Stamp Card w/ Stamps image. One dude found it, and posted it as a comment on like 50 myspace pages. And being the emo teens they were, starved for attention, they all had like 40000 friends. So it was affecting my bandwidth, but not putting me over my limit. So, since it wasnt killing my bandwidth *that* badly, I did the good ol' image switch. If it was being used any place other than just myspaces and Xangas, I wouldnt have done it, I'd have just sent them a notice not to do it. But emo teens on myspace annoy me, so I couldnt take the higher road.
  • ursername180, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The receipent should have sued the other guy for using bad grammar.
  • PUBAND, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Too funny. This would be like some idiot suing a gun dealer because the gun that he stole from the dealers store was defective and blew his hand off when he tried to use it in a robbery. The sad thing is - some sleazy lawyer would take the case!
    • bluesoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, there's a precedent for that. I forget where but a man broke into a house (through an open garage door), accidentally closed the door, panicked, fainted, and was found later by the homeowners (still unconcious). The would-be thief then sued the couple for undue emotional suffering. And won. Six figure award, iirc.
  • hashpipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow that made my day. Please, please let him contact his lawyer. About 5 years ago I worked for a little independent PC/MAC software store. Some pirate site linked to one of our PC game images. Our bandwidth bill for that month was $500+ I hate ppl that can't actually host their own images.
    • Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That sucks, you need to install a bandwidth meter or get off of a metered plan. If your host doesn't give you a way of checking your bandwidth, you should switch and not pay for the overage. They have to allow you to monitor the bandwidth before they can charge you for overage.
  • Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The guy needs to post some gay pics with the same filenames. That will teach em.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It'll probably triple that web entrepreneur's profits.
  • siralphred, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5in america people will sue for anything
  • shuffle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9People like this make me feel smart.
  • dttvb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, this really makes me laugh! Hot-linking is bad enough!
  • micklerlop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this makes my day.
  • z3r4w, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0the internet is serious business
    • rendereduseless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wow have you ever visited any other sites... its really not
  • zoolander, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2All your base belong to us.
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17All your base ARE belong to us
    • numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18he's called zoolander, what do you expect, intelligence?
  • zeusss, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3american i bet
    • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2riiiiight. i guess to back up your claim you can say how unsuccessful us americans are at business....
    • RealityCheque, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Jealous foreigner I bet.
    • uncannydan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1definitely american. no question about that.
  • Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I bet here is how this took place.

    First, he bought images from a content provider such as photodisc or something. He then linked to those images instead of downloading the images and putting them on his web server. When the images changed names or got deleted the guy was pissed because he paid for the content for his business. It is more then likely not some dude who was linking to another person's personal website.

    The other scenario is a reseller. Someone who for instance resells cell phones or cell plans that has a deal with the phone company to get product images and then all of a sudden the product images change. That would seriously hurt someones business.

    The third scenario is a drop-ship type of deal where the person gets to build a website using products that a shipper will ship for him when he sells the stuff. If the images of the products disappear, well the person selling the stuff is SOL.

    Some Digg users are way too quick to assume that a user is a noob or doesn't have a right to be pissed off.
    • freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From your own speculation, the user was still a noob. He should have simply downloaded the images, and made sure to provide a stable host. He may have paid for those images, but he should have understood the difference between linking off someone else's server and hosting them himself.

      Plus, if he truly runs a business, you'd hope that he would run a complaint like this through a spell check.
    • Frankie4Fingers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree with the spell check thing. So this is probably a hoax, but he may not own rights to download or distribute the images. We just don't know. People here always assume and never think about it a little first. They are looking for shock appeal and front page headlines. Fake stories like this shouldn't even show up on my front page.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I bet this guys business website is REALLY well done, too, and definently NOT hosted on geocities.
  • Klarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I love the way that with every influx of new members, Digg comes full circle - This story was featured months ago, it continues to be dugg to the frontpage by those who haven't seen it, and comments suggesting "replace it with goatse" are modded way up.

    Oh, and I see the picture itself is now one of those 4chan motivators.
  • dserfaty, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2This is old news. I remember that story from months ago.
    • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Yet you clicked on it again, and felt the compelling need to post. Good on ya.
    • dserfaty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4And you expect me to figure out it 's the same story just by reading its title?
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1The guy obviously has no legal claim regarding the images, however, why all the bashing for hotlinking to images? Hell, Digg is built on the model of hotlinking to other articles or sites. Why should it matter if the guys hotlinks to images?
    • DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I don't think that word means what you think it means.
  • donkapone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you really do know that you use a computer too much when you see the story that was dugg 1024 times and you say to yourself - hey, that's 1kd :/
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1at least hes smart enough to use gmail...
    • Klarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16You are viewing it from the recipient's point of view, dear.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.