Copyrights on Web Interfaces

wildag writes "I've recently come into a battle with a guy who owns this site. You might notice the 'similarities' between his web site and Linux.com. I'm going to doubt that Linux.com bought the interface from him. The acutal battle comes from a statment that is on his message board (posted by the admin - Leo). He says 'The layout of any website is "public domain" which is freely available to the public' (that is avaliable here: http://hobbes.resne t.tamu.edu/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25). What do you guys think? (BTW, Linux.com has been notified and he didn't ask permission)." There are countless websites that are direct ripoffs of others, but few as blatant as this one. My policy with Slashdot has always pretty much been take what you want, but give us credit for what ya lift. I've seen this done many times to many sites and it always bums me out: making a well designed website is hard work, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... but isn't saying thanks and crediting your source part of it too? (For those who don't know, Slashdot is owned by VA Linux now, which also owns Linux.com. This doesn't really have anything to do with this story, but I figured I'd mention it). I post this not to point fingers or cause a fight, but to open a discussion about this. Just because you can take something, should you? When are you stealing? Is is hypocritical to demand open source, but not be willing to share your design? And should "Sharing" mean "You can take it, and claim it as your own, and not give the original creator any credit?" Its an issue that spans genres: Web Pages? Source Code? Samples in Music? Fair Use?

Comments

Heh

[British]

I remember the company I work for's website was copied for some city-related site. He just changed the text and graphics labels around to suit his needs. Needless to say, we were amused since he did real sloppy job of working on it.

Seriously, how can you copyright a website layout? Anyone ever notice all gaming related websites(like UGO) look EXACTLY the same, with the trendy left-side navigation in a really small font?

Re:Heh

[LoonXTall]

Seriously, how can you copyright a website layout? Anyone ever notice all gaming related websites(like UGO) look EXACTLY the same, with the trendy left-side navigation in a really small font?

Copyrighting a general concept like left-side navigation is silly. However, copying the entire site down to the images/colors and just changing the name (like from Slashdot to FishFriends News) is definitely wrong. Even worse is stealing the HTML, then changing the images to "SRC=http://slashdot.org/_img_path_name", since /. then pays for your site in the bandwidth dept.

So the copyrightability should depend on the specificness of things. What would computing look like if Bell Labs had copyrighted the idea of having an OS kernel?
--
LoonXTall

Re:Heh

[jhandel]

Actually you innatelly have a copywrite on any Intellectual material you create (website, Photos, Code, Graphics, writing, etc...). Weather you Push the subject or not is a diffrent matter. Web site Designs have been sued over in the passed and (exp: Mattel Vs. Dr Ruth) and the originators of the concept have one those cases. The best way to think about it is this, M&M's logo is probly on 100,000,000 pieces of paper and seen by more people than any website short of Yahoo and there logo design is still thier intellectual property.. Same holds true for website design.

</Soap box>

Re:Heh

[Kimiko]

What would computing look like if Bell Labs had copyrighted the idea of having an OS kernel?

You can't copyright an idea, you copyright a work. Which they did.

You can patent an idea, but even if they had done so here, it would be long since expired.

Re:Heh

[Alan Livingston]

It seems to me that this has already been settled. I've just forgotten the outcome. Didn't Apple sue Microsoft over the "Look and Feel" of Windows violating their copyright.

Kind of the same thing, isn't it? Does anyone remember how this case was settled?"

I have another question, too. This kind of relates to the CueCat discussion, here. Can a company expose services openly available on the internet and then restrict me from using them for their stated purpose? I thought that's where the CueCat Cease and Desist letters were going to complain about. It would appear that I've given their lawyers and management much more credit than they deserve. However, having your servers on the Internet seems to me an invitation to communicate with them. That's what the internet is for, isn't it? Are their any current US legal decisions that have limited access to unprotected service via the internet where the user didn't cause any damage or try to defeat any scurity devices guarding the service?

Re:Heh

[tburkhol]

The best way to think about it is this, M&M's logo is probly on 100,000,000 pieces of paper and seen by more people than any website short of Yahoo and there logo design is still thier intellectual property..

That copyright is pretty specific, though. M&M's (C) (as opposed to tm) covers "M&M" in a particular face and layout, not the idea of two characters separated by an ampersand. "look and feel" is a dificult thing to quantify, and harder to (c) (witness Apple's failed suit against Windows). So unless the kid has copied 'articles' and images (can't tell myself, due to /. effect), then it's just an example of lame website design, not copyright infringement.

Re:Heh

[ichimunki]

No. Left-side navigation isn't something you want to copyright, for that you'd want a patent *smirk*.

As for getting someone else to buy bandwidth for your site by direct linking to their content/images within your HTML, there are ways to prevent this at the server that are not that tough to implement, so do that. Or replace the linked images with naughty stuff.

But look and feel, even JavaScript/HTML tricks? It's not like C or Perl code which is usually long and involved, most everything that can be done with JS/HTML is documented in some book or online help, so I can't really see being possessive about someone dissecting your code and using it, or even going so far as cutting and pasting parts of it (that is, assuming the content is replaced).

Of course, Slashdotting the offending site was a good move. :)

Re:Heh

[JHromadka]

A while back someone copied our website down to the forum titles we were using in our message boards. They changed it when we asked them to, however.
------
James Hromadka

Re:Heh

[jhandel]

good Point (about the M&M's) But Any Photo Published in the largest Magazine in the world or not at all is Copyrighted. That is of corse unless otherwise stated by the owner of that copyright. And as for the particulare site that this is about well That's too blatten not to be infrengment... As for the specifics of diffrence I think the number is 20% diffrent to beable to be considerd unique. But it's up to a jury as to what makes up 20% (exp: Microsofts lose to Disk Doubler over Drive space even thought they used too completely diffrent and unique methods of compression and disk mangment.).. Alot of intellectual property law is on who give's in/up first and if it gets to court the jury.

Re:Heh

[Alien54]

Apple Lost. Otherwise Windows would look alot different. and we would be a lot better off.

[shrug]

- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."

Re:Heh

[Eccles]

It seems to me that this has already been settled. I've just forgotten the outcome. Didn't Apple sue Microsoft over the "Look and Feel" of Windows violating their copyright.

This is somewhat different. There is the whole issue of "trade dress." You and I can't (legally) sell cola with a red ribbon pattern on the can like Coke's. But as long as there is no attempt to pretend that site B is site A (or confuse their identities), and site A can't show any cause for damages, there probably wouldn't be grounds for a complaint. If MyHobbes.com started talking about Linux or something, then there might be relevance.

If they aren't hurting your business or your image, why do you care? I doubt anyone will confuse the two.

Re:Heh

[webcrafter]

Can a company expose services openly available on the internet and then restrict me from using them for their stated purpose?

Well I haven't seen CueCat's EULA (or whatever they have) mainly because I'm in Europe (though I might try to get a copy of wired if they bundle a scanner as rumored on another thread), but I guess it has near the end a paragraph on all caps which reads:

NO WARRANTY: CUECAT COMES WITH NO WARRANTY ... blah ... blah... INCLUDING THE FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE...

So, assuming my assumption is right, doesn't this mean they can't pretend you to C&D using their product if they cannot prove themselves that their intended usage is better than yours? Or for the same reason, if they claim their stated purpose is more legit, isn't this contradicting the warranty (or lack thereof)?

Re:Heh

[WebMistress]

Hmmm... I've had this happen to several of my sites. On one hand, I've taken it as flattery and on the other I've been pissed. Incidently, the people who do this generally do do a pretty sloppy job of it. (If they had the creative ability to produce a decent copy, they'd probably create original work.)

Last winter (probably December 99), we found some "Linux Company" back east somewhere who had completely copied the VA Linux site down to using the exact same graphics and background image. The logo was even the same with their name pasted over "VA". I was pretty outraged. (I was the webmaster at VA at the time and had created the layout.)

I guess if you're going to use someone else's work, you should ask permission, first. Web layout is artwork just like painting or sculpting. If you have permission, then go for it. But the creator owns the work and it is their perogative to decide who can use it. (Their choice as to the use may or may not be ethical but it's still their choice.)

Just my two cents as a webdesigner.

Re:Heh

[Suydam]

It's not like C or Perl code which is usually long and involved, most everything that can be done with JS/HTML is documented in some book or online help, so I can't really see being possessive about someone dissecting your code and using it

That is the statement of someone who hasn't had to do something long and in depth in a language. I hear people make that comment about Perl all the time too. "Well stealing CGIs isn't like stealing C...they're short and easy to read anyway".

So in my opinion, code (be in HTML, JavaScript, Visual Basic, etc.) is subject to a license. If you use the GNU, then people have the right to steal your code. If they use a more restrictive license, they should be required to leave your code alone. It's only a matter of time before people put the same restrictions on HTML/JavaScript in my opinion.

Re:Heh

[CMass]

It seems Vanity rears it's ugly head. I think displaying the authors credentials in the source is a good idea. But where will it stop. When you use DHTML code from certain sites you have to use an ad and a link. That ad may ruin the whole look and feel of the site.

How about a signiture in the bottom corner as any piece of art. Or even better hide the signature in the layout somewhere. Then when you want to show off your work you can show someone and appease your vanity.

But you have to ask what is open source about. Is it about doing something for the community? These are the same thoughts that get most corporations where they are today. Let's try and not get greedy and vain. Try and be selfless.

Re:Heh

[onion2k]

Well stealing CGIs isn't like stealing C...they're short and easy to read anyway.. Someone whose been fortunate enough never to see my Perl work.. Onion

Re:Heh

[ichimunki]

I agree with what you're saying . It's just that proving copyright infringment on reusing HTML and JS is going to be nigh impossible, unless you've written some pretty fancy JS. I mean, if I produce a hello_world.pl, how am I ever going to be able to prosecute infringments, since this is usually the first example in any tutorial. HTML is open source by default. The files are plain text. This does not make them GPL, but it does make it impossible to prevent people from reading the source and learning from it or borrowing snippets of it. This particular instance of "borrowing" (from Linux.com) is poor etiquette, if nothing else. And the re-use of graphics probably does violate a copyright, since I couldn't find where Linux.com released those under the GPL.

I also agree that any CGI, whether it's Perl, Java on the server, C, two line shell scripts or even (ick) VB, should not be reused without explicit permission. But a properly configured server shouldn't even allow access to the actual CGI application. So unless a developer wants to share that code, it's not even available.

At least spell the bloody headlines right

[nagora]

TWW

Hypocritical

[Fervent]

Is is hypocritical to demand open source, but not be willing to share your design?

Rock? Glass houses? Hmm...

Re:Hypocritical

[SvnLyrBrto]

Rock? Glass houses? Hmm...

How do you figure?

www.slashcode.com

Doesn't look very hipocritical to me.

john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!

Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if

Re:Hypocritical

[MikeBabcock]

There really are an aweful lot of illiterate people on here some days. The original article poster made it quite clear that they were upset because the copier of the website re-licensed it as public domain, instead of crediting the author of the design.

Open source software gives credit to authors, it isn't stealing.

Re:Hypocritical

[epaulson]

How long did that take? The slashcode did not take a very "development out in the open" sort of approach.

Re:Hypocritical

[Zagadka]

Open source software gives credit to authors, it isn't stealing.

From Why Software Should Be Free, by RMS:

Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the emotional argument and the economic argument.

The emotional argument goes like this: ``I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it's mine!''

This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.

[emphasis mine] RMS believes that people shouldn't expect to get credit. After all, if you expect to get credit, then you can also expect payment, and that would shoot a big hole in his thesis...

Re:Hypocritical

[skoda]

"Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary"

RMS doesn't allow for the idea that "they made it, they own it" is then integrated with living and becomes "I owned it, but have effectively sold it to my company for my salary (so I can eat)".

As for the emotional strawman argument, I imagine great artists have strong emotional attachments to their finest works. That doesn't stop them from selling them to support themselves.
-----
D. Fischer

Re:Hypocritical

[Score Whore]

Wrong answer buddy. GPL does not require credit only passing along the full work. If your changes are to remove the authors name and you still adhered to the rest of the GPL you'd be fine.

CopyRIGHT

[Booker]

Since we talk about it so much, let's get it right - it's copyRIGHT not copyWRITE.

Sorry, just had to say that. It's hard to mount a good argument for a cause when you can't even spell the cause. :-)

---

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

[logistix]

A company owned by VA Linux has it's IP stolen, and suddenly slashdot believes that information doesn't want to be free :)

Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin!

[Tenareth]

Read the GPL, and most of these Open Source licenses. Sure, you can do what you want, but you still have to give credit!! Open Source puts a high level of emphasis on giving credit to the Authors.

It is still copyrighted material, just that the copyright pretty much allows you to do anything with the code, except remove the Credits information.


-- Keith Moore

Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin!

[VAXman]

Hypocritical isn't it? Commander Taco doesn't "get it". As everybody knows, most web site developers get almost all of their income from developing web sites live in front of an audience, and from selling t-shirts. The actual web site is free because it can be copied. The internet makes all IP laws irrelevant since anything can be copied without a trace.

Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin!

[Score Whore]

No you don't have to give credit under the GPL. When Dick Stallman got all horny over calling Linux, 'GNU/Linux' it was one of his more entertaining about faces. But the fact is that the GPL does not require any kind of credit be given.

If you mod this, well at least mod it right.

Just...

[Tower]

give credit where credit is due. If you run slashcode, then you (should) have a Slash logo with a link to slashcode.com, and it would seem appropriate to provide a link to Slashdot, too. In this case, I'd think that a link to linux.com and certainly a nice writeup on the credits page (like "the layout of this site was inspired by linux.com, blah, blah")... besides, this is a kid's site on his linux box in his dorm room (yes, he does host autctions). I think we could cut him some slack here - this really isn't a commercial website, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Likewise, he should give credit for the layout. Really not much of a problem, though.
--

Re:Just...

[Gurlia]

I agree. Reminds me of the blatant ripoff of Debian's homepage... sorry, I forgot the link and www.debian.org seems to be down at the moment so I can't search the list archives... :-(

I don't have a problem with people copying a design, as long as they give due credit, and state it up-front. Personally, though, I tend to lose respect for sites that are obvious imitations of other sites (in terms of appearance, that is).
---

Re:Just...

[Foogle]

I'd have to agree with you in terms of appearance. Sites like Zope's Squishdot and this Hobbes site are made to look *exactly* like their inspiration. I much prefer sites that borrow the ideas of interface, but give appearance its own flavor. A perfect example of this is the now-defunct kuro5hin.org. K5 clearly borrowed almost all of its interface ideas from Slashdot, but in terms of appearance it was much easier on the eyes, and didn't really look like Slashdot at all.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:Just...

[Refrag]

Macslash is the same way. It uses Slashcode, but it actually looks way better than Slashdot.


Refrag

Re:Just...

[icqqm]

I own an ICQ help website, which because of its content is very popular. Of course, since ICQ is not my product and other people can easily come up with ICQ FAQs of their own, it's hard to claim that it's "my" content. So sites such as this one copy the content rather blatantly and include their own copyright notice at the bottom. Another site I've dealt with copied all the content word-for-word but changed the design. They added in a corner of their front page a little link to my site under "sources".

Giving appropriate credit is one thing, but how much credit should you give? This site obviously didn't give enough, as it was mentioned on Slashdot, so it's really a grey area here.

It's time for...

[Anonymous Coward]

more CAPITALISM! yeah! umm, no...

i dunno, couldn't you print it out and stick it on a tshirt? wouldn't it then, by the generally accepted slashdot definition, then become 'free speech'?

"it's mine and you can't have it"

Re:It's time for...

[VAXman]

And don't you forget: you can also print an Emulex press release on a t-shirt. Therefore, stock price manipulation MUST be legal. The people who don't agree don't understand the internet. Information wants to be free!!!

Standards

[.sig]

Well, IMO there's nothing wrong with web pages being laid out the same way. The point of a web page is to convey information, not to come up with a flashy interface. Personally I get pretty fed up with having to study a page just to figure out where they put things, and would love it if more web sites had a consistant format.
Now that doesn't mean I totally agree with this guy. Until it becomes common for sites to follow certain layout standards, the very least he could (and probably should) do is give credit to where he got his source. Creating a similar layout and just copying the source and changing a few words are two completely different things. I didn't think to look, but I wouldn't be suprised if you checked out the page source and saw comments from the original linux.com site.

Re:Standards

[bckspc]

Right on. That Nielson guy has some "law" that states that Web surfers spend most of their time on other sites. No disbuting that. Most users have come to expect that clicking on a logo at the top left corner of the page will take you back to the front, home page of the site. Other Web design conventions have also started to emerge -- like a colored navigation rail down the left side of the page or the Yahoo! style layout of information categories. Using layout conventions that are familiar to the user just makes good sense.

Re:Standards

[jerkyvision]

Employing design standards at this stage of the development of the modern day internet could, or rather would stunt the development of the medium. Jakob Neilson is thought of by many members of the design and development community, to be way off track. The real conflict is that in a search for freedom...(the one you speak of is freedom of information), neglect is paid to extending the same freedom to everything else. Design, is only one thing. Telling people to conform to design standards, especially now, is like telling any community to conform to certain ways of thinking. Freedom to change must be maintained else cease to progress. The modern internet has just begun to develop. Should we rest and except that we have reached a level where no more can be achieved through this new medium. New media thinking by mass culture has just begun and... until people... all people have access to participate, standards are bollocks. Allow sites with poor navigation be the ones that aren't used and soon expire. It's Darwinism dudes. Good design can come in many forms. People and time are the judges. You want to know what designers are thinking you can visit k10k.net... or dreamless.org As far as copying the layout of a site is concerned. Life sucks like that sometimes. And as you keep making new things you get better at making stuff while some person never advances past using tracing paper over his favorite comics. Boo - hoo.

Ripoffs

[deuist]

I've seen many ripoffs of Slashdot, ticalc.org being one of them. Personally, I don't think there is a such thing as stealing a web design. Sites that rip off other formats are often looked down upon anyway.

Re:Ripoffs

[Tower]

Well, since there's several different slash-like Open Source alternatives Out There(TM) (slash, php-slash, Squishdot...) I'd hardly think that it would be a problem. As it has been mentioned, imitation is the sincerest form of flatterly...

That being said, most do give some credit, at least...
--

Re:Ripoffs

[NotQuiteSonic]

Nah I think that is a rip-off of freshmeat

Re:Ripoffs

[delmoi]

Well, websites that run slashdot's code tend t look like slashdot, only they usualy have a cleaner, more atheticaly pleasing layout (usualy) :P

This hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu guy ripped off everything, just just the placement of graphics, but the grapics themselves. When I first read the story, I figured 'what the hell, who cares'. but the two sites are mirror images.

I doubt linux.com really cares, anyway. But this does kind of bother me, not beacuse the guy stole ideas, but beacuse he couldn't think up any his own damn self.

In a nutshell

[webslacker]

As long as he's using original artwork, he's okay. If he downloaded artwork from Linux.com and used it on his site, then he'd possibly be in trouble. As far as layout goes, there's nothing you can really do about it

Theft is Theft is

[boing boing]

Theft is Theft. Whether it be websites, source code, music, theft is not a reasonable way to operate. In this case, without permission it does appear to be pretty blatant theft, but I don't think this guy's site is really big enough for linux.com to worry about. I imagine most of these people who steal like this have never had something, that they have created or work really hard to buy, stolen. If I wasn't against theft, I would think that someone should teach him a lesson by cracking his machine and stealing his domain for a while. He might learn what it is like to be a theft victim.

Re:Theft is Theft is

[Mr. Slippery]

Theft is Theft.

Yes, and copying is copying, and copying is not theft, since it does not deprive anyone the use of the object.

And layout and look-and-feel is neither copyrightable nor patentable, so this isn't even unauthorized copying.

Is is tacky and rude? Perhaps.

Re:Theft is Theft is

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry,
you are wrong. Layout is patentable! At least in the US. I saw some!

And further look and feel is per se a trademark,
you don't even need to register it.

It is protected by its sole existance.

angel'o'sphere

Re:Theft is Theft is

[CKCKCKCK1]

umm, Id like to see someone try and hack his site. Notice its under the tamu.edu domain? If you did that, youd be in trouble with Texas A&M and that would be a much bigger problem then youd be ready for.

