Blogger "Goats" Microsoft RSS team blog

Oh dear! What's the world coming too?

Blogger Niall Kennedy was not happy that Microsoft RSS team blog hotlinked a picture without permission. The blogger replaced the picture with a male human being speading his ass cheeks.

Microsoft RSS team Blog

Niall Kennedy Blog

Screenshot of RSS team blog with changed picture (warning pornographic material!) source www.webwereld.nl

The goatse has become a cult, see wiki and http://sam.zoy.org/goatse/

News source: Bink

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

ATI Radeon X1650XT vs. Nvidia GeForce 7600GT

Next Story

Microsoft security updates for December

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This will just make MS more closed and give them reason to crack down on blogging.
Crap like this is why many companies don't blog.

This is a great reminder that not everyone on the Internet is an adult nor do they act like it.

If this was a licensing/copyright/permissions issue, I sure hope Niall had permission to use the replacement picture.

hehehehe uberLOL at comments on MS Blog:

lolz, you got pWned!

p.s. - I want to see you in my office immediately!!!!
Wednesday, December 06, 2006 12:35 PM by Bill Gates

I hope he checked the licensing/attribution terms with the owner of the goatse pic, otherwise he could get in some hot water himself!

...

Then again, would the owner of goatse admit to it?

Gotta love the "holier than thou" attitude here. Niall made a particular point: that Microsoft, which is soooo concerned about its own IP decides to breach the Creative Commons license on someone else's IP and Flickrs' TOS just because they felt like it and that's OK? He didn't think so and punished them. Why should he have been nice about it? Sauce for the gander.

how sad and petty. His blog is no longer worth reading as it has lost all credability after seeing the screenshot of the altered image. He could have simply put a message saying please do not hotlink pictures from this blog etc but no he had to put a disgusting picture like that for everyone to see. Also it raises the question the picture was at a microsoft event with microsoft work in the background so im sure microsoft do have some legal ground on this. The guy deserves to pay for this. Very sad and very pathetic indeed.

Also it raises the question the picture was at a microsoft event with microsoft work in the background so im sure microsoft do have some legal ground on this.

Nope.

Such an idiot...
Actually he has no copyright to this material...
And such a childish behavior...
He should have renamed the image and contact that blogger...

Such an idiot...
Actually he has no copyright to this material...

Yes, he does. He was the photographer, ergo he produced the material.

Quote - Jugalator said @ #39.1

Yes, he does. He was the photographer, ergo he produced the material.

But he has photographed copyrighted products and persons, so...

Quote - sorlag said @ #39.2
But he has photographed copyrighted products and persons, so...

So that means even CNN cannot take photographs of Bill Gates or the Zune device without paying money to Microsoft?

What an immature idiot. He should have just asked them to remove it, instead he's just made himself look stupid. Its not like he losing any bandwidth anyway since he was hosting it on Flickr. I'd love to see if he has the permission of the people/trademarks in the photo, especially now he's been involved in something as pathetic as this.

Its not like he losing any bandwidth anyway since he was hosting it on Flickr.

No, and MS isn't losing any bandwidth on me downloading XP from a P2P network... What kind of silly argument is that?

It's the usage rights to the property that's violated.

According to Flickr the picture is under a Creative Commons license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

This means it can be displayed, remixed or shared freely, as long as the author is acknowledged. All he had to do was ask them to acknowledge him (an error on Microsoft's part not too initially); but instead he chose to be a jerk about it. He's shown he's totally unprofessional. Lets be honest though, he did it to get himself some attention anyway.

I'm no legal expert but I'm certain the usage rights on Windows XP are different to those of an image on a free hosting website.

Quote - ziadoz said @ #37.2
According to Flickr the picture is under a Creative Commons license:
I'm no legal expert but I'm certain the usage rights on Windows XP are different to those of an image on a free hosting website. :blink:

no. copyrighted material and intellectual property is the same regardless. Just because Microsoft own xp, it doesnt make copyright stronger.

I guess you can see who are the Microsoft fanboys from these comments...

