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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#131

Post by matheweis »

stevesearer wrote: post #34
matheweis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded. Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then embedded their own iframe referencing the copied files with the protections removed. I'd say that counts as stealing.

This sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.

... and many photographers have successfully sued for various websites using their imagery without permission - regardless of whether or not it was publicly available on the author's website.

The fact that copyright is violated on a regular basis does not make this case any more or less excusable.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#132

Post by stevesearer »

matheweis wrote: post #131
stevesearer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.

... and many photographers have successfully sued for various websites using their imagery without permission - regardless of whether or not it was publicly available on the author's website. The fact that copyright is violated on a regular basis does not make this case any more or less excusable.

I agree with you but that didn't come across well in my comment. My point was to say that it is indeed the same thing, only it sounds different because it took more steps to accomplish.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#133

Post by gedrap »

jm_l wrote: post #96
pimentel wrote: post #86

Earlier 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.

Then what? People, who are reading Daily Mail, will say 'oh nooo it doesn't have the stamp'? No, doubt you care about these things if you're reading it.

And you know what? It's fine. If we don't like some things and don't see them right, doesn't mean that everyone else should. Some people like tabloids and that's alright.

We can't force people to like The Right Thing.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#134

Post by jwatte »

If they actually downloaded and republished your dikes, then that is clear copyright infringement. Which is both a crime, as well as cause for civil action. You could report them to the DA (or whatever is the equivalent where you or they live.) It would be interesting to see how that went!

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#135

Post by jwatte »

andy_ppp wrote: post #41
saganus wrote: 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…

Ah yes; it's almost as if we live in some sort of serfdom where all the laws are set up to benefit only those who already have wealth, influence and power.

Almost...

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#136

Post by jwatte »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
slavik81 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Copyright infringement is in the criminal code. They actually downloaded and modified the files. That's not just server fees!

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#137

Post by cbd1984 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #118
jdimov10 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have a closed market, however. It's free for incumbent massive media organisations like DMG who only exist because Lord Rothmere and descendents have The Right Friends. You and me, however, can pucker up, pay, and play by the rules the free ones make. Keynsian economics does not equate to "good and right" - it equates to Keynsian economics - and nepotism. So much nepotism.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Keynesian economics, unless you've redefined the term to mean "everything I do not like in the world".

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#138

Post by cgm616 »

watty wrote: post #92
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.

I don't think (not a lawyer) that they could do anything if you put a disclaimer that it is a parody of their "creative work."

That should allow use of slightly changed (LessAdsDailyMail) trademarks, and proper citations could handle the rest.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#139

Post by mahyarm »

notahacker wrote: post #126
madaxe_again wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a closed market, however. It's free for incumbent massive media organisations like DMG who only exist because Lord Rothmere and descendents have The Right Friends. You and me, however, can pucker up, pay, and play by the rules the free ones make. Keynsian economics does not equate to "good and right" - it equates to Keynsian economics - and nepotism. So much nepotism.

I know Keynes is the default bogeyman in some circles of economic thinking, but I'm really struggling to see the link between established corporations having brands and governments running countercyclical policy... Bearing in mind most newspapers' circulation is crashing and Buzzfeed got very big very quickly peddling similarly lowbrow content, I'm not even convinced the market power of print media is that high.

I'm guessing the nepotism argument goes as so:

Keynes gov't economic stimulus is created by the gov't, and people with good connections to the gov't are the recipients of this stimulus, causing nepotism to flourish. The stimulus is not distributed evenly to the economy and thus increases economic inequality.

The entire bank bailout & QE seems like a similar situation in the USA. Who got all the QE cash? The banks, not everyone.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#140

Post by saganus »

anentropic wrote: post #114
saganus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I can't believe this passes as a newspaper. Where are the editors? Can't they even screen the things they steal at least?

they don't care

Yeah, I agree.

But still... I mean, if I'm going to steal a diamond, I would make sure it's the real deal, instead of some Snatch's moissanite...

Post reply on HN