Anyways, Im from TAMU and the guy who set the site up is doing a incredible service for the A&M online community. He has pretty much single handedly allowed for 3000+ computer to act as a single network, he has created a search engine to search all of those computers and put their contents in a database so that you can find what you are looking for. So, he's not making money off of it and hes helping ALOT of people, so I figured that would go with the Linux community's way of doing things anyways.
Personally, as a web developer, I dont care if someone makes a site that looks like mine, or even steals the layout. It would be nice to keep any underlying code documented and attributed to me. Personally, Id feel flattered if someone did that.
Just my 2 cents.
CK1

Re:Theft is Theft is

[boing boing]

I was not advocating this. I just suggested that he might rethink his theft if he had something taken from him. I'm glad that he is providing something to the community, but I still believe that he should be creative or get help from someone (some artist at TAMU would probably love to do that for free) that can be, and not take other's hard work.

I think......

[SquadBoy]

if you are going to use any OSS/Free software and you really care at all about the issues then you will tend to want to make your HTML open also. Maybe he should ask for a credit on the linux.com page. Now I was a bit confused about who stole the design from whom but whoever created it should get credit on the other page and if the guy with the hobbes page gets it on linux.com I could see that being worth more than any amount of complaining about them using the layout.

He has the themes.org logo even.

[Jerky McNaughty]

Look at this page. Isn't that the themes.org logo? Wow. Just give credit where credit is due. I don't see any credit given on his site.

Re:He has the themes.org logo even.

[Daemosthenes]

Except on the exact same page, where he credits Linux.com's cool layout. Yes, it's right there on the page.
- - - - - - - - -

Re:He has the themes.org logo even.

[Tower]

Funny, I don't remember seeing that the first time I looked... I went to that page specifically to find that - funny. Maybe I just missed it. It would be nice to see something on the front page, too...
--

Re:He has the themes.org logo even.

[Afterimage]

Except, that really doesn't excuse the practice. I drew my site's layout from a few spots, but I most assuridly did not do anything so bold as copy graphics and exact page layouts.

I'm all for drawing influence, open source code, but lifting another's work as your own is plagerism. Big no no.

That said, I do wonder if anyone will take this guy up on the offer to make their changes widespread by contributing? If so, meebe some new graphics would be in order.

OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[gardenhose]

The View Source button in every web browser is a tool for stealing! It should be banned IMMEDIATELY! Just think -- ANYONE can go to your PRIVATE homepage and download the source code! You worked DAYS on that font size -4 text with the bright yellow background! That javascript fade background code took MINUTES of removing the comments!

I have yet to see a single web page design WORTH stealing, geez.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[locutus074]

The View Source button in every web browser is a tool for stealing!

Does this mean that it's an illegal circumvention device?

Can the MPAA sue me for looking at the source to their web pages?

--

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[Azog]

Don't laugh!

I've seen web pages that use Javascript to catch the right mouse click button and pop up a little window saying "This is copyrighted". So you can't use the View Source context menu on the frame. And the browser menu won't help, because the site is using frames and all of the interesting content is in the frame, not the container document which just has a frameset.

Of course you can get around all that if you try... but just wait until somebody gets sued under the DMCA for this.

(offtopic: but does anyone know how to turn off Javascript in Internet Explorer 5.0? Did you know that if you search for Javascript in IE5.0 help you get no matches!?)

Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[Pinball Wizard]

offtopic: but does anyone know how to turn off Javascript in Internet Explorer 5.0? Did you know that if you search for Javascript in IE5.0 help you get no matches!?

Tools->Internet Options->Security

Click the 'Custom Level' button, scroll down, and click the 'Disable Java' radio button.

Also, if you want to view a framed page, you can right click within the frame to get the URL, then you have to type it in the address bar. Unfortunately there is no easy 'break out of frames' command or button.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[Mr. Piccolo]

"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox

It's called BLINK.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[TicTacTux]

Duh. My ISP charges me 5 cts. for each time I click that 'view source' button/menu.(*)

To get 'even' after an evening of 'source peeking' I have to click on advertising banners for the rest of the night. I really should use the frontpage wizards as an inspiration...

(*) At least in Switzerland you pay some surcharge on audio cassettes, audio cd-r's, video tapes, photocopiers/scanners. That money goes to some organization that pretends to maintain the interests of artists such as writers, composers, (decomposers too?) etc. Dunno whether they see some of that cash, though.

(re the view-source-surcharge: NO! THIS IDEA CANNOT BE PATENTED. I DECLARE THIS IDEA PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (HEREWITH REFERRED TO AS "OPEN IDEA"). SUERS AND PATENT LAWYERS GET OFF MY GRASS^H^H^H^H^HLAWN!)

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[mitheral]

As your using IE 5 I strongly suggest you download the Proximatron. You can set a rule to re-enable your right mouse click. Among other great things like resizing frames and tables and blocking popups and ads.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[Azog]

Bzzt. Sorry. Thanks for trying to help, though.

Java has nothing to do with Javascript. Disabling Java does not disable Javascript.

And I think you missed something I said about right clicking: The Javascript event handler for right click overrides the context menu, so you can't even get the URL that way. Now, of course you can view source for the frameset, copy the frame link out of that, paste it into your browser, and then view source on THAT, but if the web site maintainer really wanted to be a jerk they can work around that too. How - well, more javascript to ensure the document is in subframe it should be, or one-time URLS with unique id's in them, or whatever... And the more complicated it gets to actually view the source, the more likely that the web site owner would be able to convince a neanderthal judge that you have bypassed their "content protection system" and are guilty under the DMCA. It sounds crazy, but at the rate the US is sliding into corporate socialism I would bet this will happen within 2 years.


Torrey Hoffman (Azog)

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[Pinball Wizard]

Whoops. I stand corrected. But I was close!

OK, I tested this, so I know it works. Tools->Internet Options->Security

Choose 'Custom Level' and disable Active Scripting. To test this on a page that has right-clicking disabled, go to this page.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[vixiejvc]

Disabiling Javascript in IE5 is under the Security Zones section. You have to 'customize' the security zone and tell it to never run scripts.

Yeah, I thought it was stupid too :)

-Jo Hunter

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[SmokeSerpent]

Did you know that if you search for Javascript in IE5.0 help you get no matches!?

That would be because Netscape has Javascript and MSIE has JScript, and because most of the MSIE documentation talks about JScript and VBScript using words like Active Scripting.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[austad]

You can still go under "view" -> "source" and see the source to the page.

The only way to get around this is to use javascript to bring your site up in a window without the menu buttons. Even so, if someone's determined, they'll just use "lynx -dump" or wget to grab your source. The only way to really protect it is to use flash or shockwave, and that's just plain annoying.

Re:OUTLAW THE VIEW SOURCE BUTTON!

[ChadM]

right click it, when you get the message box, hit space and quickly right click again and the right click menu will open(works in netscape 4.x and IE 4 and 5, not sure about mozilla). i use it to get around pages that get a little javascript happy and all i want is a link from the page. have fun.

Now for something serious

[gravis777]

I deffinately agree that site layout is public domain. I mean, lets say that I was the one who created the first romance comedey. I created the layout, characters, screenplay, etc. Does this mean that I have the right to sue such and such movie for also creating a romance comedy with a different plot and different characters? Of course not, that is absurd. What if Elvis, the undisputed king of Rock'n'Roll, decided that he was going to sue everyone after him who made songs that were in the Rock'n'Roll genera. Once again, that is absurd. So what if I do a news page similar to slashdot, but not using the slash code. It is not the same page, not the same content, not the same code, just similar idea. Would slashdot sue me for that? You can see what I am getting at. Anyone who tries to patent a page design is nuts, and the patent office is even more nuts for granting them. I ought to just move to Noraway or Finland or something where they could care less about US patents and copyright laws and such.

Re:Now for something serious

[iternal]

I have to agree with you. Working for a local ISP as a web designer and lemming tech I meet with a lot of clients. When asked what they want their site to look like, 9 times out of 10 they hand me a URL and say "I like that... can we do that?" I take a look, get the general idea of what the site does/looks like, and work from there. Besides, has anyone seen how many Microsoft-esque sites there are on the net today? For as much as people hate the company, they sure do love that design....

Re:Now for something serious

[jcrowe]

I don't think you are seeing the point.
It is one thing to see something you like and build a site using the same design elements, it is a completely differant situation if you see something you like, copy source, insert differnt company name.

the funniest thing

[krappie]

I like the eerie similarities of www.bornagain.net.

Talk about playing into someone's hands

[Ergo2000]

Call me a skeptic but I can't help but think this is a ploy to get tens of thousands of hits streaming to the page of some guy who lamely ripped off another website's page. Seriously isn't this rewarding someone for thievery? It's one thing to say "Is it okay to rip off a sites look" but it's quite another to say "Hey everybody, go visit this guy".

Just meandering. Wheee.

Re:Talk about playing into someone's hands

[Zordak]

>>maybe the slashdot effect will crash him or something

Or better yet, prompt the university to yank his subdomain or something. I caught this story a couple of hours after it posted, and netscape is telling me that the server hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu does not even exist. Perhaps it was a little too much attention.

Do not teach Confucius to write Characters

free and open

[cansecofan22]

A web site should be able to be copied. Come on, this is a web site about an open source OS we are talking about (linux.com). I do think they should say something like "The design of this site was modeled after linux.com" or something of the sort but if the site admin dosent want to, what can you really do. To say a design is yours is a little overboard. Think about it. If that were the case you could say that the first web site ever (whatever that was) would have to be refrenced by all other web sites because it kinda holds to the same standard, reads left to right and top to bottom, is written in html, contains links, etc, etc. This is a wild world out there. The web is just another place for one person to take credit for someone elses work. Unless you copyright everything, there is really not much you can do about it.

Re:free and open

[LoonXTall]

I do think they should say something like "The design of this site was modeled after linux.com" or something of the sort but if the site admin dosent want to, what can you really do.

Release your site under the GPL.

--
LoonXTall

I don't think the guy should be worried

[Floyd Tante]

Is VA Linux seriously going to sue some college kid in Texas because he stole their site design? Somehow I doubt it. Imagine the great publicity that would generate...

At any rate, think of it as "Open Souce": both web sites might look the same, but don't share the same content. A person looking for Linux informationis not going to be confused by "MyHobbes.com". And even if it was a Linux site, the readers would flock to the best site, regardless of design. Much like Open Source Software, projects can compete, but still share. Just think of the Invisible Hand of web site visitors.

-- Floyd

Re:I don't think the guy should be worried

[n0ano]

Is VA Linux seriously going to sue some college kid in Texas because he stole their site design? Somehow I doubt it. Imagine the great publicity that would generate...

Great, I predict it will take less than 24 hours for the rumor to start that VA is suing a college kid. And it's all your fault :-)

--
Don Dugger
VA Linux Systems

Re:I don't think the guy should be worried

[buffy]

You're kind of missing the point. It's not so much that they _can't_ rip a layout from another site, just that it's considered common courtesy to provide some form of attribution to the source. This recognizes the hardwork of the person or persons who created the original.

In the case of most Open Source softwares, there is a legal obligation to provide the attribution (ie. GPL, Artistic License, etc...)

The question is if this legal oblication exists when copying the visual layout of a site. IMHO, this falls under the question of copyright. If linux.com posts an explicit copyright to the layout as well as the content of their site, then the obligation certainly does exist (if it doesn't precluse the rip alltogether.)

There's plenty of legal precedent in UI design regarding this kind of issue, so the point is moot somewhat.

No, will Linux.com/VA-Linux sue this guy? Probably not. Is the guy in the wrong on this one? Probably so.

Re:I don't think the guy should be worried

[-Nails-]

It may be the case in this situation that there is no correlation between the two sites. But what about cases where the content of two similar looking pages was also similar? Back when I was still ripping off AllAdvantage and it's various clones I found a new site that was listing reviews on the various pay to surf sites. When I looked at it I noticed that it was an exact copy of another reveiw site that I frequented. The one difference was that he had switched his referal ID for the ID of the original owner, he even forgot to change the webmaster e-mail. This is an obvious case of plagerism but what if he had changed the wording or made a more valid attempt to disguise his theft? How much copying is OK? Nails

Re:I don't think the guy should be worried

[dloolb]

I dont think this website will be up much longer, after the slashdot effect has worn a hole through the schools routers.

Re:I don't think the guy should be worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, VA Linux won't sue, but there is an easy document called cease and desist order. Come on, people, THE IMAGES ARE COPIED! We are not only talking about layout here, but don't even begin to tell me that images should be open source!!

Where to draw the line

[Demon-Xanth]

I think what's going to come out is how generic the site is. A box is a box. However various logos and trademarks may raise an eyebrow. Just because the F550 Maranello has a hood scoop like a camero SS and 4 round tailights like the early '80s corvettes that doesn't mean that Ferrari stole from General Motors

Not so much the design

[Nightbane]

I don't see much of a problem with copying a design/layout if proper credit is given. I do think there is a problem with exact copies of images though.

The two websites were very similar in design. It was very obvious one copied somewhat from the other (don't know which was first). However, the images on each of theme were exactly the same. Now if the images were part of a canned clip art package then no problem. If the original creator however spent lots of time making them by hand then I think s/he should at least get some credit for them.

freda coda

[evil-beaver]

Take what you want , but give credit for all you take!

Compare this to printed magazines

[Foxman98]

Ok,

Let's compare this to magazines for a second.

Let's open up any magazine. I will almost guarentee they start with maybe a a few pages of advertisements. Then probably an into letter by the editor, or not, depending on the type of magazine. Closely followed by that is the index of the magazine. Then usuually a letters section, the articles (which is, of course, the sole reason one gets that magazine with the bunny on the front ;-) ), and then maybe some sort of magazine specific content. Then at the end one might find some more ads and usually some form of ending letter or feature.

Websites are today's magazines in a way. And thus I don't think it is really possible to say that a layout is yours and yours only. That is, after all, all it is. A layout.

Stealing graphics, cgi or java programs et al would be a different issue.

Stealing???

[tupawk]

I look at web design this way. It is sort of like a book or magazine. All books, magazines, newspapers, etc... have the same basic look and feel. Lets examine a newspaper. There are columns of text and graphics placed on a page. All newspapers follow this format. Websites are the same way, text and graphics are layed out on a page. This could be viewed as the design.

I personally have no problems with anyone copying my design, layout, whatever you want to call it. Just like a newspaper they can have the same general layout.

The place where the line is drawn is when they start copying content without permission, including graphics.

After taking a look at the two sites in question it is obvious that hobbes copied the news graphic from linux.com. Did he gain permission for this? If not then he is violating copyright. If he has permission to use this grpaic and all his content is original, I dont see a problem.

It's basic manners!

[Alioth]

When someone takes the time to come up with a neat layout - regardless of copyright issues of look and feel - it's simply good manners to ask the original creator for permission (the exception being if the original creator says something to the effect "Feel free to use my layout" as this is I guess explicit permission).

If people forget good manners, all we're going to end up with is more rabid lawyers sueing over issues like this. As a community, we should at least try and get this one right, and establish a system of good manners that does not require lawyers.

Finally, layout is really only a small issue. The real issue I think (diverging slightly) of many websites is lack of content. Some webmasters go to particular trouble to have a nice flashy (literally - with Flash and Shockwave stuff) layout but absolutely nothing in the way of content. A website with a simple but easily navigable layout, but lots of good content is far better. Never sacrifice content for layout!

Re:It's basic manners!

[Alioth]

It's equals it is.
It's does not show possession. Risking a loss of a Karma point, what _is_ your point? "It's basic manners" expands as "It is basic manners" which is precisely what I meant. I do know the difference between its and it's (and it's one of my pet grammar peeves too!)

Look and Feel

[travisd]

Didn't Apple vs. Micro$oft tell us how this movie ends? Look and Feel isn't protected.

pretty blatant ripoff

[Imabug]

only had a casual look at the two websites, but it's a pretty blatant ripoff of linux.com. layout, colours, formatting. heck the site even stole a bunch of the graphics used at linux.com.
I think it's one thing to borrow the layout of a website and modify formatting and colouring to suite your needs, but IMHO, this is pretty much the same as plagarizing.

imabug

Come on, why complain..

[Rombuu]

...this is the road that RMS and the FSF want to lead us down. No IP rights, and no recourse against people who "share" the output of your hard work. If you complain, you are automatically being selfish, since information wants to be shared, and you are obviously a petty capitalist just interested in the fast buck.

Something to think about, isn't it?

Re:Come on, why complain..

[Fideaux!]

...this is the road that RMS and the FSF want to lead us down. No IP rights, and no recourse against people who "share" the output of your hard work. If you complain, you are automatically being selfish, since information wants to be shared, and you are obviously a petty capitalist just interested in the fast buck.

Hear! hear!

If it is okay to rip off some monolithic entertainment coropration (Like VA, heh!) then it is okay to rip of anyone's IP. This is the future that many of you hear have been advocating.

I think we should put up a "Pay Linux.com" or "Pay VA Linux" site.

Re:Come on, why complain..

[0xdeadbeef]

Something to think about, isn't it?

No, not really.

If you publish something in an environment where you've got no right to stop people from appropriating it for their own uses, you've got no one to blame but yourself. In other words, no one put a gun to your head and made you publish it, so quit whining.

If you publish something under a license that permits derivative works, don't complain when derivative works actually happen, even when they make more money or earn more attention than your works.

A corollary to the the first two: When the legal framework permits dervative works for the purpose of criticism and parody, don't whine when someone uses those rights to successfully counter your opinions or propoganda.

When you try to claim ownership of something so vague as "look and feel", don't be suprised when people shrug you off as a possesive control freak. There are clearly optimum design patterns for user interfaces, and none of them require such an investment to implement to merit copyright or trademark status. One can own words, one can own images, one can even one an expression of an algorithm, but to claim ownership of a particular nesting of <table> elements is absurd.

Re:Come on, why complain..

[cpt kangarooski]

Yep. But what's your point (other than spreading the myth that there even is such a thing as 'intellectual property')

Let's consider the dangers inherent in going down the road that big corporations and other groups with a vested interest in copyrighted material are trying to lead us down.

What was the first web site with a sidebar? With javascript mouseover images? With tabs? God help you if you use any of those elements - you'd be "ripping them off."

There is perhaps a happy medium. Unfortunately we're currently on the road to ruin by having all of these unconstitutional copyright laws floating around. While neither extreme is all that great, I'd take a world with no copyrights over one with tolitarian copyrights any day. Wouldn't you?

Re:Come on, why complain..

[festers]

It's not about using or sharing it, it's about giving credit to the original author, something this schmuck didn't have the courtesy to do.


--------

Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[Cy Guy]

I'd bring it up with Texas A&M as they probably have restrictions against using copyrighted material on the free webspace they provide to their students.

Specifical, read this FAQ:

What activity on ResNet will get me in trouble?
Students are subject to rules of responsible computing, as described in http://student-rules.tamu.edu/append5.htm . Activities including but not limited to the following will be considered violations: ... unauthorized possession of copyright material;... use of any A&M resource for commercial use.

The site seems to potentially violate both of those.

Re:Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[Hoyt]

It seems to be down now; swift, certain justice at the hands of Slashdot. Now, how many Aggies does it take to . . .

Re:Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[rotor]

Does he make any money off of the auctions? It didn't look that way (can't tell now - it's slashdotted (of course)). If he doesn't, then there really isn't an issue there.

Not really... Someone (whoever is selling the auctioned goods) is making money... Therefor it is considered commercial. At least it would have been where I went to school.
As for his rip-off of the design, I think it's very hippocritical of Slashdot to rail him for it, but I do think that at the very least the graphics are property. The layout might be too, but it's kind of become standard for people to rip off pieces of code from other web pages, and you end up with a lot of similar looking stuff.

Re:Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[scumdamn]

Isn't that kind of an inside joke for people in/from Texans? (Note that I don't say "Texans")
Aggies are treated here like "Polacks" are elsewhere. Or "morons", or "retards".
People would better be served making fun of Aggies' drinking while building a big-ass bonfire that was badly thought out, even though the school is known for its engineering and architechture. Now that's fodder. Or how about the way they blindly follow traditions like ostracizing minorities? Or how about the predominately macho military centric views they espise?
By the way, the answer is 1000. One to hold the light bulb while 999 red pots turn the house around.

Re:Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[fReNeTiK]

Isn't that kind of an inside joke for people in/from Texans? (Note that I don't say "Texans")

ROFLMAO

Damn typos...

Re:Doesn't Texas A&M own hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu?

[scumdamn]

And I was just getting a good rant going too!
You know, spellcheck wouldn't have even caught it. Isn't that sad?

Similar but not the same.

[wlp]

Ok... I see CmdrTaco's point, but it isn't stealing. There are similarities, color, positioning, etc... but they are not the same...

I could list more differences than similarities.

Peace and hair grease. :)

Copyrights, trademarks and plagarism

[mfterman]

If the other site stole HTML and reworked it, then there's copyright issues involved, unless the Linux.com web code has been released into the public domain. If he reverse engineered his web page to look like Linux.com, then there isn't copyright issues involved. At best there might be trademark issues involved. As I vaguely recall, there are 'look and feel' issues that some people feel can be trademarked or owned (I could quite easily be wrong though). But in Linux.com case I sort of doubt they went that far.

