Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't control who their partners are?
i dont work for webflow, im not sure why you are asking me this
The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
131–140 of 176 posts
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
They basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one (three?) person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom. The title made me think that he released a paperback that competes with the original. > If you agree with copyright at all The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution (which the rest of cop…
> He basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom. What is your basis for this belief? Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book? > The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution [...] So whoever…
My experience inflicted stupidity.
> Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book?
I find it nice that they linked to the original book. For every x earned let the original author earn many times more. It's probably a better deal than the author got from their legal publisher.
> Did you read the part about the fake site appearing higher in search results for the author's own name?
And who's fault is that? Google? Or this little slop maker that I'm (again stupidly) assuming is not a SEO hacker.
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
They basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one (three?) person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom. The title made me think that he released a paperback that competes with the original. > If you agree with copyright at all The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution (which the rest of cop…
> liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo I'm sorry, what? What exactly do you think is happening here?
https://webflow.com/@qontour?msockid=0946eab0f6bf6a55192dfcc...
If that doesn't look like a marooned freelancer down on their luck I don't what does.
I mean, what's your read on this?
Is this a person who secretly hates the book and the author and re-published its contents because he knows that people who have the content will never, ever purchase a book, no matter how much they like it? And he provides the links to buy the book only for plausible deniability and makes them affiliates for even more plausible deniability fully knowing nobody will ever now buy this book?
Or is he a grifter trying to earn heaps of money with affiliate links to one obscure book providing it with better visibility through SEO tricks Google is powerless against even though they are in this business for nearly three decades? And he also published the full text of the book because of ... how does this helps him earn more money exactly? I ran out of ideas.
And the most important question. Is this person a worthy target of the internet wrath?
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#134The sooner you act, the better. But it seems like the publisher didn't bother with any of that, or they're just slow and are getting around to it. The author of the book couldn't even be bothered to respond to the blog author's question about it.
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, Claude says unfortunately copyright law doesn't work that way. I hate this so much. Not you or your post, just that it’s becoming normal to just throw out “Claude says this” without doing any fact checking. Claude’s also technically right but wrong where it matters. The author could easily offer to settle for control of the site instead of suing. If the author registered the copyright to the book, he doesn…
The “claude says” is the part this pisses me off about LLM use now. If I wanted a Claude answer I’d ask Claude. If I ask a human I want a human response not a “here’s what Claude said”.
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#136A similar thing is happening to me. I worked on something for 3 years which I give away for free to help people and a thief took my software, ran it through ai to rebrand everything and relaunched as their own app. Unfortunately the ai missed a few Easter eggs I had hidden so the theft is undeniable. Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They refuse to look at or arbitrate. So now I'm o…
> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They deserve to also be sued too for the infringement. I don't think safe-harbor applies if they don't act on a valid notice.
If that party files a claim stating that it is not infringing the host is required to forward that claim you, and then wait a short time (something like 10 business days, but I don't remember the exact time).
At the end of that wait if you have not provided proof that you filed a lawsuit against the alleged infringer the host restores the content. If you do provide such proof the content stays down until the court resolves the matter.
If you do not provide proof that you have sued and the content goes back up and then later you do so, you would need to get a preliminary injunction or similar from the court ordering the host to take it down.
Some big platforms (Google definitely) use their own systems in parallel to DMCA, so your experience with them (on both the copyright owner side and the copyright infringer side) can be quite a bit different if you are trying to deal with an infringement through that, but if you go through the DMCA channel that will work.
If you aren't ready to sue though and the infringer counter claims the material will go back up. You can think of the purpose of the DMCA in the case user content hosting as being to get the host out of the loop.
The advantages for the copyright owner of going through DMCA first instead of just suing right off the bat are that (1) in the case of accidental infringement the infringer probably will not counter claim and so one simple DMCA claim by you gets the content taken down and resolves the matter, (2) if they do counter claim, you get a copy of that which includes contact information which lets you know who to sue, and (3) the content will stay down until the suit is resolved whereas if you sued first it would likely stay up until you could get the court to issue a preliminary injunction.
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#137A similar thing is happening to me. I worked on something for 3 years which I give away for free to help people and a thief took my software, ran it through ai to rebrand everything and relaunched as their own app. Unfortunately the ai missed a few Easter eggs I had hidden so the theft is undeniable. Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They refuse to look at or arbitrate. So now I'm o…
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what your point is; the title doesn't claim "AI stole the book", it says "an agency stole the book and used AI to republish it", which is true.
The article is titled "The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows", whereas the HN title is (currently) "Agency stole bestselling author's book, used AI to relaunch as their own". So it seems reasonable to infer that the submitter felt that emphasizing the AI angle would be the part worth discussing. The article fully embraces these weakly-connected insinuations: "But it’s not surprising to see it coming from an age…
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to do this type of thing a lot. Boldly state something I knew to be wrong, so I'd get correct answers. Dang asked me not to do it. Now, when I boldly state wrong stuff (a not-infrequent occurrence), it's because I really am wrong.
I’ve tried this (not on HN) but usually it just results in downvotes or mockery.
Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows
#140DMCA only applies to 1:1 copy, if you used AI to convert it to something else, then DMCA is the wrong tool. It's ultimately a fruitless endeavor to go after because you would have to prove that you can use the said AI tool to create the exact word by word copy and that is going to be very expensive and shaky in court I think its time that we stop extracting rent from outdated copyright laws. Once AI gets good enough…