Quote - bmaher said @ #37.3

no. copyrighted material and intellectual property is the same regardless. Just because Microsoft own xp, it doesnt make copyright stronger.

I guess you can see who are the Microsoft fanboys from these comments...

If only law was so simple as you make out, perhaps more people would represent themselves.

Lame. Should've just deleted the image if he had a problem. I mean, just about any other image would have been fine, but goatse? Bleh.

He was taking down his material either way... Better to have it be a 404, IMO. Then he could re-upload the image to his album with a new URI and everything would have been fine. Oh, and maybe send an email to the bloggers about it.

Does anyone see the irony here? The image was released with a collective commons license which required attribution and the Microsoft employee linked to the image without attribution, and we all know how "legally correct" Microsoft always is.

Well, yeah, that's probably what annoyed the user in the first place.

Flickr is especially known to feature CC material and it's easy to find out what licenses the images use, so it's pretty sloppy on Microsoft's part.

Not really - it's sloppy on Niall's part since apparently he didn't own the rights to the image in the first place. So he has no business putting it under a CC license.

He wasn't worried about the hotlinking, he was worried about intellectual property theft and copyleft violation.

oh and roflgoatse.

What a petty, immature, and childish thing to do on this bloggers part. Removing the picture from flicker would have been a much easier way if he didn't want Microsoft using it. How old is this guy, 15?

Quote - Marshalus said @ #23
What a petty, immature, and childish thing to do on this bloggers part. Removing the picture from flicker would have been a much easier way if he didn't want Microsoft using it. How old is this guy, 15?

No, he's the guy who developed Technorati, Pricegrabber and NexTag. He also worked for MS.

Removing the picture from flicker would have been a much easier way if he didn't want Microsoft using it.

Why should he have to remove his own pictures to stop MS from illegally using them? :S
Stop blaming this on the Flickr guy...

He also worked for MS.

But not for very long. I think maybe I'm starting to see why.


Why should he have to remove his own pictures to stop MS from illegally using them? Stop blaming this on the Flickr guy...

Are you referring to Niall as "the Flickr guy?" You're assuming that Niall's original claim that he owns the rights to the photo are in fact legitimate. Looks like it's not.

And who else is to blame? He's the one that knowingly exposed hundreds of his former employer's readers to a disgusting and offensive image for no reason other than spite and attention. So stop defending him just because you got a cheap laugh out of it.

He was a fool to do such a thing. He could have notified them or even just removed the damned picture, but noooo, he had to be an ass.

Burned.

If this is going to be considered news, at least get it right. It's called being "goatse" not "Goats".

The reason why is it called this is because the claimed image originated on a site www.<< filtered for offensive content >>, which just displayed this single image. The idea was to send someone to it to see the image, so it became common to use the term goatse as "goatse'd".

Example: I goatse'd my brother yesterday. He hates me now.

Sheesh.

Quote - xelencin said @ #16.1
Funny that it filtered it www.[goatse].cx considering that the site doesn't even exist anymore.

Funnier that everyone calls it "goatse" when it's "goatse . cx" ... clearly "goat sex" ... "goatse" makes no sense...

Quote - ieatlint said @ #16.2
Quote - xelencin said @ #16.1
Funny that it filtered it www.[goatse].cx considering that the site doesn't even exist anymore.

Funnier that everyone calls it "goatse" when it's "goatse . cx" ... clearly "goat sex" ... "goatse" makes no sense...

neither does 'pwned' but it has become a part of internet vocabulary.

the correct term is to 'goatse' someone.

No, I still don't care.

It's rather immature, if the original post had a problem they should've contacted Microsoft and resolved this in an adult fashion.

This is rather attention seeking and thus, I don't care and I don't care to see this sort of rubbish on Neowin or the internet.

Is it sick that I've seen that picture on a hacked website before?

And, who cares, everyone hotlinks at some point...

OWNED...lol


glad to see MS likes to hotlink as well as if they dont have enough bandwith on their own servers

Have to admit, i did roffle at that :)

I also have to admit that ive done the same (not the same picture obviously) to people hotlink.

the guy pays for his bandwidth, and personally i think he should claim against microsoft for bandwidth usage :p