In short, it depends on whether HTML was stolen or not. Otherwise, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Re:Copyrights, trademarks and plagarism

[photozz]

I think you would have to prove that the code was completely original and unique. I mean, it's entirely posible for Frontpage to put out identical code for two seperate people.. and how many paged are done in FrontPage?

Re:Copyrights, trademarks and plagarism

[fatphil]

Yup. However there's more to the site than the HTML. The images are ripped off. That's copyright infringement. How would linux.com like it if instead his HTML pointed to _their own_ images, not his own local ripped off copies?

"We'll ban people from linking to us!" I doubt.

What do you know?

[yet another coward]

I thought Aggies were too dumb to steal.

Code theft

[photozz]

the only time I would get jazed about it would be if someone stole a Perl script or Java applet that I had wrote for inclusion in their page. That's theft. the duplication of a layout is stupid, but stupid is not illegal. If it was, i'd be a career criminal by now.

I know why

[AintTooProudToBeg]

I post this not to point fingers or cause a fight

No to worry, Taco, I'm sure nobody here will believe that we are pointing fingers at the guy who "blatantly ripped off" linux.com. I propose -- and I want to make this perfectly clear that this proposal is not fact, merely a theory -- that there is some hope here that the so-called "slashdot affect" will bring his x.resnet.x.edu site down?

Sounds like:

[gantzm]

VisiCalc and Lotus 1-2-3

M.G.

Re:Sounds like:

[photozz]

Windows and Mac? Linux KDE and Windows? Novell server 5.0 and Windows? could it be that, like cars, four tires seems to be the best design? how many ways can you make something to perform a specific function and still deviate wildly on the design? a knife is a knife, a bullet a bullet, a shovel a shovel... ect....

Yeah but.......

[GigsVT]

This isn't as much of a copyright (write? :) issue anymore.

I think this falls more closly under trademark law, which is designed to prevent competitors from providing a competing product that is confusingly similar to an existing product.

As always, IANAL.

In fact, I'm real ANAL. :)
-----------------------------

Re:Yeah but.......

[Tower]

He's not competing, there is no product, and it isn't that similar or confusing. It isn't commercial. The services he provides to his resnet are NOT AVAILABLE on linux.com, nor will they be. I don't think anybody that is smart enough to get into a college (omit glib remark about texas) would really think they were on linux.com or even go there for any of the same reasons.

--

Citations vs Open source

[sequence_man]

As a professor, citations are my livelyhood. Not to cite someone is the worst crime one can do in academia. The usual concept is expressed as "you can critize me as much as you like, just spell my name correctly."

On the other hand, open source truely is trying to make information have a life of its own. For example I was part of a group who designed a course bidding system for Wharton. Rest assured--that if Harvard wanted to buy (or use) our system, they would definitely NOT want to have a Wharton logo on it. Since this basic level of freedom is already in comerical code--we should allow it in open source code also.

Intellectual property, or not?

[killbill]

I posted something similiar to this a month or so back, but it bears repeating.

It is important to Microsoft to make money, and they have written restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.

It is important for academics to gain prestige and recognition for themselves and their organizations, and they write restrictive licenses (use only with attributions) to accomplish that end.

It is important for free software advocates to make all software completely free and always open, and they write restrictive licenses (the GPL) to accomplish those ends.

It is important to me to show people God's love in practical ways, and I wrote my restrictive license (LGPL with a further explanation of intent) for my open source published software to accomplish that end.

It is important for musicians to control their message and generate income, and they write restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.

So, do we honor the original authors wishes, or is intellectual property immoral... you can't have it both ways! It is either totally free (not only as in beer and speech, but even further as in total lawless anarchy), or it is "owned" by the original author and you must respect their "license" that meets their goals and desires if you wish to use their work.

Bill Kilgallon

Re:Intellectual property, or not?

[cpt kangarooski]

I think that you're missing something here.

The basis of copyright and patent law in the US - as explicitly written in the Constitution and reaffirmed again and again by the Supreme Court - is that there is no legal protection of information whatsoever unless legislated into existance. And furthermore, the laws governing and creating the concept of copyright here are subject to restriction in order to preserve, as best as possible, public domain information.

So avoiding licensing here (would a EULA be legal in a copyrightless world? Don't think so....) copyright holders should be damn happy with whatever they get. There is no, and never ever has been ANY basis for beliving that they have any natural rights to their works. This doesn't mean that copyrights don't serve a useful function; they _can_. But copyrights are unnatural, weird and should not be relied upon or expanded much. Certainly, IMHO the current copyright law is de facto unconstitutional.

Re:Intellectual property, or not?

[killbill]

I'm not missing it... that was scenario number two (free as not only in beer and speach, but further as in total anarchy).

The point I was trying to make is that the GPL is simply another restrictive license introduced to achieve a particular set of ends. Just like the Microsoft EULA.

I have no beef with people that want to release software under the GPL... I also agree the GPL is very "open", but I don't buy the argument that it is "free".

In most cases, I prefer the GPL because its license is the least onerous. But there has been at least one case where I ditched GPL software and picked up my purchased copy of the Borland compiler because the GPL prevented me from doing something I needed to do.

My beef is with someone who advocates GPL software while at the same time telling me intellectual property and copyright are "evil" and "immoral" (their words, not mine). How can they create and enforce a restrictive license (like the GPL) if they have no property right over software and no right to license software? That is illogical.

I am only clarifying my position, not accusing you of being one of those people. Actually, as I read through your post, I agree with most of what you say...

Bill

Re:Intellectual property, or not?

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't think that it's necessarily a good idea to be upset just because someone's hypocritical. I would advocate instead, that you also take into consideration _what they do_.

The FSF is attempting to create an environment which is like what they believe would happen if software were uncopyrightable. Their idea is AFAIK that if there were no copyrights for software there would be no incentive to close source. Partially because customers would like the source code very much, partially because it's easier to improve and repair software if the source is open, and mostly because the binaries could be copied anyway.

This wouldn't really work if they simply placed their software in the public domain, or had a BSD-style license. Then there would be no constant renewal of OSS. The GPL provides for the constant addition to the pool of OSS, which is both a blessing and for some (like you) a curse.

So while they may be hypocritical in that they're doing something that if their dreams came to pass would be utterly irrelevant, it does have a noble goal. If their beliefs and actions were consistant with each other, it might make them look better, but it wouldn't actually help sustain the OSS community.

Of course, I don't think that they're saying that they have no right to license software. Rather, they'd prefer that the rules were such that there was no need or possibility for anyone to do so. But if it is permissable, the GPL is a lot better than most.

Theft?

[Dr_Bones]

Has anything actually been *lost* of a result of this? I certainly agree that when you copy someone's site design, you need to give credit to them.

To be honest, I've done this, more times than once. I've given credit to the appropriate people, either via email, or by posting it directly on the site. What it comes down to is that some people just aren't gifted creatively, and will just steal your idea (and I'm one of them). Do I feel bad about it? No. I'd bet the person running the offending site has no problems with it either.

The point is this: give credit, it's ok. don't give credit, you're an ass.

Re:Theft?

[CR0]

i agree. however, the question is:

should being an ass be illegal?

Punished

[jeffstar]

This kid got his punishment in the form of a slashdotting!

His disk is grinding away, his connection is saturated and there are too many connections to his mysql database! Perhaps he is not using persistent connections?

We can't see the messageboard post anymore, but the fact that his credits page doesn't mention that he lifted the images off other sites does rub me the wrong way. Site layout is one thing, but the exact same images is another.

An aside:
It would be nice if some[one|thing] would cache all pages linked to from slashdot so that when they go down we can at least see what was there to discuss it. Google cache works sometimes...

Aroo!

Re:Punished

[_xeno_]

Plus, as of now, it appears that his network connection has been revoked! I know that if one of my personal sites that runs on my computer through my college's resnet was slashdotted, Netops would pull my resnet connection and charge me to get it reinstated!

I think having to visit his local BOFH will be punishment enough. He's going to have to answer to all the bandwidth he's using!

He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[drivers]

Normally I'd say horking some else's style is not illegal, but in this case, he ripped the actual icons off of linux.com. As I write this, the "News" icons on linux.com and that tamu site are the same thing.

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[420Geek]

This is true.. Any time you actually take someone's graphics that they have designed off of a web page and use them on yer own is a copyright infringment. That would be equal to taking someones graphics out of a company brochure and using them in yours.. whether or not the two companies or individuals are doing the same thing is irrelevent.

My 2 cents

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[jsmaby]

And the graphics from linux.com are much better looking that the other graphics on his site. They work nicely with the color scheme of the layout, but the graphics the kid got elsewhere clash (and is it just me, or is that dancing penguin really annoying and overused?).

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[64.28.67.48]

but what if he took the hex RBG values for a bitmap that would be identical to one of those icons and put it on a T-Shirt? Would that still be copyright infringement?

-------------

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[Foogle]

If you mean printed the actual Hex values out, then I don't think so... Since no one could ever interperet a shirt covered in hex-codes as the actual image, you'd be hard-pressed to prosecute such a case.

However, if the picture was recognizable on this t-shirt, it would most definitely be a copyright infringement. The fact that it's on a t-shirt makes no difference.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[Wastrel]

"hork" is slang for "to steal"

I learned it in high school in Vermont. Dunno where it comes from.

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[JackDeth]

It's a Canadian word for stealing. (Rent "Strange Brew" some time).

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[TetsuoShima]

hork \Hork\, v 1. To toss ones cookies; to blow chunks; to hurl. see also: spew

Re:He took the actual bitmaps, not just the style

[M. Silver]

That leaves out the most important definition: to bring up a hairball.

Right and Wrong.

[FPhlyer]

Okay, when I go to www.linux.com, a copy of that website goes to my internet cache. If I make a couple of changes to the site and personalize it, change the substance a little bit, who is to say that I am wrong?

This is one of those areas where I think people have to go with their own gut instincts. I would not have a problem doing a total rip of say, slashdot or linux.com and putting up a personal website with information about me, my family, or my favorite hobby. For me though, I would have to draw the line at ripping off someone elses site design to make money. That would be BAD.

The site in question in this article does kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth... it's kind of somewhere in between the two extremes that I listed in the above paragraph. Maybe I would feel better if he had kept the page formatting and simply changed out some of the graphical style involved.

Oh well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions (except for persons with schizophrenia, who may be entitled to multiple opinions. No! They are entitled to no opinions what-so-ever. Yes they, are you crazy or something?)

On A Different Note...

[Electric Angst]

...Thanks to this story, Texas A&M is no doubt being slashdotted. While this means very little to a major universty with bandwidth to spare, but it might have an effect on the dorm residents. Finally, it's time to challenge those Aggie Bastards to a Quake match!
--

No, we don't approve of any bully methods.

[Greg@RageNet]

If your looking for a warm fuzzy from the slashdot community to 'take action' (i.e. involve lawyers) against this site I doubt you are going to get it.

Lets face it, there is only so many ways you can lay out a website. you can put nav crap on the left side, right side, or top, or have combinations of two or all three. Theres only so many ways a site can be laid out and if one looks like another then either accept that fact or break out the lawyers and join the ranks of the MPAA and RIAA in bullying to get your way.

The only place you would have might have any leeway is on the images, ask them to have made their own if you feel this bit of 'intelectual property' is so important that it needs to be restricted.

Under the 'Legal Information' the only asserted copyright is over articles and reviews, the rest of the site is described as a 'community site', with no stated restrictions on using/copying the website layout and images itself.

If he broke into your servers and stole your (restricted) source code then perhaps action would be justified, but just taking the 'look and feel' while coding/building his own backend does not.

-- Greg

copyRIGHTs!

[jzitt]

Not to indulge in spelling flames, but the word is "copyright" not "copywrite". Remember that it involves the RIGHT to copy, and has nothing intrinsically to do with writing.

Sheesh, and in a headline yet. Please correct it, and write it on the board until you understand it. (No extra credit for implementing "while" loops in chalk.)

Eventually people will see the wlite...

Re:copyRIGHTs!

[Hooha Man]

Not to imply that your post is redundant, but this has been pointed out many times already.



<O O&gt
( \/ )
X X

Image & Linking

[josepha48]

If deep linking is considered bad, by the courts, what do the courts thing about complete coping of a web site. I had a guy ask me once how did some things on my web page. It was mostly done in JavaScript, so I said that he needed to learn JavaScript if he wanted to copy it. It is bad enough that someone is going to rip my design, but then to ask me to help them rip my design is really bad.

I think he could possibly get into trouble if he has images on his web site that area copied and he does not have permission. I think I have heard of that happening before. Are the images free?

Also there was a case of a company sewing another company cause the first company did work on a web site and the second company fied the first and then brought in someone else and the new someone continued the work on the web site, and the first company threatened to sew. I amm not sure where that went.

The question is how does Linux.com feel about this. They are owned by va linux, I believe and are supposed to be advocaters of open source as I understand. If so then they may not care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:Image & Linking

[DanMcS]

>>I had a guy ask me once how did some things on my web page. It was mostly done in JavaScript, so I said that he needed to learn JavaScript if he wanted to copy it.
Or, maybe he wanted to learn javascript, /so/ he was going to copy it? I will completely admit that's how I have learned javascript, CSS, and html, in fact. You see a neat trick, see how it works, take the plaintext and play with it a bit to see how it works, add another widget to your skills. It probably just meant that the guy was impressed with your site.
--

Re:Image & Linking

[josepha48]

He did not want to learn, he wanted me to say put these tags in your page and do this and it will work for you. Most people who learn to code, usually learn by example or accident. Taking code and learning fro it is one thing. But taking code and just using it can be theft. I was not asked hey can I borrow this code or that code. It was I like your design so and I want ot copy it, so how did you do this or that so I can make it look like I did it first. Using HTML pages to learn what to do and how to do it is how I learned. But my pages are now MY own, done by me and not copied from somewhere else. They may not be as fancy as some others, but I like to be able to do what I do I HTML, and am looking forward to when I can do it with xml, xul, xhtml, and Javascript.

I am all for open source, but just because someone puts up a web page does that count as open source?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
Flame away, I have a hose!

Re:Image & Linking

[dublin]

Actually, it's funny you would even bother to be posting here if you really believe that - it flies in the face of the motives behind the open source movement.

There's an old saying: "Good programmers write good code, great programmers steal good code." Now before you go ballistic, realize that "steal" in the context of this saying has never meant actual theft, but simply leveraging the work of others.

Why *should* the guy admiring your site bother to learn how to create the effect from scratch? The problem has already been solved, and he simply wanted to leverage an already existing solution to a problem he had. When Miguel says we should do this, it's a good thing...

He probably went away thinking you were quite a jerk, and I'm not entirely sure he wasn't right. I'd have just told him how to take and use the code himself - where's the harm in that? (Especially since you seem to be referring to plain old HTML code and not even Javascript or anything even remotely programmatic?)

Re:Image & Linking

[josepha48]

It would be different if it was just put these tags in your page and viola. It is more of a case of you need to learn JavaScript to use this code. There was not easy solution. The page was entirely in JavaScript. He needed to learn javaScript to use the page it was that simple. No he wanted me to do his page so he coudl call it his work.

I write open source programs. If someone wants a feature I'll try to add it, if they send me code, that is even better, and I'll integrate it so that it works well with my other code. I have borrowed code from other pages, but I LEARNED JavaScript. The point is that when dealing with Web Pages if it is just HTML go ahead and take the HTML, but if it is JavSCript or Java or whatever it may not be as easy as plug in and use. Why should I modify my source code for him to use? I told him he could use it but he needed to figure out how to do so.

So what is a programmer that both steals code and writes his onw?

"Why *should* the guy admiring your site bother to learn how to create the effect from scratch?"

I never said he had to create the effect from scratch. I said he needed to learn JavaScript so that he could figure out how to integrate it into his page. If I was using a perl script to generate my page, should I be the one to modify that perl script so that you can use it on your page? I think not. That is what was happening here. In the case of the page in question. The guy took the code an made it his 'own'. He did not say hey linux.com how did you do this I want ot copy it. He took it and put in his stuff. Stealing just the layout. Think about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
Flame away, I have a hose!

Knee-jerk reactions? Leo Lahav isn't a lamer...

[Mahy]

I don't know if it is operating right now, but hobbes is in fact a huge Samba search engine which indexes all the student shares at TAMU as well as several other large universities. You can like him or not, but...maybe it would be good to get his point of view in here? He isn't some kiddie with copy and paste, he is a really REALLY bright guy, and I'd like to see his point of view.

I wonder how long it will take for this to get moderated down... :)

Re:Knee-jerk reactions? Leo Lahav isn't a lamer...

[ryouki]

Well as a matter of fact hobbes changed hands last semester. The layout changed when the owner changed. But the point is that hobbes, or at least the search engine was started by someone else.

Alternative to legal action

[askheaves]

If someone has done you wrong, don't take them to court... take them to slashdot court.

Poor kid... he's just getting back from his Lit-201 class and his little linux box is on fire.
Slashdot effect takes down another soul.

site layout is protectable

[rschroeder]

If I opened a bookstore online and used Amazon's layout is that infringing on Amazon?

What if I sell something that Amazon doesn't (assuming I could find such a product)?

What if I wasn't selling anything at all, but I just liked their look?

Clearly (to me at least) the layout of a website is protectable. It is the main (sometime only) contact a company has with clients/customers on the internet.

Just because the source code is viewable doesn't mean the author is willing to have other people rip them off.

If an opensource site (linux.com) doesn't care if someone is using their code fine that's their choice, but that doesn't make it okay.

rschroed

slashdotted again

[tongue]

well, those who are vehemently opposed to this chap can take comfort in the fact that he appears to have been /.'ed

"Life is a disease with a 100% fatality rate."

this is a really silly question and hypocritical

[Naum]

... for many readers here ...

... think about it a second ... if you like the navigation/appearence setup of a "web site", wouldn't you like to see that "style" that you are comfortable with "mimic"-ed at other web sites - so that your web surfing and/or information hunting is much more enjoyable and/or more efficient? i know it's not directly pertinent, but i remember reading in designing web usability (i forget exact sp. of author name) about the anecdote of the "shopping sled" story, where customers were totally confused and that "shopping cart" had become the recognized term of the net ...

now, if someone "rips" off your web site setup (now i am talking navigational layout, not actual content ...), isn't that really a form of praise ... just like microsoft can take credit (and receive blame) for all the great advances of computing, you can silently chuckle about the propagation of your brainstormed web page layout design ...

i grant you that making an "exact" copy and not giving credit is both unimaginitive and rude, but come one ... and i find it hypocritical that someone could rail against Napster and DeCSS and then make statements like these ...

the /. format is an excellent, wonderful web layout design template or whatever/however you want to refer to it ... and the (1) popularity of the site itself by visitors/posters and (2) amount of "ripoff" copies that are springing up all over are a testament to it ... even i am working right now on a php type version, but not copied "exactly", but with added/modified features that i feel are lacking in /., and not coding some of the features that, to me, are not essential ... and of course, if someone clicks on the about link (wait a second ... didn't someone copy that design "notion" from somebody else? who should i give credit for there? ...) ... they will read that /. is one of the sites that inspired me to create an awe-arising wonder ...

late

Rights of users

[spevack]

Taco writes:
"Just because you can take something, should you?"

Well, the prevailing mentality on /. is that since things like Gnutella and DeCSS give you the ability to do illegal actions like get MP3 files or decrypt DVD, you should use the ability and do so. In that case, if I have the ability to view the source of a web page that I like and take it, I should also do so. If I don't thank the artist of the MP3 that I take or the director of the DVD that I decrypt, I don't have to thank the author of the web site.

You can't have it both ways -- it can't be okay to take other people's music without paying and then get angry if someone takes your website.

What I fail to understand is why many /. readers cannot simply adopt this attitude:

"There are laws which prohibit me from doing certain things that I would like to do and that can be done by existing software. I dislike this, but I have enough respect for the law to obey it anyway."

You're not sacrificing your commitment to Open Source by purchasing a CD or a DVD player. It's okay. Really.

Re:Rights of users

[commodoresloat]

In that case, if I have the ability to view the source of a web page that I like and take it, I should also do so. If I don't thank the artist of the MP3 that I take or the director of the DVD that I decrypt, I don't have to thank the author of the web site.

