71–80 of 145 posts
I wonder if they've configured everything correctly to ensure that an embedded iframe can't find its way to the user's Daily Mail cookies or credentials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
> 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? Send them an invoice for using his material, with an additional fee for not getting permission in advance. Then take it to small claims if DM doesn't pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
> 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? Send them an invoice for using his material, with an additional fee for not getting permission in advance. Then take it to small claims if DM doesn't pay.
The DM gets sued regularly, so it's not as if they're invincible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary: if you don't have a licence on things, the default assumption should be that the copyright holder has given no permission, just as when the author of the article here didn't respond to a question sent in the middle of the night, that was not a grant of permission to do whatever the person asking wanted. The complication with web sites is that there is inevitably some level of implied consent: if you…
The copies made during visiting a website are treated as "incidental" copies under the law. What matters is that the author has decided to publish their work and that you are viewing their publication. Of course if you start duplicating their publication for your own ends, then it stops being incidental.
Sadly, the past few years have seen lawyers argue the minutiae of EU directives and national IP laws to the extent that any original intention or moral or economic justification for copyright has long been forgotten. Basically, this has become exactly the kind of area that gets lawyers and legal systems a bad reputation, where sometimes quite significant amounts of power are being assigned based on obscure technicalities in how laws at different levels of government have been drafted.
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?
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…
A few years ago the Daily Mail ran an article about a visualization I made. They obeyed my CC license, so I have no complaint as serious as Yau's. But the article was just full of errors, including spelling my name wrong in three different ways. I wrote the article author and pointed out all the errors and he responded "No copy editing! It's a tight budget." The Daily Mail truly doesn't give a shit. About quality, ab…
The free market in action, I suppose.
The Daily Mail is SHIT. The majority of people LOVE to read about shit.
It's not my thing, so I don't read it.
That's what free market means.
0. Register the copyright within 3 months after you publish the project.
1. Register online at https://eco.copyright.gov/ - it costs $35 (or so) and is not particularly difficult to do.
1.1 registration is not difficult, but it is tedious and involves navigating a super-old government website that kinda sucks.
2. You can also hire a lawyer to register for you, which costs around $200-300.
3. Once you have the copyright registration, you can write a polite letter to whomever is stealing your stuff (or write a nasty letter, depending on your mood).
4. You can force them to pay you compensation for stealing your copyrighted content.
5. If your stolen stuff is being hosted by a third party provider (like imgur or whatever), you can send the host a DMCA takedown request, and the host will quickly remove the offending content.
that is just US law. Milage may vary in other countries.
edit - a lot of downvoting on this comment. Too snarky? Too anti-open-source? i thought this is useful info. Sorry to offend!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free market in action, I suppose.
Yes! Why is this a problem? The Daily Mail is SHIT. The majority of people LOVE to read about shit. It's not my thing, so I don't read it. That's what free market means.
If you put a lot of effort into a project and don't want it stolen, please REGISTER THE COPYRIGHT. 0. Register the copyright within 3 months after you publish the project. 1. Register online at https://eco.copyright.gov/ - it costs $35 (or so) and is not particularly difficult to do. 1.1 registration is not difficult, but it is tedious and involves navigating a super-old government website that kinda sucks. 2. You ca…