Live data from Hacker News

The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

flowingdata.com

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#61

What does the law say about putting a license on use of things like this "Embedding this content into your site without written permission from the author will involve a £100000 fee for it's use. You agree by embedding this content that you abide by these terms." Is something like this enforceable?

It sounds like you are describing elements of both piracy/theft (in which the offender fails to obtain or adhere to a license) and a compulsory license (in which there is a predetermined usage fee but no consent is required).

With a compulsory license, the fee is pre-determined by law or arbitration. However, in the US they are basically only applicable to music and similar works involving royalties.

In cases of piracy, damages are sought through civil suit and ultimately determined by the court, not the plaintiff. Essentially your warning amounts to "I'll sue you for X amount if you steal this". There's no guarantee that the court would find in your favor or award the full damages sought.

I say "warning" because I doubt many courts would consider this a valid EULA to begin with. Contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable only if the terms conform to the reasonable expectations of the signatory (who has no control over the terms).

But even if it were valid, and you were allowed to set your own violation fee, you would still have to go through the court to enforce it.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#62
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this, like with most routes that involve a lawyer, is that this isn't about being enforceable or not, but whether you can actually pay in time and money to try to enforce it. That's why typically only companies try to enforce licenses. The author said that even writing the blog post was hard because he had not much time to spare. Imagine what it would cost if you sue and demand a newspaper li…

What if you just start invoicing their AP department?

I'm a lawyer in the UK. Here, you can start your own claim online in a few minutes.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#63
post #21

I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header or (b) monetize views on his graphic. In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider. This, of course, wouldn't protect…

> I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header The article states that the Daily Mail scraped the files and uploaded them separately, to avoid his iframe detecting JS. And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly?

As long as you're fiddling inside the HTTP server, why not just redirect requests from IP addresses known to belong to the serial offender sites to an infographic showing the number of times those blocked sites have copied valuable content without licensing it first?

It wouldn't be more than an inconvenience to them, but some people deserve to get rude gestures when they come 'round to mooch.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#64
> I made an alert pop up that said “poop” whenever someone loaded the Stuff.co.nz page. Like I said, I'm sophisticated.

I would probably have handled this much less maturely, haha. What would be the legality of displaying some really graphic image (like goatse) to only 10% of users when you detect you're within an iframe? :P

Ripping the source code of the visualization is so scummy though. I wish I could say I can't believe the Daily Mail, but this article isn't even surprising...

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#65
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this, like with most routes that involve a lawyer, is that this isn't about being enforceable or not, but whether you can actually pay in time and money to try to enforce it. That's why typically only companies try to enforce licenses. The author said that even writing the blog post was hard because he had not much time to spare. Imagine what it would cost if you sue and demand a newspaper li…

What if you just start invoicing their AP department?

I bet you if you sourced it well, made it look formal, and referenced the relevant articles, visualizations, etc. they might pay it rather than fight you if the price was reasonable.

Otherwise, you can always send them to collections for non-payment and/or hire a lawyer.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you just start invoicing their AP department?

I'm a lawyer in the UK. Here, you can start your own claim online in a few minutes.

Yes, if it's under £5000 as I understand it?

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#67

I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header or (b) monetize views on his graphic. In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider. This, of course, wouldn't protect…

In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Technically, no, you can't with current protocols. However, this has been regarded as bad manners ("hot linking", "bandwidth theft", etc.) since forever. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider. The trouble is, with the increasing concentration of atten…

Perhaps more accurate to say "Taking steps to manage traffic is the responsibility of a content host."

People make HTTP requests for all kinds of reasons. If you don't have someone managing your hosting, the responsibility defaults to you. That's one of the reasons there's an ecosystem of cloud providers now to shoulder the burden of this implementation detail that people don't want to know just to make content available online.

But the core point stands: It's the Internet. You can't trust the clients to behave; assume the worst of user input. Calling out Daily Mail as terrible (which they are, and which people should do at every opportunity ;) ) doesn't solve the root problem that nothing about the protocols restricts using to pull in cross-domain content.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#70
post #8

The morally corrupt posing as moral guardians. I know people who have had other things like photos from flickr stolen by them. They are disgraceful!

Well, what does one expect - they are the hateful paper for hateful people. In the 30's they ran many pieces about the wonderful Mr Hitler and his brilliant solution to the Jewish problem - and today they trot out the same rhetoric re: Muslims and immigrants. This is relevant because the kind of person who wants to work for a paper that espouses such views is very unlikely to care about your human, never mind intelle…

The Daily Mirror also supported Hitler in the 30's.

They were also the first paper to publicly accuse the murderers of Stephen Lawrence.

Post reply on HN