This is ludicrous. There is a huge difference between the two. A better analogy would be if you decrypt the DVD, put your name on it, call yourself the director, and then go sell it. Or if you take Metallica_Sue.them.all.mp3 and change it to spevack_sue.them.all.mp3 and upload it to mp3.com without asking Metallica's permission. I doubt very many /. readers would support this, even if they(we) do support the right of people to use deCSS to watch DVDs.

"content" and cgi protected -- tags not

[wheel]

If they lifted the text of the entire site, then linux.com might have a reason to be po'd.

Otherwise, get yerself another table cause that one doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Come on -- can one newspaper sue another just because they both use big type for headlines, and put their text in columns?

-- EAT AT JOES! cripes.

As for 'give credit for using slashcode' etc, duhh, the source code to the back end which generates the html sent to the browser may be protected or released however you like -- I can still emulate the style by coding it by hand or writing my own damn back-end software.

/. Ripoff (one of many, I'm sure)

[Trencher]

Check out news.motorcycle.com (warning: page is extremely slow) for a blatant ripoff of our beloved /., even down to this statement at the bottom of the page, "All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ©2000 Motorcycle.Com, Inc.."

I don't know if Taco was aware of this one, but they make no reference to /. or Slashcode anywhere on the page that I've been able to find.

Re:/. Ripoff (one of many, I'm sure)

[Corporate Gadfly]

I am no expert on slashcode but I thought slashdot was based on mod_perl, apache and mysql whereas the news.motorcycle.com seems to be using zope/python. This link will pop up HTTP authentication. It is is presumably for management of the site. After hitting cancel it will give you a zope error screen.

Sweetest revenge

[Paulo]

As of this writing, the website in question is not responding at all.
So that's why you posted this, eh? Make readers slashdot his site, that's how he will learn.

Dressed To Kill

[aztektum]

I stole his dancing penguin.
The Scarlet Pumpernickel Strikes again!!

Re:the funniest thing - But it gets better!

[Hoyt]

This is a quote from their FAQ:"What is running under the hood? We are running a linux server with apache, mysql, and a combination of perl and php. Almost all of our web based stuff has been written from scratch in php by me. Our entire system resides in a database and is generated dynamically by interfacing php with mysql. Our ircd server is dal.net ircd and our bot ixthys is an eggdrop bot. Can I have the source code that runs bornagain.net? We will be releasing all the code that runs bornagain.net for a modest fee shortly. If you are interested, email us for details." Does Rob get a cut of the "modest fee" or is his reward in Heaven?

You can't have it both ways

[Tony]

Yes, he should have credited linux.com. But really, isn't the idea of code re-use central to the concept of developing an information milieu freindly to everyone?

We should *encourage* good web design-- there are enough ugly pages in the world. We should also gently remind people the old addage, "Give credit where credit is due," but we shouldn't rain down a firestorm on those who ignore proper webiquette.

Free software has set us free. Although there is a slight artistic difference between web pages and code, I think we should encourage the same free flow of information on web sites that we encourage with our code. Once we've built up a culture of page-sharing, the whole issue of "who stole from whom" will be moot.

Just my rambling thoughts. YOMV.

Re:You can't have it both ways

[Tony]

Your mother goes both ways.

Tell me about it. There's nothing worse than my mom after a few glasses of wine-- she starts telling my girlfriend all about her recent orgies.

Embarrasing.

BTW, you're kinda cute.

I'm going to steal it too!

[64.28.67.48]

Wow, Linux.com has just the design I'm looking for! I'm going to make my site look just like it. Thanks for the tip!

-------------

This is mean.

[DataGrok]

Some college kid decides to rip off Linux.com, so taco decides to slashdot the kid?

I bet this is affecting the available bandwidth of the school's internet connection.

If you ask me, slashdotting this guy was just mean. The issue should be discusssed between Linux.com and the poor college kid running a webserver on the box he needs to use to write his term papers. If there is indeed an issue at all.

If he were trying to make money, or if he had put his site on his resume, or if he were some company, then I could see the worth in this story. But some college kid? SO WHAT??

Re:This is mean.

[HomerJ]

I Agree.

Probably sitting around the office going "hey, this kid ripped off linux.com Let's show him buy /.'ing his box. That'll learn him"

There are plenty of websites that have blatently stolen the /. "look and feel" How many companies ripped off Yahoo!? Did Yahoo! put a link on their front page and say "click here to overload thier systems! They are puny compared to our massive bandwidth!!! [evil laugh here]" No.

Of course, it is sometimes fogotten that /. isn't really a news site. None of the staff are educated in jounalism. It just happens to be a site that reported stuff from other sites that just happen to get kinda popular and big. Jounalism is more then just how many people read what you write. I don't really consider Slashdot jounalism any more then I'd consider National Enquirer or Weekly World News. All three are read by millions. None of it is journalism.

That's nothing really against any of them either. All three are very entertaining to read. But to call it journalism your head is either in two places, in the clouds, or in your arse.

Re:This is mean.

[twitter]

That site seems to have held up well. It came up in a flicker a minute just a minute ago. Go Aggies!

Wrong and worthwhile to fight are not the same

[arete]

Taking a layout without crediting is wrong. Obscuring who did it first is wrong, and ought to be illegal. If you clearly state who did it first, I'd say you should be allowed to do it unless it also gives you problems under trademark law (basically does it confuse your customers)

I don't think proper recording of authorship and therefore credit is at odds with open source - I think it is the heart of it. On the other hand, pursuing small fish is probably worthless.

Hypocrisy 101

[ChaoticCoyote]

Here's how to be a hypocrite, Slashdot style:

1. Knowledge wants to be free -- but you can't clone my interface.
2. Microsoft is bad for giving away IE in competition with Netscape - but it's okay to give away Linux in competition with Windows.
3. Microsoft is evil for publishing FUD about Linux and Open Source - but it's okay for Slashdot to post FUD about Microsoft's products.

Wake up and smell what you're preaching, Slashdot.

More examples

[Icebox]

The example given in the article does have some similarities. For some more blatant ripoffs check out GunBroker and E Bang. They look pretty much the same as a more famous auction site.

I've been buying hunting equipment from GunBroker for quite a while, I also use Ebay from time to time. About a month after a new feature of design element hits Ebay, GunBroker imitates it.

this is amusing but carries some overtones.

[FoulBeard]

Is it free speech to be able to copy a work, or is it copyright infringement? These are questions that have come into the limelight recently.
this particular subject holds special meaning for me since I am a web-developer (of sorts). Anyway I spent *many* hours working on refined, and generally developing my site. The question I have is: "Is ripping off graphics, and website, then same as ripping off code, and/or is it the same as ripping off writton work?". I would like to compare it with a great work of art, take for instance the Mona Lisa, there nothing is stopping someone from digatally copying it, and saying that he/she did it. Now of course that person will get laughed at, at flagged as an obvious plagarist. But happen when the work isnt so well known? Inspiration is a good thing, without inspiration, the intellectual evolution of man would slow to a crawl. Hence its of the emulate something and try to match a particualar work, in fact if someone likes my site enough to want to emulate it, then I feel honored, becuase it means that at least one person liked it so much that they wanted it for there own. But when your working with digital imagery the problem arising where the person can obtain perfect digital copies of you work, and reuse them. Then it turns into a insult to the original author, becuase you are stealing the work he/she poured all that effort into. Plagarism is wrong inspiration isnt, people need to know where to draw the line. There are no "gray areas" in computers, they are yes or no, there is no maybe, humans on the other hand live in the analog world, where most of our time is spent in the gray area. That is why computers, and copyright issues have become so prevalent recently.

Just my $0.02

Re:this is amusing but carries some overtones.

[Stonehand]

It is, if memory serves, still infringement to copy images and other creative work if it's not "fair use", regardless of whether money is made or much effort exerted or what not. "Free speech" should not not come into it because it's not a censorship issue per se, but ownership -- specifically, control.

How much control should an author have over his work? Need there be an implicit contract between end user and creator, such as offered via copyright law?

Currently, "fair use" covers such things like parody, and excerpts for review and research purposes... it does not include wholesale duplication for general use. Walking into a B&N with a laptop and scanner, and digitizing books, is NOT going to make them happy, and arguably is neither fair use in the legal sense, nor right in terms of morality.

Note that if you DO want people to be able to imitate your site, you're free to place a less-restrictive copyright like GPL or BSD on it, or otherwise release it into the public domain. Otherwise, normal copyright applies (i.e. most copying except fair use, like (presumably) caching/rendering, is infringement).

After I leave the uni system (being a student complicates IP issues) I'm probably free to distribute programs that I write independently with the proviso that if you use it for more than 30 days, you're obligated to send me a photograph of a squirrel in the wild, if I so choose. I might be able to require instead the consumption of a PB-and-J sandwich every 6 months, but I suspect that such a clause could be disallowed as pointless and unenforceable. Or, I could take an Open Source approach and opt for an Artistic license, or BSD, or GPL, or a variant of the MIT/X Consortium license, or even fire-and-forget ala public domain.

Since a) nobody would be obligated to use my code, b) they weren't dependent on it before (since it didn't exist, so obviously they got along without it), and c) it's a creative work, not, say, a communal, pre-existing resource (like air),I'd prefer this to "all information must be free", as the latter unilaterally imposes a harsh, universal contract upon all creators...

Annoying but Not Out of Bounds

[Zeus72]

He most certainly should give credit on this page. However, clearly copyrighting site design is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all costs. (Think "one click shopping" folks.) I think the outrage factor works wonders here. No business would risk the backlash associated with pulling this stunt. The public censure associated with the uncredited copying of work is enough in my opinion. It relegates these unashamed creative thieves to posting to geocities' homepages or their college's student pages.

free game

[SethJohnson]

The 'look and feel' theft is going to be difficult to litigate should a battle like this go to court. An obvious defense to this might be to say that a website's interface is the same as a song. The actual recording of an artist performing a song belongs to that artist (or the behemoth record company). But for Weird Al Yankovic to do a cover, that's a parody and is protected by the first ammendment. Even if it's not Weird Al, but instead is Poison Idea doing a cover of 'We Got the Beat' by the Go-Go's, that's perfectly legal, too. Even though the words and song structure are exactly the same (read: the html formatting is the same), it's a different rendition because it's different musicians (read: the text / graphics of the website are different).

So if you're the Eddie Van Halen of the html design world, how do you turn your back to the audience during live performances of 'Eruption' so that those young upstarts don't steal your guitar riffs? I guess you could obfuscate things with javascript that does a server origination validation routine before outputting some page-critical component.

Seth

Re:free game

[brokeninside]

The actual recording of an artist performing a song belongs to that artist (or the behemoth record company). But for Weird Al Yankovic to do a cover, that's a parody and is protected by the first ammendment. Even if it's not Weird Al, but instead is Poison Idea doing a cover of 'We Got the Beat' by the Go-Go's, that's perfectly legal, too. Even though the words and song structure are exactly the same (read: the html formatting is the same), it's a different rendition because it's different musicians (read: the text / graphics of the website are different).

There are actually two related, but distinct, situations here:

1. Parody (but not satire) in the US is a court recognized form of free speech.
2. Any artist that belongs to ASCAP (or any other similiar group) implicitly gives permission to other artists to perform their work. Both venues that host live music and any record labels that put out product with 'covers' are subject to copyright infringement suits if they don't pay royalties via membership in ASCAP or some similiar organization

On the other hand, how many bands are there that sound like Black Sabbath, Motley Crue, Amy Grant, or 10,000 Maniacs? You can copyright the lyrics, the chord progressions, the notes, etc. But you can't copyright the 'feel' of the music.

So if you're the Eddie Van Halen of the html design world, how do you turn your back to the audience during live performances of 'Eruption' so that those young upstarts don't steal your guitar riffs?

.

Eddie doesn't (or shouldn't) mind when those young upstarts steal his guitar riffs, because everytime someone hears it and thinks it cool and says something to a friend about that awsome lick, the friend, who is in the know, points out, 'hey dude, that is Eddie Van Halen's riff from Eruption.' Next thing you know Mr. Van Halen has one new additional customer of his albums.

CGI and content (c), not layout

[wheel]

If they lifted the text of the entire site, then linux.com might have a reason to be po'd.

Otherwise, get yerself another table cause that one doesnt have a leg to stand on.

Come on -- can one newspaper sue another just because they both use big type for headlines, and put their text in columns?

cripes.

As for 'give credit for using slashcode' etc, duhh, the source code to the back end which generates the html sent to the browser may be protected or released however you like -- I can still emulate the style by coding it by hand or writing my own damn back-end software.

Editorial responsibility

[Captain_Carnage]

C'mon guys, you missed the glaring error of "Copywites?"

I enjoy reading Slashdot to get my daily dose of geek news, but have long desired to see some time spent on cleaning up the articles that get posted. I can see why you might not want to meddle with the comments of the people who submit the story, as editing what's posted could make you liable for what they say, but at least run your own comments through a spell-checker! And actually, haven't you already assumed liablity for posted stories by deciding what gets posted and what doesn't?

Despite the fact that it is a great place to get the majority of news that I'm most interested in, in my opinion, Slashdot is about one rung on the ladder below being a respectable journalistic endeavor. The two main factors keeping it from such are that:

• Very little original content appears here. Most of the stories that appear here are stolen from other news sites.
• The spelling and grammar that appears in a lot of the stories is simply attrocious.

The first isn't necessarily a bad thing, since Slashdot still (obviously) serves a useful purpose: pooling together all of the notable news of interest to a particular group. O.k., they often reject stories that might be interesting or noteworthy -- I still haven't figured out what sort of criteria these guys use to decide what gets posted and what doesn't. But that's beside the point.

The second one though, while not ultimately damning, does take away from the reader's experience of reading news at Slashdot. I'd really like to see the stories get cleaned up.

Bottom line: Slashdot needs an editor that can read and write English. Please get one!

Check out the OSS linux clustering technology called

He does (sorta)

[Daemosthenes]

But the fact of the matter is, he even gives credit to the linux.com layout, as shown here. All of you are talking about how he gave no credit, yet there is blatant proof that he does. Now, the real question is whether that is enough credit to give in return for "yoinking" an entire website design.
- - - - - - - - -

Re:He does (sorta)

[nobody69]

You're right, he does give credit, but is a one-sentence 'Thanks' an accurate desciption of how similar the sites are? It makes me think of stuff I would grade back in grad school where the students would have whole paragraphs lifted almost-but-not-quite verbatim from some journal, with a single reference at the bottom to the original source. Maybe if the colors were different or something the thanks would be sufficient, but...

Linux.com may or may not have a case...

[Yekrats]

I am not a lawyer, but a writer, so I know a thing or two about copyright law. Lawyer types can correct me if I'm wrong.

Every web page on the 'net is copyrighted as soon as it is 'published' on the web. You achieve copyright when a work is placed into a "fixed medium", which includes writing it down, scrawling it on the bathroom wall, or putting a web-page up on the web. You don't necessarily even need a "Copyright 2000" notice, but it may scare away potential code-looters.

I looked over the two web sites. How much of the site was really used? I could tell that the site had the same "look and feel" of Linux.com, but how similar is it? "Look and feel" is not copyrightable, and ideas are not copyrightable. Just text and original artwork. One can come incredibly close to another piece of artwork (writing, webpage, whatever...) and still be completely legal. I think it was Picasso that said, "Good artists borrow; great artists steal." Of course, he was a loony.

Now, Linux.com would possibly have a case if the offenders borrowed original Linux.com images or substantial amounts of text/code. Also, Linux.com would have to prove to a judge that they did indeed lift this stuff verbatim. If you're really gung-ho about stopping that site, one option might be to get a lawyer to draft a "cease and desist" letter. Of course, this will make you look like a bunch of draconian pricks, and they might call your bluff and ignore you. Either way, it's a PR problem, and you'll make some enemies for life.

Of course, my recommendation is "Don't worry about it." Is this a battle Linux.com really wants to fight? Linux is all about sharing code and building off of each other. Don't tell me Linux.com built everything from the ground up. Did you steal even a little-eety-beety bit of code from someone else?

My 2.5 cents worth. --Yekrats

Aren't we being just a bit hypocritical?

[Dimwit]

C'mon, admit it - if it were Linux.com taking the design of another site, site design would *of course* be in the Public Domain and fall under the provisions of Fair Use. If he simply copied the code whole cloth, it would be a copyright violation - but writing code that *looks similar* - well, if that's illegal, then so is HackersQuest, every Rogue-like game ever made, every RedHat based Linux Distro. Please, guys, keep perspective.

He's giving credit....now.

[drift factor]

It looks like he's modified this page to now include:

Many thanks to Linux.com for the layout!

Still no link though. Hrmph.

There's another way, people.

[swerdloff]

The open source movement has turned previously canonical rules of intellectual property on their head. However - they have done so by working within the rules. The open source community depends on the GPL and its brethren, which are _still_ all licensing schemes, they're just open. Working within that framework gives the holders of these rights the ability A: To revoke (unless the GPL totally revokes all rights, you retain them (I haven't read the GPL, I don't know)) and B: to choose what you want to keep and what you want to give away.

Put metaphorically - just because I let you use my pool doesn't mean I want you also sleeping with my wife in my bed.

It is _not_ hypocritical to have an open source/public good for one piece of software but maintain proprietary rights in something else. Just b/c someone has given away _some_ of their intellectual property doesn't mean that they've decided to give it _all_ away. If a hobbyist works on a widget for the next Red Hat distro and it gets burned in, do you also expect said hobbyist to give away all of his copyright material in some other field? Illogical.

Giving away something does not equate to giving away everything.

Unless the new Linux argument is "do away with money" and if so, email me, and I'll tell you where you can send the pre-IPO shares of your company.

---
There are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)

Re:There's another way, people.

[Tony]

here are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)

Didn't Godel prove that no logical system can be both complete and internally consistent?

In any case, anyone who wants to "do away with money" doesn't give a damn about IPOs. I certainly don't. Not that I want to give away money-- I just want to change the way in which it is made. Money should *not* be made by metering out information, and restricting distribution of something that has no physical distribution.

If I create something, my creation means nothing unless it is used and distributed. Corporations seem to take the view that information is not important unless it is difficult (READ: expensive) to get. If it doesn't make money, it ain't worth anything.

I take the view that information is only important if it helps humanity. I realize I'm in the minority, but that doesn't stop me from proselytizing.

Re:There's another way, people.

[Cyno]

Actually, Linux and the GPL have given me a new ideology. Do away with money and make EVERYTHING free. Including the resources someone rips from the earth and charges you for. This way if we all work together to build something great we won't have to pay through the nose for it. Also if we want to run 100 Mbit switched networks between our apartment complexes and neighbors house, etc. We can. Instead of waiting 10 years 'til that technology is far more than merely obsolete, while our telecos charge 4 times the cost of laying fiber and refuse to run it from the corner to my doorstep. Things suck, man, take a look outside and tell me you think its all good and dandy.

Oh, but you're concerned that people won't work if they already have everything they want, right? True to some extent, but if we automate all those shit jobs people don't want to do and if there are enough of us working (currently less than 50% in the US) then we'll still get everything we want done. For example I am in the computer field. But if I didn't have to worry about paying my bills, if I could live in my apartment for free and pick up food at the store for free I'd still drive to work everyday. I'd probably be happier about it and do a better job, and I'd make sure I was working for a cause and a company I agreed with instead of the one that pays me the most. I'm also willing to get out there and help lay the foundation of houses and roads and do those shit jobs, including taking out the trash, if that's required. But the things is I'd work for free. Would you?

Re:There's another way, people.

[Tony-A]

>Didn't Godel prove that no logical system can be both complete and internally consistent?
It's any logical system that includes arithmetic. Some simple logical systems like first order predicate calculus can be both complete and consistent. (I's been a while, so flame me if I've got it wrong ;)

Re:There's another way, people.

[Tony]

Nope. You're right. I was being simple, in the worst possible way.

Re:There's another way, people.

[media.org!webchick]

Absolutely...and this applies to web sites as well as programs. One of the things that really bugs me is when people take a site (or code) and just help themselves. It's amazing how many people assume permission.

Sometimes when people have permission (as in the case of work for hire) they still should ask. Simple respect for the original work is the fundamental issue in this day and age, not legal nitpicking over license terms.

webchick

Re:There's another way, people.

[CR0]

yup.

--
Q: why can open source produce software faster and better than closed source? why can't companies paying tonnes of money create far superior software?

A: because in open source, coders are coding because they enjoy it. they contribute what they are good at and interested in. in closed source, coders code what they are paid to. whether they are interested in it or not.

you find me one person out there that can do an _outstanding_ job at any task he isn't totaly interested in. doesn't happen. can't happen.

free that person from their straps and let them create what they want/need. let them itch their itch. THEN you will have great products. (not just software)

now that all said, if we "did away with money" it would create a long "dark" period of wild parties/unproductivity and scarce resources, but once through that (assuming we survive) it would be better.

maybe we'll start that on civilization 2.0 on another planet. heh who knows.

