This reminds me of the days of flash. There use to be a ton of sites stealing other people's flash games. You could buy flash obfuscater and de-obfuscate programs. People would steal your game code and re-skin the game,etc. Then the new strategy was to put the ads inside the video game.
The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
101–110 of 145 posts
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#102Send the Daily Mail an invoice for their use of your work. Pick a reasonable price and bill them. Then if you don't pay you've got something tangible to sue them about.
This. This is a standard procedure for photographers.
Writing a blog post does not help anybody. Ask for money and you not only get money, they are more likely to not do it again.
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#103> 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…
JWZ used to detect the hacker news referrer and redirect all links that originated on hacker news to goatse. Now it's only slightly less graphic.
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#104> 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…
I think the NZ Herald is worse than stuff. A meaningful percentage of their content is now Reddit stories.
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#105It suddenly occurs to me that in addition to it being rude to deep-link someone's content via , it may be dangerous to Daily Mail's security model. 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?
What about just changing what the Daily Mail is serving up? An image referring to the Daily Mail stealing content for example.
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#106Send the Daily Mail an invoice for their use of your work. Pick a reasonable price and bill them. Then if you don't pay you've got something tangible to sue them about.
IANAL, but this sounds like a great idea even if you don't plan to pursue payment: It's more likely to get a change from the scuzzy people in charge of the scuzzy business than polite letters to article-writers.
And if you do feel pissed, it nicely anchors things: "My client promptly sent a notification of infringement and an invoice, which they refused to pay for X months."
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#107[deleted]
You didn't read the article did you.
> You didn't read the article did you.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What would stop Daily Mail from stealing this stamp and slapping it on their site?
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#109What 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?
So what about a community like Hacker News that combines community, karma, money and action.
Think of it like crowd sourced lawyers to even up egregious abusers of the public commons.
The community can somehow [1] filter actions up to the top and then automatically start a crowd funding campaign to take legal action based upon such things.
Might work against patent trolls and other organisations that we all feel are acting badly but we feel powerless to do anything about. I'd put £100 down now toward a class action lawsuit against the Daily Mail for constantly stealing peoples content.
[1] technical term meaning I haven't thought this through properly
Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
At which point, you open the door to a media cartel that decides what is and isn't worthy to write about. At which point, your stamp becomes worse than useless, it becomes a sign of 'quality' to the misinformed while really being simply a way to say it's been 'approved' by the large media companies.