[deleted]
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.
11–20 of 145 posts
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
Also: "So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup."
[deleted]
In general, you can't assume people won't deep-link your content, and that includes embedding. Taking steps to protect against or take advantage of traffic spikes is the responsibility of a content provider.
This, of course, wouldn't protect against DM just straight yanking all his assets and hosting them itself, which should be clearly immoral (and possibly illegal, depending on jurisdiction). But "framers gonna frame" is a fair thing to assume about the nature of web content, along the lines of " tags are cheap and if people see something funny on your site, they're gonna use 'em to share it."
Why I Would Do That: They were successful in their defense of the rights of the Beastie Boys and reached a settlement that included a public admission of guilt.
Long-Term Goal: To discourage such behavior through numerous examples of punishment using established rules.
[deleted]
As soon as you searched you saw that many other people had written this kind of thing, and yet that hadn't done any good. What made you think this post would make any more difference than the previous ones you found? If you want to actually make a difference, talk to your solicitor. You might even get some money out of it.
I, for one, didn't know about any of this. So that's at least 1 more person aware of this practice because OP chose to write about it.
I imagine I'm not the only one.
What I Would Do: Find out what law firm represented the Beastie Boys when they went after GoldiBlox. Why I Would Do That: They were successful in their defense of the rights of the Beastie Boys and reached a settlement that included a public admission of guilt. Long-Term Goal: To discourage such behavior through numerous examples of punishment using established rules.
And that's a significant problem - most of the time organizations like the Daily Mail are ripping off small-time practitioners of data visualizations, comics, whatever... if it's something produced by a large company with lawyers you can bet they wouldn't touch it.