Re:WTF? Those sites look nothing alike!

[Tony]

You're right! Those sites look nothing alike. Once has purty graphics, etc, and the other only has this ugly text:

ERROR

The requested URL could not be retrieved

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/

The following error was encountered:

Connection Failed

The system returned:

(146) Connection refused

The remote host or network may be down. Please try the request again.

Obviously two completely different sites.

It's copyRIGHT not copyWRITE, dammit!!

[studerby]

Normally I don't do spelling flames, but in a headline... Sheesh!

CmdrTaco I am against you on this one...

[Carnage4Life]

Besides the fact that this is glaring hypocrisy. Slashdot bitches about the fact that Metallica don't want people ripping off their music then wants people to acknowledge the fact that they copied some HTML??? What the fuck?

It's freaking HTML. It's not a big deal, it didn't cost you any money to produce nor is it any skin of your nose if someone else uses it, so what's your problem? It's not like it cost Slashdot thousands of dollars to market, produce and distribute the HTML so what's the big deal?
Before corporations got here, the Web was a place where people shared stuff and information was free, now we see people trying to claim ownership on stuff as intangible as the HTML that a website is written with or for it's look and feel? B.S.

I almost expected to see CmdrTaco claim that people are stealing his intellectual property.

By the way, for all the Open Source guys out there, forcing people to advertise slashdot simply for using it's HTML or look and feel is counter to the spirit of the GPL. After all, Slashdot isn't forced to display powered by Apache or running GNU/Debian Linux or served by MySQL. So why should people be required to display a logo based on the most intangible and flimsiest part of the site, it's HTML?


(-1 Troll)

Re:CmdrTaco I am against you on this one...

[snippy]

It's freaking HTML. It's not a big deal, it didn't cost you any money to produce nor is it any skin of your nose if someone else uses it

B.S. Companies will pay tens of thousands of dollars to have some development firm create a good design, and I've seen many a developer spend hours working on HTML/JavaScript because it doesn't work in both MSIE/Netscape.

Your comments are so blatantly ignorant I'm surprised you even managed to get some italic tags into your post. As to the Metallica comment, your missing the point. When I download a Metallica MP3, i'm not trying to pass it off as my own music.

Smarten up foo.

Taboooooooo!

[KjetilK]

OK, ESR had a good point in a lecture I heard him giving: With the GPL you are pretty much entitled to fork, give no credit to anybody, but nobody is doing it. Why? Because it is a taboo. You just don't do it. If you do, you lack social intelligence. And if you lack social intelligence, nobody will join you in developing software.

So, this kid lacks a bit social intelligence, he copied linux.com, so what, he is not going to make big bucks on it, and he will most certainly be educated the hard way about it. I think he can be educated.... He may deserve some flames, but he does not deserved to be sued.

I also don't think he should be told that he violates copyrights (while it is true), he should be told that he steps on peoples toes, and that if he wants to be real hacker, you don't copy, you create.

Don't Overlook Importance of "View Source" button!

[John_Booty]

Heh, let's not forget the importance of the "View Source" button in the evolution of the web.

Today's web coders learned much (if not all) of what they know by stealing HTML code from other sites. Around 1995, when I started throwing together my first ugly webpages, one of the ways we learned how to do it was to steal code off of other sites. In fact, people still steal code all the time for some of the fancier Javascript effects (not that I'm a real fan of Javascript, but...)

Still, who cares if someone stole your site design as opposed to content? People aren't coming to your site to check out your design, they're coming to check out your funky fresh content. I mean, just look at Slashdot... one of the uglier sites out there, IMHO, but also one of the best and most functional sites in the world- if not THE best.

Aside from design geeks, who the hell's gonna visit a site just because it looks cool? That's something a lot of suits don't get.

Re:I cite as precedent "Look and Feel" Apple vs. M

[studerby]

In that case, Apple had also given MS a license to use some things and that sort of makes this an apples to oranges comparison.

look and feel copyrights

[PiMan]

I've made a quite a few websites, and all the ones I made for personal use are released under the Open Content license (for HTML and CSS, at least). And I'd be very pissed if someone took the HTML and CSS without mentioning me, or changed the license. That said, since I can't get to the site, let me elaborate on why this "stealing" might be utter bullshit. You cannot copyright a layout. To do that is the same as copyrighting an idea, which you can't do. You can patent them, but that would be a software patent, and we know how much we like those. If the site didn't actually copy Linux.com's code, VA has no standing legally. Look-and-feel lawsuits are just plain bad. I can't believe anyone would support them.

Punishment == Slashdot Effect

[Col. Panic]

Wonder how the university will feel about the traffic this story is generating?

Error- 404

Requested Information

hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu//

is unavailable. Failed to connect to server

hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu (80)

reason: connect: Connection refused

Source is open to the public

[panic911]

I believe that the content is probably more 'copyrighted' than the sourcecode itself. Afterall, how can anybody really prove that you stole their html, for all they know you could have written a page that looked like theirs.. but you wrote it with your own two hands and the code could coincidentally look somewhat alike. Although I do agree that stealing it is f*ed up and immoral because the person DID spend countless hours working on it, it doesn't really seem like something that can get somebody in trouble. True, the person should give some credit to linux.com, just to be a nice guy... but not everybody in this world is nice, unfortunately.

How About an NDA?

[logistix]

<HTML&gt

<HEAD&gt

&lt!-- By Viewing this source code, you agree to the following conditions: ...

Re:How About an NDA?

[Foogle]

I hope you're kidding. 1) That would not be an NDA and 2) It would be clearly unenforcable, since to actually agree/disagree with the license, you'd already have to view the source code (since you put the license there). On top of this, HTML is an unencoded language, and is tranmitted in a cleartext stream. It's manner of display is determined by the client, not the server, so if I decide that I'd rather look at websites in their raw HTML form (as opposed to using a layout system like IE or Mozilla), that's simply my choice.


-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

heh. what a coincidence.

[porkchop_d_clown]

I'm not kidding - someone anonymously called my company yesterday to warn them that another company had lifted our web site, clients, testimonials and all.

Sadly, while my friend in OPs and I were still working out the best way to crack their server, one of our execs called the guilty company and explained copyright law to them.

I'd provide URLs, but the clone site is already down.

--

Greetings New User! Be sure to replace this text with a

Business Method Patent

[smarner]

If the interface is truly original, web designs can be protected by business method patents. (Like Amazon's "one-click" shopping.) The USPTO seems willing to grant anyone a business method patent for just about anything, so it wouldn't be as hard to acquire as one might think....

He claims permission was granted.

[Mahy]

See the message in the forum, he says that it was "borrowed with permission of the site." So, unless he is lying, case closed.

How much of a purist are you???

[not2quik]

"Is it hypocritical to demand open source, but not be willing to share your design?"

Well, I would say that depends on the degree to which you believe information and data should be free. I believe that, as with anything, support of a belief or cause can manifest itself in certain levels. The important thing is to practice what you preach.

For instance, I am a very staunch advocate to the 1st amendment allowing freedom of speech. I believe that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, popular or otherwise, provided that it doesn't "hurt" anyone else. This is not say that everyone will like the opinion or agree with it, only that it does not "hurt" them directly. A quick example would be my lack of support for an individual screaming "FIRE!!" in a crowded movie theater. The line is crossed when your pursuit of expression (whether in speech or in code) infringes on the safety, well-being, or livelihood of another individual.

I believe the case is the same here. By copying the web sight design he is exhibiting his right to free speech - through the use of code. Now, if this individual's action infringes on the livelihood or well being of the LINUX.COM site, then yes action should be taken. However, I don't believe that to be the scenario. Sure, this man is committing a major act or disrespect and irresponsibility by passing off the design of this site as his own; however, I do NOT think this will have any ill affect on any other sites on the web including LINUX.COM.

In the end, I think this must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Making a blanket ruling would do nothing but complicate matters further. Not everything can always be solved by a judicial precedent or a congressional policy; sometimes it just takes a little common sense. The only problem is that common sense just isn't as common as it should be!!!

-J

What was lost?

[xant]

In any discussion of plagiarism, people should wonder who is being hurt by the "theft" of the idea, in this case the layout (and, apparently, the icons - I couldn't verify that because the hobbes site was /.'ed). My answer is that no one was hurt. Does anyone really believe Linux.com will lose hits because of this new site that has their layout? It's the information the site provides that matters, and if you don't think so, you shouldn't be running a website.

Now, many people will be saying "credit should be given where credit is due." To them I say yes, you're absolutely right, but the ability to use ideas from someone else (notice I didn't say take), no matter how many of them you use, is fundamental to the ability to produce any new ideas. Linux.com didn't arise in a vacuum, it came about because of many similar layouts that came before it. Which came about because of the invention of HTML, and HTTP. Which came about because of the invention of networking . . . etc.

And sure, outright carbon copying is lazy and largely useless to the rest of the community since it provides nothing new, but that's the extent of his crime.

Re:What was lost?

[Mike1024]

Hey,

In any discussion of plagiarism, people should wonder who is being hurt by the "theft" of the idea, in this case the layout (and, apparently, the icons - I couldn't verify that because the hobbes site was /.'ed). My answer is that no one was hurt.

I think it's more of an ethical issue. I've put some of the work I've done online, both for my easy access from other locations and in the hope that it can be of some help to other people having to do similar work. I wouldn't have a problem with someone reading my work and learning, then writing something on the same topic. I wouldn't even mind if someone read through my work, typing it in thier own words as they go (but I'd like a bit of credit). But if someone copy-and-pasted my work into 'Microsoft Word' and just changed a few words, I would be annoyed. Sure, I havn't lost anything, but that isn't the point: This person will appear to have skills in the involved discipline (in this case graphics) when in fact he doesn't.

It wouldn't be hard to design some new graphics, with his own style. If that was too hard, it certainly wouldn't be difficult to put just a little line of text on the front page saying 'This layout was inspired by Linux.com'.

I don't see why he couldn't do this. It wouldn't be hard to do. But he didn't.

Michael

...another comment from Michael Tandy.

Re:What was lost?

[scoove]

Per interpretations of plagiarism, it'd seem like this web developer might have wanted to take a look at his university's definition of it:

http://student-rules.tamu.edu/rules20.htm

Of course, even though colleges and universities are supposed to be keen on the matter of plagiarism, there've been more than a handful of problems with material coming from the Internet. In Nebraska last spring, we had a chancellor resign from a college due to his unattributed use of an Internet email in a speech.

Perhaps this is something that ought to be covered in freshman "research ethics 101"... how to handle Internet sources.

*scoove*

my old teacher said...

[supermonkey]

~BEG, BORROW, COPY, STEAL~ i lift code all the time, figure out how it works, rework it, and improve on it (smaller, easier to lift, etc.) you know the gig, man...this IS the really, real world. no sense doing work thats already been done. rip code. give credit where credit is due. layouts are a different story..personally, i'd ask permission to exactly copy another site's look, but if you're just snaggin' some elements of it, where's the harm? anything@theunderworld.net peace is for the dead

Layout and design NOT the same

[DreamingReal]

I think layout and design need to be distinguished in this discussion. Layout is where things go on the page - nav menu on left, title banner on top, content in the middle, additional links on the left, etc. Design is the graphics, motif, color scheme, font faces all rolled together that give a site a distinct look and feel. That hack ripped-off the latter, not the former.

Layout is something that cannot really be ripped off. There are only so many ways to display a collection of items on a page, to say nothing of displaying them effectively. But design is something that takes blood, sweat, and tears. Effective design is something that is hard to attain and is typically intertwined with a logo and look, as far as businesses go.

Although I hate analogies with print media (web design and print design are two completely different balls of wax) I don't think anyone would argue that stealing layout (TOC in front, advertisement in back) is the same as stealing design (logo, look, and feel).

And sorry to break it to you but just because a web page is available to the public does not mean the design is public domain. You swipe someone's design w/o permission, you're ripping them off. If it's a corporate site, you can be prosecuted - if it's a personal site, you're just an asshole (fortunate for you).

Sorry if I seem a little pissy but I'm a web designer/developer and this hits close to home. Most of you have seen the shitty web pages out there - effective, clean design is not easy. I personally, would not serve up design I spend days and weeks on to some uncreative, lazy ass. At the very least, ask permission.

-------

If Look & Feel could be copyrightable...

[Vuarnet]

Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera would now be involved in a lawsuit about which of them came up with the "Lame Blonde Female Singer" look first...
..only to be sued by Madonna, claiming "prior art".

As long as they are not stealing content

[GMontag]

As long as they are not stealing content, you really do not have a complaint in my eyes.

I always thought these "look and feel" cases heald about as much water as a sieve patent. Yhey might, but they shouldn't.

Hell, even complaining that another site has the same "look" as yours (yes, even if it is a clone with different content) is about as genuine as an Apple vs. whomever lawsuit. Yes, I *think* Apple won something along those lines, but did you support that decision then?

This is the same thing.

Visit DC2600

linux.com copyright doesn't cover graphic's

[Grand Facade]

From http://www.linux.com/legal.phtml

Unless otherwise stated, editorial articles, news articles, and reviews on Linux.com are licensed under the following terms:

Their graphics are not copyrighted the way I read it.

Re:linux.com copyright doesn't cover graphic's

[Stonehand]

Since graphics aren't mentioned there, the default status of 'copyrighted' applies, just as it's the default with all other not-specifically-licensed creative work. Free license has to be explicitly granted.

Integrity and Respect

[UmpaLoompa]

Stealing web-layouts and javascript and images and even web-apps is very much easier and quicker than making them your-self. I am a web developer and I find myself looking at the source of other sites to find out how they did this and that. But a person who blatantly copies the whole design, basically "cutting and pasting" someone else's idea does not love what he's doing and has no respect for those who do. That's the bottom line--I know I just opened a idealistic and ancient can of worms when I try to relate integrity and respect to the computer industry. 95% of us buy operating systems and applications from a company that has diluted the meaning of these words so far that most IT people don't understand how they apply to source code and ideas. People ask if this is legal or not, and the general consensus is to do whatever you can and bend the law as far as you can to get what you want as quickly as possible. The issue here is not legality--stealing code and copying sites SHOULD be legal, and the marketplace itself should be arranged so that the programmers who do cut and paste SHOULDN'T be able to find or keep work very long. A web developer who cuts and pastes shouldn't be a web developer, obviously doesn't like to actually DEVELOP, and stealing from someone else's bread and butter should be the fundamental wrong of the industry. It seems less wrong if what you're stealing has already been stolen 100 times, but think about it: that's 100 times the programmer who origonated the idea didn't get credit for it, and you'd be making it 101.

Look and feel is not copyright protected.

[cfish]

Otherwise, Microsoft can sue fvwm95, gnome, kde for "look and feel" imitation. NeXT could have sued Windowmaker and Afterstep. That's one step back in technology.

So the guy stole the interface, so what? the important thing is the EXECUTION.

Layout not protected, but bitmaps are

[Sloppy]

Layout, look'n'feel, theme, interfaces, protocols -- these things aren't copyrightable. I thought Microsoft-vs-Apple settled that. (Furthermore, it would be particularly hypocritical for a Linux advocates site or RMS fans to argue the position that interfaces are copyrightable.)

On the other hand, specific expressions (such as the bitmaps) are copyrightable. Theoretically, long strings of HTML that do formatting crap (seperate from the content) might be copyrightable too (but I'm uncertain about the length, and it seems silly to me somehow). If this guy took copyrighted stuff from linux.com, then he should either cease'n'desist, or agree whatever terms linux.com wants (e.g. give credit where it is due). If he doesn't like the terms, he can make his own bitmaps.

---

The way I see it

[HunterZ]

If someone is kind enough to share the source to their software or web site, anyone who uses it for something else should return the favor by at least giving credit. Most of the stuff I've created is intended to be used by others, so I'd be happy to see it used in other stuff (and even happier to be notified by the person using it so I can see what they've done with it).

Credits page

[sean@thingsihate.org]

His credits page says "Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout." Maybe that's new. Dunno.

Stealing is stealing ...

[hyacinthus]

If this was a company taking IP from another company they would be sued. If this was a student taking from a student or professor (in higher edu) they would be kicked out of school. If source is offered, then it becomes shared material. If it is not then it is NOT part of public domain ... period. If I have a jar of candies in my living room, does that mean everything in the house can now be taken ?? Web sites are sticky because their content is freely available. And I have used other peoples sites to gather info on "how did they do that?" issues. However, direct copying of a web site (even with minor changes) should be treated the same way as with books. I can at any time visit a library and see how other authors presented their ideas, but copying is illegal - and it should be. Period. Cameron S. Bahan

this is depressing

[Stalcair]

maybe it is the low sugar in my blood, but this has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have seen in quite some time.

Don't get me wrong, I believe people that work hard to design and develop something have every right to demand at the very least, recognition. I personally think that is kinda weak in most instances, but I do back the other persons right to demand it. Yet, I see stuff here that is really just a cut-and-paste from RIAA or MPAA or other crappy organization.

It is extremely funny and ironic, though that the site name is Hobbes. Besides the philosopher, I am refering to the old Calvin n' Hobbes.... Remember that game they would play, "Calvin Ball".

What a great game, because not only did you make up the rules as you went along to best suit you, but you could change them at any time, as well. In essence you could engineer rules around you, to fit you, and only you for whatever circumstance you saw fit. This level of hypocracy and complete lack of pattern recognition, logic or reason is truly depressing. I really can't stand all the pathetic emotional over-reactions and double-standards like this, but then again, maybe it is just me.

Just a bit of commentary

[flipflop]

I haven't been by hobbes in a while to check it out (especially now, since it's down), but I have to agree that verbatim copying of a site isn't very cool.

What saddens me more though is the lack of credit.

You see, I was the original owner/creator of hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu. It was a place people went to to search for things on the network. It got reasonable traffic - 20-30k page views a day. The recognition was cool, and it was fun to code up.

The idea of the service the server provide(s/d) wasn't mine however, and I credited the people who originally came up with it. Hell, I even credited a guy for using his idea on a bar graph using tables (asked permission first too - Thanks Doug - you know who ya are. :) ).

In the last couple months before I graduated, I passed it on to Leo so that the service would continue after I left. I felt like he'd do a good job running it. Perhaps I should have spent more time evaluating folks to take it over. Interestingly enough, a couple months after handing it over the mention of myself or the previous originators of the idea disappeared.

In a way I was a little pissed, but dismissed that as just me being selfish. After all, he did some work to improve the service performance, added other features, and so forth. But now, I'm kinda glad my name isn't on there. Not sure how much pride goes along with that.

Thanks Leo. You make me proud.

*sigh*
Philip

rules of conduct

[shinobi_wan_kenobi]

Taco, you bring up some valid points. The most valid in my book being, if you're gonna snag with impunity, at least *give credit*. It ain't hard. If you liked it enough to steal it, maybe someone else will like another part of the site you scrytched and do the same.

shinobi OUT!!

Note that I am using /. interface

[Hoo00]

and /. interface is a copyright of /.

However, the above acknowledgement interface (wording and stuffs) is mine..

and the above comment about acknowledgement is mine too...

And recursively so...

The one and only legal sig in the future...!!!

Copyright and Trade Dress

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, web sites, like any other literary work that is expressed through a tangible medium (like a web browser or web page) is copyrightable. In the U.S., there is no need for a copyright notice to be placed on the web page itself, as the copyright applies as soon as the work is finished. [Note, the U.S. is a signatory of the Berne convension.] Thus, even if the site doesn't have a copyright notice, copying the source code is a violation (with both civil and criminal penalties). If the "blatent rip off" was accomplished by copying VA's code, that is a violation of VA's copyright because the other guy made a derivative work off of VA's initial work. The U.S. Copyright Act (Title 17 of United States Code) expressly gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to make derivative works (17 U.S.C. 106(2)). However, if the guy saw the site and coded it himself (with his own "sweat of the brow") then there is no copyright violation. In any case, if the site looks so much like VA's site, then there is the issue of trade dress infringement (if the is a likelihood of confusion that some people, seeing the knock-off site, would think it was VA's site). If the knock-off had bad things, then there may be a disparagement issues as well. What I would say to the person who thinks blatant copying is okay is: Get off your butt, be creative, and make your own web site. The world would be a better place with a little more variety. Incidentally, I AM a lawyer. One of the comments printed so far correctly pointed out that it makes a difference whether or not the other

Copyrights are not patents

[carbon3C]

First of all, it's copyright, not copywrite. IANAL, but if the code is the same, then it would infringe on the copyright of the code. If the web layout design is patented, and the design is the same, then it would infringe on the patent. If they didn't patent their design, then anyone can write code to look exactly the same, and there is no infringement.

