Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#91

Post by teachingaway »

wise_young_man wrote: post #82
teachingaway wrote: post #77

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…

You don't actually need to register in order to be protected by copyright laws. The benefit to registering is that it is needed in order to sue. [1] 1: http://thompsonhall.com/does-a-copyright-have-to-be-register...

I used to litigate copyright cases. While your comment is technically true, for 98% of cases, you will need the copyright registration for any amount of meaningful copyright protection.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#92

Post by watty »

jrs235 wrote: post #83

How would the Daily Mail feel about (and what would they do) if someone constantly scraped their website and redistributed the content? Perhaps a fun side project called TheLessAdsDailyMail.com?

Copying an entire site is a bit different, if you copy one of their articles I doubt anything would happen. Maybe a sternly worded email.

If you copied their entire site, used their name, and removed their ads I'm sure they'd get lawyers involved.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#93

Post by dickbasedregex »

jrs235 wrote: post #83

How would the Daily Mail feel about (and what would they do) if someone constantly scraped their website and redistributed the content? Perhaps a fun side project called TheLessAdsDailyMail.com?

We all know what they'd do. Respond with threats and litigation probably.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#94

Post by dickbasedregex »

inetsee wrote: post #55
ollybee wrote: post #27

I use this plugin (also available for Chrome) to redirect to pictures of tea and kittens should I accidental click on a Daily Mail link. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/kitten-block/

It would be nice if this plugin could be configured to do the same for a list of websites, and not just the Daily Mail.

I would be better if it just dresses the link in CSS so you know never to bother clicking in the first place.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#95

Post by ska »

andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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?

Unlikely (IANAL) because it would be hard to argue the fee is reasonable.

You can specify that it is not available (but good luck seeing anything from a case about violating the license).

You might be able to do this with something like £100, though, and just invoice them. I'd guess staff lawyers would say just pay it.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#96

Post by jm_l »

pimentel wrote: post #86
minikites wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market in action, I suppose.

The alternative would be a government committee deciding on what should or shouldn't be printed/displayed on the internet, I suppose.

Another potential alternative: large trustworthy media outlets form a committee themselves, develop some review process for adding a stamp to the top of their sites that says something like "American Online Journalist" and thereby encourage good journalism in a way that's good for business without interference with the free market.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#97

Post by nkrisc »

drostie wrote: post #47
beckler wrote: post #44

sounds like someone needs to set his X-Frame-Options header.

Unfortunately that would not work in this case: in this case they created an unauthorized copy of the work on their own server for the purposes of redistribution; therefore they had full control over the HTTP headers.

Encode and eval the alert code so it's at least harder than searching the source for "alert"? It's not good, but it might be enough to annoy them into not doing it. Probably not.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#98

Post by RobertoG »

pimentel wrote: post #86
minikites wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market in action, I suppose.

The alternative would be a government committee deciding on what should or shouldn't be printed/displayed on the internet, I suppose.

In most issues, between extremes there is, normally, a balanced approach.

The world doesn't run in binary variables.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#99

Post by ryandrake »

slavik81 wrote: post #88
andy_ppp wrote: post #30

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 am not a lawyer, but one reason you can't do that is because you can't set punitive damages in a contract. The court would instead consider how much the unauthorised actions actually cost you and decide what damages are owed.

In other words, show monetary damages or GTFO. Count up how many cents in server bandwidth they used and bill them.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#100

Post by cookiecaper »

This kind of thing is beyond rampant at all levels.

I think the people most concerned about following the rules are small-medium businesses that are big enough for someone to try to sue, but not big enough to have an army of lawyers that makes them practically invincible from all claims that don't originate from a similar Super-Massive-Corp. Business insurance is pretty meaningless for practically any claim that doesn't involve unsafe facilities, and they often include clauses similar to "If you lose in the wrong way, you owe us all the money we paid for your defense".

There's an impression that since big media outlets are such big targets, they're careful about this type of stuff, but it's not true at all. They're only careful when it's another SuperMassive's copyright. They know that a legal fight with them is not possible for any other creator, and they know that they can get an immediate benefit by violating your copyright. They'll rip your stuff off, they may take down the thing they didn't have a license for after you complain, and they'll just laugh at you because they know an attorney is going to charge tens of thousands to even start proceedings against someone as big as them.

We need to fix the way legal costs work.

Post reply on HN