Someone is stealing my bandwidth: they're using this image, hosted on my server, as the background image on their webpage.
I sent an email via that person's hosting provider, xanga, and a friend left a comment on the user's site informing her, quite simply, about what she was doing (ooh, not attributing the image, plus having me pay towards her bandwidth). To date, there's been no reply, and my friend's comment attached to this entry has since been deleted.
Evangelical Christians aren't, it must be said, my favourite group of people in the world, but generally they're harmless compared to, say, mass murderers. On the other hand, I'm really getting quite annoyed that this hasn't been fixed yet.
So I'm going to give one more warning. And then I'm going to change the image she's linking to.
The latest entry at the time of writing starts like this:
The picture behind this writing reminds me of a night when my husband rushed home and told me to grab my jacket and hurry to the car, he had to take me somewhere. I could see the excitement on his face and could tell there was some kind of great adventure he wanted to share with me. I reported to the car as quickly as I could and we left with me not knowing where he was taking me...it was exciting!
So I'm thinking maybe tubgirl or goatse.cx would provide a sufficiently hilarious and unequivocal message (unlinked, for obvious reasons if you're already seen those sites. If you haven't, well, you might not want to be at work and consider yourself duly warned) as replacement images, but am entirely open to suggestions in the comments below.
50 comments and trackbacks
Maybe just a rewrite rule in that folder's .htaccess file that issues a "Forbidden"?
Posted by: Bill Humphries on August 8, 2003 05:41 PM
Yeah, I looked into doing that, but it doesn't seem to have as much potential for mayhem and embarrassment.
To be honest, I was prepared to go down that route, but when she deleted my friend's comment pointing out what she was doing, my opinion was somewhat lowered...
Posted by: Dan Hon on August 8, 2003 05:47 PM
Oh dear, I was about to leave a comment to the same effect.
Looks like it's time for an amusing redirect.
Fire when ready, Gridley.
Posted by: Bill Humphries on August 8, 2003 06:39 PM
Or, if you'd like to offend their Christian sensibilities, might I suggest a photo of a fiery pentagram, or a handsome portrait of the devil? ;-)
Posted by: Bill on August 8, 2003 07:30 PM
Well, I had thought of altering the image so it had the text "RICHARD DAWKINS IS THE ONE TRUE GOD" inscribed somewhere, or perhaps even "GOOD CHRISTIANS DON'T STEAL".
I'm quite interested in seeing how she'll deal with that, seeing as her attitude so far has been one of "ignore it and maybe it will go away".
Posted by: Dan Hon on August 8, 2003 07:36 PM
You should change the image for a while because that would be funny. Then do something higher-tech like banning the IP or something. But do keep a copy of the original image (renamed) for illustrative purposes. Plus that way if the person comes back and links to the new, renamed picture you can keep having fun and playing the game.
Posted by: Dave on August 8, 2003 07:48 PM
Aug 8, 2003 7:54 PM
I think that this is pretty funny. Someone took a picture that this guy Dan Hon took and made it into the background of their page. They haven't attributed it to him and are linking from the copy on his...
Read more in Extenuating Images »
Heh...goatse was the first thing that popped into my mind too. I do like the "Good Christians don't steal" thing though. I vote combine the two, then do what Dave says.
Posted by: Andrew on August 8, 2003 08:37 PM
Maybe an official-looking email from the "National Meme Redaction Office: Dept. of Homeland Security" informing her that her site's contaminated by memes and will need to be cleaned by a DHS approved meme-redactor.
Posted by: Bill Humphries on August 8, 2003 09:22 PM
If you can figure out which IP/useragent/referrer the author comes from, don't change the image for it. But do so for all the visitors to the site.
Posted by: Eric on August 9, 2003 06:25 PM
I was going to make the same suggestion Eric did. With an even moderately non-technical victim it will take them weeks or months to figure out what is going on. Didn't someone do this to ESR a while back?
Posted by: kellan on August 9, 2003 07:11 PM
Someone pulled that on ESR? Snort! I'm going to go laugh hysterically for a few minutes now, and imagine what a photo of Trotsky would had looked like as a background image on his homepage... .
Posted by: Bill Humphries on August 10, 2003 12:35 AM
Posted by: nobody on August 11, 2003 12:17 PM
Man, you should never have asked her to de-link. I see she just now ripped off the image lock stock and barrel and moved it here:
You should have just did the replacement on your own, now they have your image without consent or attribute anyway.
Someone did this to me once, and I never gave a warning. I found someone was inserting a photo of a couple of my friends in Spain, whom they did not even know, and I replaced the image with this:
The image dropped off my logs soon after. :-)
PS- Hi Bill! Yes, I saw this story on mLT! :-)
Posted by: Kevin Collins on August 11, 2003 05:37 PM
I sent her a second email, just in case the first didn't get through or was, uh, ignored. I made it clear that provided there was attribution and she wasn't using up my bandwidth, I didn't really have any problems with it.
That and I pointed out she was probably violating Xanga's ToS.
Posted by: Dan Hon on August 12, 2003 12:44 PM
Very simple. Get after the hosting site. Just threaten them with lawyers, which will prompt immediate action. Usually, the site owner pulls the link to the pic. If then the blog owner starts to copy the copyright protected picture to another server, you've got them, because this is true copyright infringement, which is illegal no question what (because it is not hosted on your site). That's a lot of fun.
PS: Fantastic pic, by the way!
Posted by: Mark Z. on January 16, 2004 03:15 PM