A plagiate is a copyright violation

[angel'o'sphere]

One pointed out that a web site is
public domain, propably he ment because
it is published.

Nope, material you create is under your
copyright as long as you do not assign/
transfer that copyright to someone else.

The web is just a medium like paper, tv
or radio.

Its the solitair right of the copyright
holder to distribute his work over any
medium he wishes.

Redistributing is a copyright infringtions
and in case of a plagiate it is close to that
and falls under trademark or simular laws.

Even if the site would use its own hand
crafted code, it still would be a plagiate and
thus a copyright or trademark infringtion!

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

dosn't really matter

[delmoi]

this guy didn't have the forsight to put adds up in his site before being /.'d, he probably feels bad for loosing all that money. Visiting his site might actualy make him feel worse...

Where does it end?

[JourneymanMereel]

He also used the My Network Places icon from Win2K... maybe MS could sue him and try to make back some of the money they've lost... Seriously, though... I agree with some of the other posters that web design isn't something easily copyrighted. Images, logos, and certain content, can be, but not design. Of course, that doesn't mean you should just take someones hard work and place it on your site and call it your own. If you want to emulate someone, great... just give them at least partial credit. Even book authors will give credit to people who helped out (knowingly or otherwise), so why shouldn't a web designer?

I brought up this issue almost three months ago!

[BitMan]

• 2000-06-07 07:09:18 Freely link? Yes! But freely verbose copy HTML??? (askslashdot,internet) (rejected)

Because of my bringing it to the attention of a few people, it was even mentioned in several print publications.

Fuck you very much ./. You've rejected all kinds of goodies from me including:

• 2000-06-13 15:46:44 Dell Linux PC systems are locked at 128MB of RAM??? (articles,linux) (rejected)
• 2000-08-13 06:25:59 Microsoft addresses Gartner's concerns over OEM licensing (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
• 2000-08-24 18:17:29 "Windows 2000: A Threat to Internet Diversity" says IEEE (articles,news) (rejected)
• 2000-08-29 15:19:18 Latest Electronic Design intros new embedded Linux toolkits (articles,news) (rejected)

And my submissions to other posts have usually been moderated up between 3-5 on almost every post I make. Karma in just the last 2 months has me at an automatic +2 now and I cannot even get one fucking article posted!

-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith

Wasn't there before.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked my Netscape cache. It was NOT there before. He just added it.

Re:Wasn't there before.

[Foogle]

Good catch.

-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Chinese version of Slashdot

[xcyber]

what do u guys think about this site?
linuxfab.cx
the interface is slashdoted but the engine is self-made,also using php and mysql.
imo,a website will not be copied (in both style and content) if it is not worth the effort to do so.

See the "Credits" page.

[broken77]

I don't know if the guy just recently put this up, but go see the credits page. It says:

Layout

Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!

I noticed many comments regarding "if he would just give them credit, then it's cool". Well, here's credit.

It -is- copyright violation, but...

[Parity]

Just because something is published on the web does -not- make it public domain, any more than a billboard ad being published in plain view makes the advertisement public domain. It's clear to me that, legally, this is easily copyright violation. (If you don't explicitly give out rights, all-rights-reserved is assumed by the law since sometime in the 80's when they stopped requiring explicit copyright stamped all over everything.)

OTOH, ethically, I think non-profit sites should publish on an ok-to-copy-for-non-profit use basis. I know my copyright page on my home page reads 'you can use it for non-profit purposes if you give credit, for-profit purposes require explicit permission' and I put a little hyperlinked &copy Copyright YYYY at the bottom of every page. Of course, everyone has the right to do with their copyrightable works what they will, but I have the right to make fun of them if they do things that I think are bad. ;)

So, from my PoV, legally he shouldn't have done it, and ethically, linux.com should have a copyright permitting non-profit reuse/derivative works of the site and he certainly -should- have given credit.


--Parity

linux.com credits

[br4dh4x0r]

He only posted credit to linux.com after the story on slashdot.

Looked for cached page on google but none exists... anyone take a screenshot of the credits page before this goober got caught?

love,
br4dh4x0r

I dont think linux.com will be hurt by this at all

[Monkeyman334]

I think that the people that need the attention are the small sites that get ripped off. With the more established sites (like linux.com), everyone knows that he ripped it off. And they even put an article about it on the same page as important news. I think there should be more attention to small sites being ripped off as many people might not even know who made it up. But, its a big internet...

This is an outrage...

[weave]

Andover needs to sue the guy, and anyone that links to his site, and the program that copied the GIFs, as well as Apache Foundation, PHP authors, Mandrake, and the authors of fastcgi for providing him the tools that allowed him to do this.

We must protect their Intellectual Property rights. They must not stop. Contact the heads of Texas A&M and demand the page be removed. If they don't comply, firewall them at the backbone, at ISPs. This must not be allowed to continue...

GPLed Web Sites.

[CrazyBob]

From now on I'm releasing all of my sites under the GPL license. It'll be great. Use of the site in any way will be testiment to the user's acceptance of the policy, and they will, under law, have to give me credit for anything they gank.

One more thing...

[DreamingReal]

... and then I swear, I'm finished with this rant. :)

HTML code and design are not the same either. When that guy lifted the design he may or may not have lifted the HTML code. HTML code is a lot like layout - there's only so much you can do with it. A lot of web designers I know don't give a rat's ass if you lift their HTML code (hell, that's how I learned all those years ago), just use your own graphics.

Things get a bit more tricky when you're talking about JavaScript. Since it is much more flexible to use, a greater amount of creativity can be exhibited in the code (and it typically takes a lot more work). But since client-side JS is available for all to see most web designers just want a credit if you use it.

And I think most everyone can agree that one should give credit where credit is due.

-------

Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy

[SethJohnson]

Slashdot covers the Napster v. Metallica issue because it's a fascinating battle of morons (ok, so I'm flattering Lars' intellect with that description) against technology. In this instance, the morons have chosen to attack a service provider (Napster) with a lawsuit, whereas legal precedent has demonstrated that a service provider cannot be held liable for the traffic it routes because to filter it would make it impossible to provide the service. This is roughly akin to Yahoo or Google having to be responsible for purging links in their indexes to illicit content hosted on other people's servers. For Google to police the fourteen bazillion pages they've got indexed to make sure there's no photo scanned in from Life magazine (or an mp3 file containing any song off Master of Puppets) would be impossible. Likewise, it's impossible for Napster to ensure that the clients aren't providing copyrighted songs for download. This is precisely why AT&T and those other service providers filed a brief on behalf of Napster earlier this week.

The correct route for Metallica to have taken on this issue would have been to file lawsuits against the individuals providing the files for download on their servers. Because that's a publicly messy solution and also costly- the loser in such a case shoulders the court costs, and how many 14 year-old defendants can afford to pay for Metallica's lawyers? - Metallica has chosen to sue Napster.

I've never seen Taco or any other staff of Slashdot advocate people pirating intellectual property. The debate here is whether or not a 'design' for a website can be considered intellectual property.

Seth

Re:Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy

[Foogle]

They do not advocate piracy. However, they most certainly do advocate disregarding of copyright laws when it comes to this community's interests. Just today Slashdot posted this: "The code is afaik unavailable, but hopefully folks who downloaded it will have mirrors soon.", in response to a cease-and-desist order from a company.

It's like saying "Oh crap, we're in trouble -- better make sure they can't do anything about it.", rather than allowing a judge to decide the legality of their code.


-----------

"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy

[Carnage4Life]

Slashdot authors believe in selectively applying IP as they see fit.

I have read most if not all of the Napster editorials by Hemos, Jon Katz, and CmdrTaco and there is a stong tendency to make it seem that musicians should just roll over and face the fact that people will steal their music and they should get other jobs.

Yet once the shoe is on the other foot (and doesn't even harm them financially as opposed to digitally available music[0] which harms artists revenue streams) they scream and bitch about IP.

[0]Even if it doesn't seem like that now, once high bandwidth, reasonably priced MP3 players and home networking standards are prevelant there'll be a sharp drop in the revenue of professional artists, if services like Napster still exist. Even worse instead of the creators of the music being paid, fat cat venture capitalists will reap the fruits of their labor. Anyone can see this coming.


(-1 Troll)

Re:Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy

[PurpleBob]

Ahem.

You do realize that every slashdot user is a potential author, right? And that it's possible for different people to think different things about intellectual property?

Well, now you know.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.

Re:Slashdot hasn't advocated piracy

[CR0]

who screamed or bitched?
they released slashcode for the sole purpose of allowing others to be able to implement replicas of their site easily.

i could go on, but why. this seems like pretty persuasive evidence.

He DOES credit linux.com

[wiredog]

He says "Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!" in the "contributions" section.

Re:He DOES credit linux.com

[wiredog]

Sorry, here's the url for the credits section.

The greatest form of flattery...

[Mustang Matt]

I think it's okay that he copied it. Not necessarily good but I don't think he's doing anything wrong. If he was selling the design to people he'd be getting into trouble but just using it for himself doesn't seem so bad.

I used to take sites and improve on them and come up with my own graphics to the point that you could see similarities but they weren't the same, then I'd stick a database behind it and script up a whole site off of a template. I don't do it much anymore, but I never had any moral problems with doing it. I'd ask if I thought it might be a problem and no one ever said I couldn't or shouldn't.

Speaking of copycats...

[Kosmatos]

The people at http://www.timelesstech.com have obviously ripped off http://www.turbopower.com 's web site... I seriously doubt it is the other way around, seeing as TurboPower updates their site often...

Give him a break.

[trcooper]

Comeon people, give the guy a break. How is this any different from window manager themes that look like Mac OS X or windows? What about parody sites that spoof MS?

You shouldn't be able copyright a layout or design. Sure, copyright artwork, because that is original (and yeah this guy does take some images from Linux.com), but what I see the big complaint being about is the layout.

Linux.com should be flattered, and leave it at that. If they would even consider suing this guy, I've lost my faith in all things digital.

P.S. This shouldn't even have appeared on slashdot. How is this news, unless VA Linux was pursuing this? It's just a flame war between a couple people. Or should I start submitting stories when I get in a flamewar with someone over whether VI is better than Emacs?

Ideas are free, not actual code!

[meckardt]

I'm sure we've all seen some neat things contained on web pages that we've decided that we just had to incorporate into our own. I know I do all the time. But it is one thing to swipe a javascript or menu layout that we like, and another two download and use an entire web site in its entirety. C'mon guy! How about some originality?

Gonzo

Yes I Got MP3's

[anewsome]

I have 3000+ MP3's, all from CD's that I bought and ripped. So what's yer point.

It's nothing new..

[Pontiac]

I've been dealing with people "borrowing" from my sites for 4 years.. At first I was mad.. Now I've just resigned myself to the fact that it's going to happen.. Deal with it.. I got sick of getting into flame wars with people for nothing more that a little recognition and maybe a link back as a thank you. It's not worth it. Now days I just take it as a sign of respect for my work and I've created a page on my site where people can DL all the graphics I've created for my site since I started it. I did realize one thing while making that page.. My early stuff sucks!

Pontiac

Slashdot stole OUR design

[Backline]

Talking of web-site design and layout theft, I've notice a few similarities between slashdot.org and our site, Geek-Ware

www.geek-ware.co.uk.

I'm going to consult our lawyers and get back to you on this one.

==============================

Violations

[studerby]

Finally got to the site in question ('twas slashdotted, I guess).

First, the site has copied a number of gifs from linux.com, such as endcap.gif and stripes.gif. If these images aren't "freeware", but were created for linux.com, then the copying and ditributing of those images is a copyright violation.

More generally, layout design (or blank forms) are not copyrightable. The U.S. copyright office's circular 32 (PDF) (on forms) says:
"Copyright does not extend to names, titles, and short phrases or clauses such as column headings or simple checklists. The format, arrangement, or typography of a work is not protected."

However, a "trade dress" lawsuit would at least make it into court - I don't have a clue what the outcome might be because a similar web-related case hasn't happened yet, but it's only a matter of time. In "trade dress", courts have ruled that a commercial "look" that consumers associate with a source of goods or services can be protected, that another business cannot use that "look" when it can create confusion in the minds of consumers. The example case of trade dress infringment is Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (91-971), 505 U.S. 763 (1992). wherein the Supreme Court stated:
"trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive--i. e., was not merely descriptive--or had acquired a secondary meaning--i. e., had come through use to be uniquely associated with a specific source".
Personally, I'd say the linux.com look was inherently distinctive. Whether the copying leads to confusion is another, critical, question...

Finally, this site appears to be a commercial site (http://www.myhobbes.com/ forwards to it), but is being hosted on the Texas A&M network (home is http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/). I'm suspecting that somebody in authority in the University would be annoyed at this relationship.

Just a few changes quick changes could change the look enough to avoid the problem totally, but a little work is apparently a lot to ask of some people.

Open IP Is Good -- If You Hold The Rights

[waldoj]

I think it's great to say "IP is evil" and "copyright must die." And it's even better to back that up by distributing your own IP freely.

But it is wrong to wontonly use somebody else's IP against their wishes. This is Linus' perspective on Napster, and I'm inclined to agree. Linux (etc.) is about sharing if you *want* to share. Not forcing others to.

-Waldo

-------------------

Trade Dress Law

[2quam4]

I did not look at the linked site to see the similarities/differences between it and Linux.com (although I noticed that it is an Aggie's site (cough)). While copyright is a common contention in many of these cases, trade dress is a more appropriate claim IMO. I am unsure if trade dress has been applied to the net/web design. rant Although trade dress is a well founded area of law, many established areas of precedent IMO mystically alter/disappear when court's apply the law to the net. /rant Trade dress is this: the total image of a product or service. For instance, McDonald's would likely claim trade dress for the design, look and feel of its stores (exterior and interior separately). If a party's trade dress is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning and the defendant's trade dress, taken as a whole, is sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of consumer confusion about an origin, sponsorship or affiliation of a parties' goods, services or business, then trade dress infringement is likely. What is key is that trade dress features are examined as a whole rather than some differences in detail. So, I would imagine that application of trade dress to a web site would include the entire look and feel of a site -- images, colors, layout... GUI. Trade dress is part of unfair competition law, found in the Lanham Act/Trademark law. Therefore, many attributes for examining trade dress law are borrowed from trademark law (i.e.: evidence of likely confusion, sophistication of potential customers, blah blah blah...). Again, I have not compared these two sites and given the history of the legal system's attitudes/misconceptions/illiteracy of the Net I doubt trade dress applied to the Net would be actionable. Just passing on some general info about trade dress law.

Pick somewhere in between

[interiot]

At the very most, authors should get limited control for a limited amount of time.

You can't mandate that users stand on their heads to use it.

You shouldn't be able to control it forever... what's more important? That authors are able to restrict the use of their works 50 years down the road when people want to use it in situations the author never dreamed of, or that humanity is able to use its resources to the fullest extent? It's one author's benefit vs. many people's benefit. Still, the author's wishes should be respected for a time because their contributions are valuable to society. After that, it's impossible to restrict usage anyway because the copies are so far-flung and possibly incorporated into other works which were incorporated into other works...

Free Code!?

[BlackHelmetMan]

When you use someone elses code, it is out of friggin' respect you put a link to that site with some recognition. It was their code and granted it is up for viewing but if you are going to use it at least have the decency to say Thankyou!
This is more than just Slashdot... it is fun dammit! I spend a good two hours of my day reading the news here built on an incredible layout!
Just think how you would feel if you wrote somthing and someone thought... gee I like that... and they took it and you know they took it and they know they took it but all they can say is...
"HEY! Like the code I wrote... Kinda looks like yours!"
~BHM

But, But, but...

[handorf]

Hmm. I see both sides here. Yes, please give me credit if you rip off my work. BUT...

I thought 1/2 the point of Open Source was to Learn By Example. Which means that often code that you've written looks a LOT like something else. After all, EVERYTHING has been done at least once already.

I've viewed source on thousands of webpages. How many thank-yous do I have to post? They all helped me develop a (crappy) sense of style, so they all contributed, but in the end if I write it, it's mine.

Note this doesn't apply to directly ripping off things like slashcode, where the code is being used verbatim. But overall...

Hrm.

Stealing vs. Learning....

[invenustus]

It's such a fine line between stealing and learning. If I buy Joe's Guide to Phatty-Bo-Batty HTML and use Example 69 from his chapter on tables in my site, have I stolen? I'll freely admit that every time I want to add something to my site that I don't know how to implement, I find a site that looks like my vision, and pirate some of their HTML.... I don't think there's an easy answer here, except that courtesy is a good thing, and if you feel you owe someone credit, then you should give it.

When Microsoft is developing "Rights Management" software, how can you NOT be paranoid?!

Dear Public

[Victor Tramp]

Please give us advice on how to help our Parent Company(tm) get a sister site out of potential legal trouble by discussing it in our forum and help us tell the Little Guy(tm) to go to http://www.hell.com

Don't allow copyrights on the presentation!

[beej]

If I had my way, you could retain the copyrights on your HTML, the text therein, and the images you use in the page. But how the page looks on the screen? You should get no copyright on that. And here's why:

When I view your page, I am running a program that interprets what you have written and displays it on the page. To allow you to have copyright on that interpretation would allow you to have copyright on any interpretation of the HTML.

So, for instance, I write a HTML "visualizer" that takes your HTML and paints a pretty picture with it. That is my program's interpretation of your HTML. Do you have a copyright on that interpretation, then? Of course not.

You simply should not have a copyright on how I choose to display your data.

It might be possible to argue this legally, too. You get copyright on something as soon as it is fixed in some medium. So you code your HTML, and you get your copyright on it. But that has nothing to do with later interpretation by browsers, which vary in their presentation (like Lynx vs. Mozilla.)

And that's ok. I mean, the content of your page is intact, and copyrighted, and so are the images. Your intellectual property is protected. [So go ahead and nail that guy for distributing images he doesn't hold the copyright on--it's already illegal.]

But to say "I have a copyright on how Netscape presents my webpage to you" is completely absurd. You do not have such a copyright.

All this being said, I'm sure all head-in-ass judges will cluelessly make contrary decisions. Just watch them.

Re:Ok

[Chiasmus_]

The thing is, non-celebrities (like me) crave some attention for their work, and want to see it acknowledged.

Minor celebrities (like CmdrTaco) sort of think it would be neat if someone would mention their work and that it was good enough to use. As you can tell from the article, CmdrTaco doesn't really have a solid stance on this issue.

Major celebrities (like those musicians you mentioned) don't ever want to hear from you, ever. They don't want to hear "thanks", or "you rock", or "you inspired my work". In fact, they don't ever want to hear from another human being again, with the possible exception of their significant others.

This isn't really an article about ethics - it's more about ego, and politeness.

Meritocracy.

[rongen]

In Bruce Streling's [1] Heavy Weather he talks alot about the fact that intellectual property is valuable for about 5 minutes after you publish it. Then someone else takes it, copies it, and posts it. This is going to happen more frequently in the coming years (I think everyone knows that---it's a question of whether you like it).

Another thing he discusses is the concept of Networked communities using Meritocracy to figure out who is trustworthy or valuable to them. Who is a good citizen? The same system could be (and is) applied to things like this theft of a website's look-and-feel. Everyone (well, everyone reading this maybe?) knows that Linux.com had the look first. If they have never seen Linux.com then they may believe the other guy came up with it, but there's not much anyone can do about that. However, if you want to do some research on the guy maybe your search will turn up a link to this slashdot discussion. If that happened you might view the guy (or at least his design skills) in a different light.

One final thought. What if he thought: "there is a good, usable interface... Since I am no good at UI design I will copy it so I can spend more time on the backend code"?

[1] http://www.eff.org/pub/Publicatio ns/Bruce_Sterling/

--8<--

Yeah, it's wrong, but...

[zelyan]

Really, you'd think he's been punished enough. After all, the Slashdot effect apparently took out his site...

(laugh, it's funny.)

Jeff

i'll bet he's REALLY happy =)

[Invurt]

i mean, he made slashdot with it, maybe event hat was totally intended...copy a well known site, tell a few people, get posted on Slashdot, then get hit by the Slashdot effect to boost up his hits - damn fine marekting ploy if you ask me....smart kind, someone hire him !

Stealing?

[Wolfkin]

When are you stealing?

You're stealing when and only when whatever you have stolen has been taken away from the victim. If they haven't lost anything, you haven't stolen it. Seems simple enough. ;)

Randall.

Re:Stealing?

[Stonehand]

If you're married, would you mind if your wife were seduced by your best friend, but did not change her status regarding you? You're not losing anything...

I'm remind of the following story probably somewhere in a fortune file or wherever (unfortunately, I've never seen an attribution), that suggests your definition should be more broad... Many of you have probably seen it already, but it bears repeating.

This version found here, again unattributed.


There once was a man who went to a computer trade show. Each day as he entered, the man told the guard at the door:

"I am a great thief, renowned for my feats of shoplifting. Be forewarned, for this trade show shall not escape me unplundered."

This speech disturbed the guard greatly, because there were millions of dollars of computer equipment inside, so he watched the man carefully. But the man merely wandered from booth to booth, humming quietly to himself.

When the man left, the guard took him aside and searched his clothes, but nothing was to be found.

On the next day of the trade show, the man returned and chided the guard, saying, "I escaped with a vast booty yesterday, but today will be even better." So the guard watched him ever more closely, but to no avail.

On the final day of the trade show, the guard could restrain his curiosity no longer. "Sir Thief," he said, "I am so perplexed, I cannot live in peace. Please enlighten me. What is it that you are stealing?"

The man smiled. "I am stealing ideas," he said.


Some intangibles -- control, ideas, affections, and so forth -- are extremely valuable.

Re:Stealing?

[Stonehand]

My bad. Scrolling upwards a bit suggests it comes from "The Tao of Programming". I've never read that, but it's probably been excerpted and propagated many times, explaining why it's familiar...

Re:Stealing?

[Ender Ryan]

A wife is not intellectual property.

Fucking is not intellectual property.

If your friend fucks your wife he hasn't stolen anything, your wife is just a whore, and your friend is an asshole.

Re:Stealing?

[Wolfkin]

If you're married,

...and I am. :)

would you mind if your wife were seduced by your best friend, but did not change her status regarding you? You're not losing anything...

I would mind (depends on the situation, I guess), but I certainly wouldn't believe anything had been stolen from me, except in the sense that she would theoretically have violated the marriage contract, if we had one that included "no sex with others" provisions.

In the current situation, though, most people have no marriage contracts at all (except those forced on them by the State), so this wouldn't be stealing.

Randall.

Well, the site does credit linux.com

[guerby]

From http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/credits.p html:

Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!

Where's the problem?

Apples and Oranges

[chrisvr]

It's apples and oranges.

The nature of stealing someone's music means that it will always be obvious that it is theft. (Unless someone is claiming that their garage band sounds like Metallica.) It's very obvious that the person presenting the content (in this case a song) didn't originate it. No matter how you get the content you always know that the musicians created it.

However, stolen web site design is much trickier. The web is a big place and with credit hidden or not given at all, the person putting the site up is letting visitors assume that he/she is a creative person who came up with this site design all on their own. Unless someone sees both sites and makes the comparison (like here) they will usually get away with it.

That's why I think it fits the definition of plagiarism, because this guy isn't going out of his way to make sure visitors know that he took the design from somewhere else. Whether he intends it or not, he is taking credit for someone else's work.

And HTML isn't intangible at all. It's code that your browser interprets to define how you, the visitor, experience the content that is presented. It takes time, effort and creative skill to define that experience, and if it's ripped off and no credit given to the original "HTML Artist" then that's theft.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Carnage4Life]

Your argument is illogical to the point of madness. Stealing music harms the artist by denying them a source of revenue especially since there are opportunity costs to creating music (studio costs, time spent practising/learning music, instruments, promotion, etc). Simply because people are not claiming that they created the stolen music does not somehow lessen the impact of the fact that IP is being misused and is harming the artist.

On the other hand copying the HTML on a page doesn't do jack shit to whoever's site the HTML was copied from.

Yet CmdrTaco feels that his Intellectual Property in the form of his webpage design (i feel stupid just saying that...) somehow deserves more protection than an artists means of providing a living for (him|her)self


(-1 Troll)

Re:Apples and Oranges

[wannabe]

Moot point - but as far as I know, linux.com was not designed by taco. From the story, he simply stated that the two companies had a common owner.

As for the supposed contradiction, I very much disagree. Credit must be given, even the GPL makes a case for that. To pass off someone else's work as your own is theft. To borrow that work with permission and give credit is acceptable.

My neighbor has a boat that was given to him. He doesn't use and it just sits in his back yard. Can I take? It cost him nothing to obtain, it will cost him nothing to lose, and he'll never miss it if gone. So can I take it? No for the simple fact, it's his.

Property is property, everything created is freely given or there's problems. Even the GPL is a choice. To make your software free is a choice, to restrict it beyond beleif is a choice. If you happen to beleive that all information is free for the taking, you're wrong in the context of 20th century United States. Maybe that'll change, but for now, you're wrong.

FWIK He's absolutely wrong.

[catseye_95051]

He says "'The layout of any website is "public domain" which is freely available to the public'

I can put down in print that elephants are orenge, it doesn't make it correct.

IANAL, and this does not consitute legal advice, but...

Graphic layout has a long history of protection under the copyright laws. In addition, there is a general idea udner copyright that the organizationb of information is a protected form of expression, where that organization is unique.

The question is, what do you want to do about it? Suing him would be expensive and unelss he's makign money from hsi site, or you can show that he somehow prevented you form makign money with yours, damages are going to be minimal.

OTOH if its just his statement that bothers you, giving legal advice without a license IS a crime (thus my disclaimer above). You might be able to force him to take it down by writing a letter of complaint to the bar association. If yo ucan figure out what state he's in, send it to the bar association in his state (and point them at how you figured that out.) Otherwise, you can send it to the bar in your state and hope they decide to investigate further.

Amazon copy

[affinityz]

Check out www.gogocity.com It looks exactly like Amazon.com

slow day on slashdot?

[magnanamous_cow_herd]

Does it really matter that he "stole" his layout from linux.com ? wtf?

Whiners. you are all a bunch of whiners. taco must be hard up for sensational pseudo-journalism today.

At least the kid had the taste to copy a site that was nice and tidy with lots of white space.

--theherd

Check out his credits page....

[gatkinso]

.... he mentions Linux.com and gives thanks.

Credits Page

[Lexic0n]

On the Credits Page (referenced in the post parent to this one), he clearly writes: "Layout Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!" So what was the problem again?

Re:Slashdot on the way to _real_ journalism?

[ryanbeed]

hey, I don't want unbiased reporting. I want loads of bias and some prejudice and opinions in there. That's what /. is for. What people think about stuff. All the better if the opinions start off by being in slanted headlines. Makes for better discussions.

I see nothing wrong

[spitzak]

He copied a very nice and clean layout. And he grabbed some images and repainted them with his own logos. If I needed a nice pastel shaded rectangle I would probably grab one as well.

It's not like he's trying to hide where it came from. He has a dancing penguin, a "powered by Linux", and many other cartoon penguins on there. It is very likely that people reading this page have seen linux.com, or might find it rather quickly.

Re:Too many Stories!!!

[Penis_Bird_Guye]

Too much to Troll!!


<O
( \
X
8===D

Re:Don't Overlook Importance of "View Source" butt

[Stonehand]

I think that in certain cases, design IS what's critical. Form follows function...

Take wire services or anything else that's syndicated -- real-time stock quotes, you name it. Lots of sites can receive the same *content*, so one way to distinguish between two would be presentation and access methods.

In the case of wire reports, if somebody came up with a clean interface that permitted keyword filtering and displayed reports in real-time, perhaps archived briefly in a hierarchical structure (so later you can check out, say, sports scores all in one list, and news regarding the Taliban in another, and so forth), that's a LOT of value added compared to taking the exact same content and simply displaying the whole unfiltered, unsorted mess in an always-growing web page.

The context -- wire reports -- is exactly the same, but the design has been altered significantly. The owner of the first site has a definite interest in being first, and in NOT having his every added feature cloned instantly... while he morally (and, IIRC, legally) may lack the right to stop others doing similar things independently, he shouldn't have to tolerate other sites using his exact design derived from his work if he so chooses.

Open Source License

[btlzu2]

IIRC, the Open Source license states that you're free to take and re-distribute source code (paraphrasing) as long as appropriate credit is given to the authors (and a copy of the license wording is available or included). So, even the Open Source License idea is going against that guy I think.

What about MS?

[Cerb]

Wonder what they would think about his "theft" of their icons?

Stealing a site's appearance.

[Todd Knarr]

My thoughts:

1. Copying the general layout is legal. Maybe not polite, but legal.
2. Copying the underlying HTML directly is not acceptable. Writing your own to acheive the same effect is fine, even if the results are identical to the original, but directly copying the source is not OK.
3. Copying the actual graphics and such is not acceptable. You can make yours similar, but you can't steal someone else's images.
4. Deliberately duplicating the entirety of a site's appearance simply to duplicate it isn't exactly the mark of originality. Better to take inspiration and create something of your own than to just copycat someone else's success. Also more satisfying, and more likely to impress others.

who gives a damn?

[Hellasboy]

It doesn't matter that he stole the bitmaps from the site, it's not like he went through a big pain to get them, he just right-clicked 'save picture as'. It isn't an OS. I don't wanna hear people saying that he should change it or shouldn't have done it. i've seen people in this chat that couldn't believe apple's nerve when they contacted stardock in order to remove the winaqua skins, they then come here and yell out 'bloody murder!' when they see someone copying a linux homepage.

http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/credits.phtml

[da groundhog]

This was on the site too. Interesting.......

Layout

Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!

Re:

[Zagadka]

I'm cool with giving away my code, but not my art. Code is far less personal than art...

A lot of code is art.

Trademark and Copyright

[Silver A]

Seriously, how can you copyright a website layout? Anyone ever notice all gaming related websites(like UGO) look EXACTLY the same, with the trendy left-side navigation in a really small font?

Layout, and visual design in general, are trademarkable, not copyrightable. If a magazine or website were to come up with a visually unique layout, it could trademark the "look and feel".

Borrowing someone's layout would not generally be a copyright violation, unless the underlying (copyrighted) code was taken without permission. In the case of automatically generated code, it would depend on the status of the program which generated the code. If I write a program which automatically creates web pages, I could conceivably copyright the HTML template my program uses. Of course, that would make my software unusable by anyone but me, since anyone else using it would be generating web pages to which I owned the copyright, unless copyright law has an exception covering that.

It seems that the only potential copyright violations are in the images and possibly any javascript on the pages.

Re:Trademark and Copyright

[webmaven]

Actually, layout and design are copyrightable.

In Tad Crawfords article Influence Versus Infringement, he uses the example of a book cover layout:

The idea is not copyrightable but the expression of the idea is copyrightable. So, for example, the idea to create a book cover using a certain combination of type faces and a negative image of someone's eyes that partially cuts off some of the type (the idea for the cover of Looking Closer 2) is not copyrightable, but the actual cover as created by Michael Bierut is copyrightable.

Later in the article he states:

If a book cover has been scanned and slightly altered, it will clearly be an infringement. If the idea for it has been stolen, it will depend on how closely the expression (as opposed to the idea) has been plagiarized. For example, a book cover that placed an image between the words of a title and shaved off the bottom of the type in the top word and the top of the type in the bottom word would presumably not infringe the cover of Looking Closer 2.

If you want to see the cover that Mr. Crawford is talking about, Look here.

Generally, if a work is at least 30% different, it will not violate the copyright on the original work. Determining the amount of difference is usually left up to a judge, since it needs to pass a 'reasonable person' test.

Though I have not seen the site in question (it seems to be slashdotted), I have little doubt, from reading others descriptions, that it does in fact violate copyright. As far as Trademark law (and the related category of Trade Dress law) is concerned, his site does not seem to be in the same industry, or have the intent to confuse or mislead the public that is a neccessary prerequisite for trademark violations.

This is why slapping a 'Star Wars' poster on a lunchbox would be both a copyright violation and a trademark violation; because you are not only using someones copyrighted image, but using the 'Star Wars' image is likely to mislead a 'reasonable person' that the product had been endorsed by LucasFilm. However, if I create and sell a 'DreamWorks' line of carpentry tools, I am unlikely to get in trouble, because a 'reasonable person' is not likely to conclude that they had been endorsed by DreamWorks Pictures.
--

Re:Trademark and Copyright

[media.org!webchick]

I recently wrote a rant on this subject called R-E-S-P-E-C-T that references Tad Crawford's article "Influence vs. Infringement."

I like Tad Crawford's article very much, but I also believe that their are certain nuances of Web design where traditional copyright laws may not directly apply. Crawford writes:

"Design certainly informs culture which in its myriad diffusions casts the spell of influence. I don't think of that kind of influence as plagiarism and it certainly isn't copyright infringement."

I think this is an important point in this article which shouldn't be overlooked. The Web is a communications medium affecting our culture in profound ways we have yet to discover, and I think a designer needs to view issues of copyright from a new perspective (which I address in my rant). I am a professional designer and have been for many years, yet I consider myself a netizen as well.

For me, anyway, it all boils down to respect for each other, and the contributions we all make to build a better medium.

webchick

well shit, most web tools produce the same crap!!

[perfecto]

i've seen tons of sites that have the same layouts. alot of times it's because people used the same tool with one of the builtin layouts. if someone apes someone else's style so what? sites continually get redesigned and the styles diverge anyway. which is basically happenned with my biography and the guy whose site i aped. this is a nonissue.

--
And Justice for None

Compare to the EverQuest/HackersQuest situation

[WallyHartshorn]

Legalities aside, how does this compare the the EverQuest vs. HackerQuest situation? Is copying someone's web site design Bad, while copying someone's game server design is considered Good?

I realize the two situations are different in many ways, but they basically boil down to the same issue in terms of ethics -- "Come up with your own idea; don't steal mine."

He got the point

[QBobWatson]

I dunno when this page was last modified, but he gives explicit credit to linux.com here.

Free the design!

[Eponymous, Showered]

I've just made a T-shirt of the design elements of Linux.com (now available at Copyleft), plus I've made a song about it and have posted it to Napster. Information (about design) wants to be free!

Blatant Copyright Infringement

[Sonus]

If pursued, the ResNet site would stand virtually no chance. There is copyright on all published material, including the graphics and layout and not just the content. Graphics were stolen as well, which gives ResNet absolutely no chance in a legal battle should one occur. A few years ago Taco Cabana sued the pants off of Two Pesos Cafe (I think) and took them out of business just because they looked the same. As long as it is published, it is copyrighted as well. The thin line separating a supposedly copied site is generally very blurry and almost impossible to enforce, but this is extremely blatant. No contest here, folks.

Linux.com legal statement

[Basset]

The Linux.com legal statement is here.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see anything in there about the bitmaps on the site. All that is mentioned are the articles. If Linux.com decides to take some action against this guy they are probably going to be on some shaky legal ground.

One more thing, if I use Slashcode to develop a site like /., I would credit Slashcode not every site that uses it (including /.).

-D-

well he's an aggie

[Anonymous Coward]

Them's too stupid to know better!

that penguin rocks

[twitter]

It's much better than all that "news" stuff on linux.com

He does give credit to linux.com for his layout.

Not only is the layout stolen...

[JustChad]

...but so are the perl scripts used for the messageboard... they're "vB" board is OBVIOUSLY UltimateBulletinBoard... And THAT is illegal... I think it costs something like $199 to get that software, but seeing as they've changed the name and stolen other knowledge, they probably ripped that off too...

Re:Not only is the layout stolen...

[OwnedByTheMan]

I put a reply to this on the board before the page seemed to disappear. How do you figure it's UBB? It is written using PHP and there are no versions of UBB using PHP that I have seen. Is it just the "look and feel" of UBB that you feel is being ripped off because I am quite sure that this is not a bootleg UBB installation. Maybe I am misinterpreting your comment but it doesn't look like a UBB rip to me. (No more than the other "UBB look and feel" packages out there.)

Did anyone read the "Credits" Link?

[afniv]

Maybe he did this after being slashdotted (the page is not dated:

Credits

Layout
Many thanks to linux.com's cool layout!

If you have any expertise which you feel can contribute to Hobbes and want your work to be noticed by the masses, please write to me about it!

~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"

Re:Don't Overlook Importance of "View Source" butt

[John_Booty]

Hmmm, good points. The interface you mention would definitely be valuable.

I was thinking of the feature you described such as keyword filtering and displayed reports as functionality, not design. When I think "design", I think "graphics" and the pretty little navbars and icons and stuff. That's what I meant when I said Slashdot is such a good site because of its content and interface, not it's design (what's up with the nasty teal color anyway? :P)

I think we can agree nobody goes to a website to look at prety widgets. :-) You and I are probably saying the same thing but we're using different terminology.

get over it

[gruntvald]

Seems like just a few days ago I was reading here about the contempt for Lotus' old look and feel lawsuit. Web layout *is* public domain, kudos to the guy for seeing something that worked, and adopting it. Hey, isn't that CODE RE-USE????!!! I grabbed his dancing penguin gif (too bad it's a gif), and will have no qualms about using it.

I forgot to past the damn link!

[afniv]

His credits can be found at:
http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/credits.p html

~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"

My e-mail to webmaster@net.tamu.edu

[Mike1024]

Here's a copy of my e-mail to webmaster@net.tamu.edu:

Sir,

Have you noticed how the site being run at http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/ looks almost exactly identical to the one run by the Open Source Development Network (OSDN) at http://www.linux.com/ ?

And have you noticed how OSDNs legal statement says:

11. COPYRIGHTS

OSDN respects the intellectual property of all parties and we ask our users to do the same. If a user or other third party believes that its Content has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, that user or third party should provide OSDN with the following information: (a) an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest; (b) a description of the copyrighted work that has been infringed; (c) a description of where the allegedly infringing material is located on the Website; (d) the affected user or third party's address, telephone number and email address; (e) a statement by the affected user or third party that he or she has a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law; and (f) a statement by the affected user or third party, under penalty of perjury, that the above information is accurate and that such user or third party is the copyright owner or is otherwise authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf. If OSDN receives such a claim, OSDN reserves the right to refuse or delete Content as described under Section 4 hereto, or to terminate a user's account in accordance with Section 7. ?

What's more, have you noticed the tag on the bottom of the linux.com web page that says:

Copyright ©1999-2000 VA Linux Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. ?

I'm no legal expert, but I think that 'Copyright VA Linux Systems' may be an indication that a page has been copyrighted by VA Linux systems.

It would be unfortunate if VA Linux were to sue you, simply because the website designer did not have the time and/or ability to design his own layout. If I were you, I should encourage the site's maintainer to redesign with his own artwork, or at least give substantial credit to linux.com.

Michael Tandy

...another comment from Michael Tandy.

Re:My e-mail to webmaster@net.tamu.edu

[quonsar]

It would seem he has dealt with it:

Unable to locate the server named "hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu" --- the server does not have a DNS entry.

"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up

Re:My e-mail to webmaster@net.tamu.edu

[anonymous cowerd]

Go read Alighieri's Inferno. Hell is divided into concentric sections; the ones toward the periphery are relatively painless, as you get deeper and closer to the radius point the sins that got you there and the corresponding punishments get harsher. Virtuous pagans are on the outside, "without pain but without hope"; sensualists, who drank and fornicated too blithely in life, are tossed about by endless whirlwinds the next ring in; then further down come the wrathful, the beaters and torturers and murderers, in their lake of fire; and at the center, at the very center, that's where Divine justice puts the narcs.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

agreed...

[DrLoveMD]

i agree. if you are going to "borrow" someone's code, giving them credit is polite (though i don't think necessary as long as you change the code a bit). if it is not a commercial site borrowing the code, why make such a fuss? i've borrowed stuff from other sites to see how it worked. after editing it to my specifications, it didn't look anything like the page i borrowed it from. should i still give credit to the place i borrowed it from? i would, cuz i have no problem with giving another hard working web designer his fair dues... but if it no longer resembles it, why should i? and there are options you have to restrict people from stealing your code, like scripts that disable the view source or right click option (though i personally think those go against the freedom the internet embodies). i just think that someone made a good point earlier... when someone borrows your code and parodies your site, it is a form of flattery, as they wouldn't even be bothering with the parody unless there was something there in the first place. our whole job as web designers is to get people to view our sites, and if someone views it and likes it (or hates it) enough to parody it, i guess you must be doing something right...

Mod up Daemonsthenes, please

[twitter]

His reference to the credits page is not the easiest thing to find, and it Directly contradicts the TACO who asks:

but isn't saying thanks and crediting your source part of it too?

What more can this dude do to say thanks, pay linux.com, shine TACO's shoes?

BTW, No one listened to the orignial Daemonsthenese and Athens fell. Who knows what might happen this time?

IAAWD

[The Queen]

the real question is whether that is enough credit to give in return for "yoinking" an entire website design.

Speaking as a web designer, I say absolutely NOT. At least have the decency to change the color scheme or something. Some may call it imitation/flattery, I call it disrespectful laziness. If you don't have the talent to create your own 'look and feel' then hire someone who does. Sheesh, if my clients could just steal other people's entire sites for their own then I'd soon be out of a job... then again, most clients would still need help just doing that. Ugh.

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

what IP is all about

[mattdm]

Intellectual property is a means to an end -- the betterment of society/humanity. IP isn't a magical natural right: it was created by society/government because in many cases it's beneficial. Copyright makes sure artists get rewarded for their work. Trademarks keep knock-offs from confusing consumers. Patents (in theory at least) reward people for publishing their designs instead of keeping them secret.

Just like most things in the real world, it's a mixed blessing. When IP is doing something that helps society overall, it's good. When it's used to bludgeon people into being intellectual serfs, it's bad.

--

Commodity vs. Differentiated Product

[Infonaut]

I spend much of my time at work developing interfaces for web sites. Part of the reason people pay me money to do this is that they want their site's interface to reflect their company and their content.

It has been argued that content and interface can be separated and then suddenly, miraculously brought together seamlessly in such a way that the content doesn't really matter in the implementation of the interface.

That is true in cases of what I call "commodity information". Slashdot is a prime example of a site that uses an interface built around commodity information. Although the people who put Slashdot together certainly are part of the draw of the site, the core content is threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is commodity information, because it is not branded, it doesn't represent any organization, and it is differentiated by the user, not by Slashdot (yes, it's moderated, but only after it is posted).

The reason why there are so many wannabe Slashdot sites is that the format they developed to display this commodity information is well-suited to a variety of applications. I could create SlashGolf, a site related to news and discussion about golf, and the interface could remain pretty much the same and still be effective.

Why is it then that well-regarded sites like (not trying to draw flames here - these sites have all been well-reviewed) Apple, Iomega, and Bungie haven't been ripped off left and right?

It's because the information in these sites is differentiated, not commodity. The structure of the site and the information the site contains are too closely linked to offer rip-off artists much to work with.

Note that the generic web layouts provided in many WYSIWYG web dev tools are almost universally disregarded by developers, simply because they were developed in a vacuum, completely outside the real world, where content needs to fit context.

Thank you.

[Booker]

'nuff said.

---

Well, If I copied Time Magazines design...

[CSG_SurferDude]

Well, If I copied Time Magazines design that closely, I'd be expecting a phone call soon.

Well, what "I" think is....

[SupahVee]

That information on the net should be free, provided that credit is given where appropriate.

I feel that I should have the right to use someone else's idea for my new web page, and give them credit for it, especially if they simply ask for credit. If someone says that it's their idea and no one else's, fine. They can have it. Ideas that arent shared, may as well be dead. Information DOES want to be free (as in speech), and we could all stand to take some learning from our kindergarten classes we all slept through so long ago.

To share with your friend is a nice thing to do.

Re: Slashdot EFFECT

[ryouki]

I do not think that the slashdot effect will bring hobbes down. I know a few people who have massive hit counts for there boxes running the same connection. Sorry. What annoys me more about hobbes is the daily root login attempt from hobbes that shows up on my log files.

Not As Bad As Stealing Content!

[Phrogman]

I run a website called Omphalos - its pretty small, its taken a lot of work to develop, and I don't make a dime off of it, so I am not upset at lost revenue or anything, but I have had my site content ripped off completely by some other individual in the past, and despite repeated attempts to get the situation resolved (which I handled badly at the start I admit) and despite chasing the guy across multiple webhosts I have still failed to get my stolen content removed from his site. I even contacted the EFF on this, but they do not deal with issues of copyright.

My website has completely changed since this event, so to illustrate the point I have to point to an older copy of the site that can be compared to the stolen version (which has undergone some changes too for that matter). Keep in mind we are talking content here not appearance. What was specifically taken from my site are the website descriptions and categories that were present in my directory. Here are some example pages:

1. My old page Beginner and the corresponding page on Under a Magick Spell Magickal Books Beginner's Page
2. My old page Covens, Circles, Groves & Groups and the corresponding page on Under a Magick Spell Magickal Books Covens Page.
3. My old page Paganism & Spirituality and the corresponding page on Under a Magic Spell Magickal Books Paganism & Spirituality Page
4. There are many more pages to compare, but I leave that to the reader. My old main page is at: here and the main directory page of the offending website is here

Now, my site has grown considerably since then, and undergone many changes. In one sense I don't care that this individual has ripped off my pages because my site is progressing and is probably far better known, its also a more useful resource (and I think I can do webpages better than the other guy too). OTOH, I am really pissed off at the offense of having my site content stolen and being unable to do anything about it other than complain. I don't have the cash to take someone to court so that is not a feasible option, and I am tired of chasing this guy from one ISP to another (I have had his site removed from 3 servers so far and it just keeps reappearing elsewhere).

I found out about this because someone who had submitted their site to my website informed me that the same description had appeared on this other website, even though they did not submit their site description to that other site. Also, one of my websites ("Atho's Pagan Files Collection", now a part of Omphalos itself) is actually listed in the Bookstore's directory and *I* sure as hell didn't submit it there.

When I first discovered this I posted a complaint on my website accusing the other site of ripping me off, then contacted the webmaster. I should have done it the other way around, cause I got his back up and it became impossible to reason with him on this issue. My mistake freely admitted here. When I asked him about the similiarities between our site content, he had two comments:

1. Its just a coincidence that they are so similar.
2. I don't own a copyright on the contents of my site because it is not possible to have a copyright on webcontent.

So he refuses to listen to me, and the only recourse I have is to keep chasing him from server to server or sue him in court. I don't have the time or cash for either.

BTW if the subject matter of my site is of interest to you, please use the current version: http://www.omphalos.net

Any suggestions?

Re:Not As Bad As Stealing Content!

[Darchmare]

If you'll look back into history, you'll quite likely find that it wasn't pagans burning Christians at the cross.

Moral absolutes, indeed.


- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

If i have ever seen a bunch ..

[Anonymous Coward]

of hypocritical flaming morons, it has to be here.

In one discussion you guys argue that 'look and feel' cannot be copyrighted, in this discussion you claim that it can.

now WHAT is the difference in these 2 discussions?

In one the person being accused of copying is making an open source version of a very popular game, in this one someone made a site almost exactly the same -- icons and all -- of a web site dedicated to Open Source ..

So is it ok if I copy to make something open source? or not?

Please make up your fucking minds ..

Bullshit

[Ender Ryan]

Remember the whole thing about the M$ documents that were posted here on Slashdot? M$ sent letters demanding they remove them, Slashdot refused. What Slashdot refused to remove were documents that are copyrighted by M$.

Slashdot was right to do that, IP is bullshit.

And now they shouldn't act like hypocrits now that someone is using VA IP.

JMHFO just my honest fucking opinion

UI patents and look-and-feel issues, *again*?

[Rozzin]

Most of us bitched when Apple sued e-Machines.
Most of us bemoaned the recent tabbed-dialogue-patent suit.
Most of us were disgusted by Apple's response to the Mac-OS-X-like themes for non-Apple systems.

And, now, we're asked what we think about Hobbes' duplication of Linux.com's interface?

Re:OT

[nobody69]

(offtopic: but does anyone know how to turn off Javascript in Internet Explorer 5.0? Did you know that if you search for Javascript in IE5.0 help you get no matches!?)

When I read that I thought that can't be right, but doggone it, good ol' M$ has protected us from ourselves again AND kept us from even knowing about it. No mention of Java, JavaScript, or virtual machines anywhere in Help. You can mess with Java settings in Tools/Internet Options/Advanced (and Tools/Internet Options/Security IIRC) but that doesn't sound specific enough for your needs.

Not Apples and oranges.

[Alanzilla]

Intellectual property is intellectual property. You only make the "apples and oranges" argument because you're ethically backed into a corner.

Bill Gates would like to claim his immage

[twitter]

Dear Slashdotters,

I know I'm sort of a public figure and all, but I don't recall giving anyone permission to use my image on your site. As slashdot is a commercial site, I consider this a use of my immage for commercial purposes. A thank you or something would have been appreciated. I have never been abducted by aliens.

The Borg makeup is particularly unflatering. This is what really bothers me.

As a private citezen, I feel greatly abused here, and I hearby order you to cease and dissist. Starting tommorow, my immage and all reproductions of it should be considerd copyright. All proceeds will benifit the Microsoft foundation and my dad. Now piss off kiddies!

Love,

Billy G.

This stuff is lame guys. Getting him slashdotted and bothered by A&M is just stupid. Before you know it A&M will be putting up sweeping and moronic restrictions on hosting. None of this supposed "rip-off" has hurt anyone. He's put up a credit page with linux.com listed (more than slashdot has done for BG) and his site never took eyeball one away from linux.com, until today. Now we can be disgusted at Slashdot and Linux.com.

This looks bad TACO.

The Real Reason

[extar-bags]

Could the real reason Taco posted be neither to point fingers *or* to open a discussion, but to shut the site down himself?

Ok, so maybe it wasn't on purpose, but Taco seems to have found a solution to the offensive site.

by the time i got to this article, the site was /.ed. Hmmmmmm......

----------

Make up your minds people. GPL or BSD.

[Faw]

give credit where credit is due. If you run slashcode, then you (should) have a Slash logo with a link to slashcode.com, and it would seem appropriate to provide a link to Slashdot, too.

I know I'll get moderated down for this but here it goes. As soon as someone takes any of your code (source, HTML, ...) and doesn't gives you any credit for it, you get all pissed. Well, learn to live with it, it's GPL'd they don't have to. As long as they release the code they can do anything they want with it, including not giving you credit for it.

If I wanted I could take the GNOME code call it DWARF, make a few changes and I dont have to give credit for the programming to anyone. As long as I release the source code. Yes, I'll get flamed to hell and back, but I can do it. That's why I like the BSD license more than the GPL, give credit where credit is due.

Re:Make up your minds people. GPL or BSD.

[TSN]

It may be legal for someone to use the code w/o giving credit, but it doesn't mean they aren't a jerk... :-)

If you weren't so busy trolling ...

[Rupert]

... you might realize you are right.

Last December my neighbor demanded that I take down the icicle lights I had just (after much hard work) put up. He said that he had gone to a lot of effort to find and put up his icicle lights, and since my house now looked just like his I was infringing on his look and feel intellectual property.

Something to think about, isn't it?


--

Re:If you weren't so busy trolling ...

[ErikZ]

Well no, not really.

You are pathetic

[cjsnell]

You're trying to get this guy's resnet connection shut down because he ripped of SOME GRAPHICS? For Christ's sake, CmdrTaco has ripped off graphics for use on Slashdot. Remember the IBM logo fiasco?

I'd bet money that you have some copyrighted mp3s on your hard drive, or at least had some at one time. I'd bet that you've even used napster/gnapster/whatever at least once, too.

At any rate, that's not the point. My point is that this guy's copyright violations were incredibly minor. There are probably 1,000,000+ other sites out there that have stolen more graphics than this guy. But you're a Slashdot drone like most everyone else here and you fired off your letter anyway. Now he's pretty much screwed. I'm guessing that he won't have a resnet connection at A&M ever again.

God forbid anyone ever rip off VA Linux or talk bad about Slashdot and get mentioned here.

Right on. You forgot one point.

[cjsnell]

You forgot to mention that Slashdot has ripped off other people's images for use on this site in the past. Remember this story. CMDRTACO, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Basically, the Slashdot rules are:

1) Don't mess with Linux
2) Intellectual Property is bad unless it's owned by VA Linux or one of /.'s other "favored" companies
3) Ripping other people's work off is fine, again, unless it's a Linux company

Cmdr BSD Taco ???

[Poligraf]

Isn't it interesting that personal philosophy of Rob is pretty much BSD (use, but give a credit) ???

BTW, even his name (Rob) encourages thugs-to-be to steal his work ;-))

You must be tired...

[Wntrmute]

...beating that poor straw man over and over again like that...

-Wintermute

Disingenious Nonsense.

[jetson123]

The FSF's concern is with software, not with other kinds of intellectual property. And the primary concern is that people should be able to build on each other's software, which is different from an information free-for-all.

The problem with the current system of patents and copyrights is not that people make money with it, but that it means that it creates a web of dependencies and near-monopolies that customers get caught up in. That is clearly not desirable, least of all in a capitalist economy.

The beauty of the FSF is that it may win through market mechanisms: proprietary software causes lots of problems for its users in a free market and free society. Rather than being anti-free market, free software may ultimately what makes the software market efficient. The only thing it needs to be protected from is legal trickery, like claiming patents and copyrights on trivial aspects of commercial software.

Boy is this ironic...

[Sits]

This is kinda funny 'cos I was actually trying to redesign the SUCS site a while back and made a beta based on the old linux.com (I think it also pays homage to Helix Gnome).

If I'd known peoplle were so dead against it I wouldn't have done it... I actually thought that the linux.com site (and therefore source) were distributed under the GNU licence, which would allow me to make and change it as long as I gave credit.

On another note, there is an interesting article on web design lifting and how to prevent it in High Five.

SlashDot Original?

[geekoid]

Lets take slashdot for my example.
What is original on the slashdot site?
using 3 colmns? NO
banner on the top? no
a breakdown of sections? no
Having story names in a bigger font? no
as a matter of fact, the way slashdot looks as a whole is not original.
There are only 2 things that make slashdot original:
1:there slogan "News for Nerds. Stuff that matter"
2:Using the saying "Slashdot" for a news outlet.
My point is, the layout look af a website should not be copywriteable, however,Original Content Should.
It seems to me that a lot of people our loosing touch with the fact that its Content that matters.

This happened to me

[mmmmbeer]

About a year ago, one of my company's "strategic partners" sent us a link to a site they had seen. It turns out that this site had completely ripped off its entire layout from ours. They also stole many of our images and a great deal of our text. Naturally, we were quite pissed. Our graphic designer had worked very hard to create those images and the layout and our site builders had worked very hard to build the site. We immediately sent our lawyers after them (you only hate lawyers when they're on the other side, by the way), and fortunately the other company soon took down their site. I think there's no question that web sites should be protected under copyright law. Copying a site is equivalent to writing a book by copying somebody else's book. Clearly there's no excuse.

mod this up please - geez

[Ender Ryan]

This guy seriously has a point, more than I can say for the rest of the hypocrits on here today.

Fuck, I can't believe all the bullshit comments on here today, how fucking hypocritical. Who the hell hasn't ripped of an image or two, or three? This isn't hurting anyone, he even gives credit to linux.com, which is more than most people do. Where's the spirit of open source? Where's all the idealists who talk about how evil IP is? Did they all change their minds now because it's VA IP being used? WTF?

Leave the guy alone.

Penalty: One Slashdotting

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

His site has been Slashdotted. Isn't that punishment enough? ;)

P.S. Aren't we supposed to be against user interface copyrights here? That's what they told me.

DMCA for your website, available today!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Use the DMCA to protect your website. Change every 'e' into and then say you are only licensed to decode it with a web browser if you agree to certain conditions. Bonus points if you write your own browser that enforces your conditions and get Netscape and IE banned as circumvention tools. ;)

Re:DMCA for your website, available today!

[jjeffries]

Microsoft already has prior art, having developed an HTML encryption method called Frontpage that replaces " with ?.

Re:copyRIGHTS !

[Eccles]

And most companies aren't as foolish as Andover.

Andover.net was sold to VA Linux for $60 million+. Andover's biggest asset? Slashdot. Where did VA Linux get the money to by Andover? All the people who bought it at 100+. So the Andover bigwigs made megamillions for that $3M purchase. I wish *I* was that foolish.

Revenge is sweet

[CodeMunch]

VA Linux site posts little dude's site who ripped off one of their sites style and then little dude's box is /.'d [(C) whoever coined the term] by VA Linux's Slashdot users :)

Heheheh that guy will have a tough time playing Unreal Tournament for the rest of the day :)

345093785309487e342 ping time!!!?!?!?!?!?

--Clay

unappriciative thieves!

[Phalen]

Anything on the net is public domain? Are You people crazy? If you do even a little reading, you'll see that artwork doesn't become "public domain" until it has been out for quite a few years. That arguement would mean that all the advertising ever done for TV, magazines, billboards, etc... (artwork/layout/illustrations included) was instantly public domain as well. If you even glance at the copyright or 'work for hire' rules that govern it's creation by the employees of these companies, you'll know that just isn't so. Derivations or variations from/inspired by a work are still free and clear, but downright stealing of a design is just that... Stealing. And woe unto you if I ever catch anyone doing that to any of my work. Phalen (an honest to God, real life, full time, professional designer)

He's been slashdotted

[vulgrin]

Doesn't matter if he copied the site. All you have to do is bring it up on /. and watch his site go down, his ISP pull the plug, his dog run away, and his woman leave him, and his beer goes flat.

Just like a good ole country song.

Actually, this does bring up a really good point: Its kind of sad that anything that gets posted up here, because we think its cool, or we think its news, ends up getting killed due to everyone slashdotting it. :) Kind of like a "We think you're cool! Now lets just burn your hard drive up trying to fulfill 1,000,000 web requests. :)

Vulgrin the MAD

ceast-and-desist letter != IP theft

[SethJohnson]

A cease-and-desist letter is a formality. A bullying tactic. In that sentiment you quoted, CmdrTaco is encouraging resistance to this bullying tactic. I can assure you that before the RIAA sued Diamond multimedia over the Rio being marketed, there was a flurry of cease-and-desist orders mailed. When you are the target of a complaint as laughable as this or the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia lawsuit, you have a decision to make, are you going to bow down and submit to the lawyers' demands or are you going to say 'put up or shut up'? All Slashdot is advocating is that people stand up against this tyranny.

Seth

I forgot, but did Microsoft REALLY sue?

[SethJohnson]

If I remember correctly, I think Slashdot left those posts up and basically told Microsoft legal to 'bring it on'.

This is essentially what slashdot also did when the MPAA sent cease-and-desist letters out to all the websites with links to the DeCSS code. Had they and the other defendants (2600, etc) acquiesced and removed the links, then this case would have been tried and our freedom of speech would have been reduced another notch.

Perhaps it would have been better had Apple sent a cease-and-desist letter over to Microsoft back when Win 3.0 was released ordering them to cut-out marketing of graphical user interfaces because Apple had a copyright on it... Oh, I guess that's not such a good example. Sorry.

Seth

They won the garbage can

[eclectro]

The only thing they got was protection for their garbage can icon. Somehow ironic. That's why windows has a 'recycle bin'. Other OS have something different there to - dumpster, wastebasket. Only apple gets to have the garbage can. That has to be the most expensive garbage can ever!

I personally feel like under today's law and the prevailing "plaintiff is right (or defendant is guilty until proven innocent) attitude that IP laws have now (DMCA), the outcome would be entirely different. For starters, MS probably would have been required to pull all their copies of windows off the shelf until they could show that it wasn't infringing.

Offtopic, but I'm annoyed

[fireant]

Or how about the way that "morons" and "retards" stereotype people? I myself am an Aggie, and proud of it damnit! I have never worked on the bonfire, I'm not in the Corps of Cadets, and (gasp!) I'm a Mexican! I know many Hispanics in the Corps, and I have Asian, Indian, and African American friends and acquaintances who have not (in their time here in College Station) been on the receiving end of racial hostilities. That's not to say that there are no racial incidents, but they are not as widespread as you imply.

Or how about the predominately macho military centric views they espise?

Give me a break! Where did you get that nonsense? I assume you are making a reference to the Corps. Do you have any idea what percentage of the student population they make up? Well, I don't, but I'd say that out of 45,000 students, there are 6,000 CT's, tops. Not enough to sway the entire student body into a "macho military centric view".

As for Bonfire, well, okay, it turned out to be a bad design, a bit too tall, and not enough support (IIRC)... Drinking while building Bonfire is a long and ill-advised tradition, but there was no evidence that it led to the accident.

As for the Aggie jokes, who do you think makes up most of them? &lt flamebait&gt Do you think the t-sips are smart enough to make them up on their own? &lt/flamebait&gt

Anyway, I just had to respond. I love this town and I love this university, and I can't stand it when someone says what you said. If I was moderating your comment, it would have either been Flamebait or Troll. I find it amusing that you decided to use the automatic +1 even when it had nothing to do with the main topic.

"... message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an excercise in computer science masturbation."

Re:Offtopic, but I'm annoyed

[el_chicano]

As for the Aggie jokes, who do you think makes up most of them? Do you think the t-sips are smart enough to make them up on their own?

Nahhh... It's the people from Rice that make them up! :->

Seriously, the Aggies often bring on the stereotypes by their actions. One year the Marching Owl Band made fun of the Corps' mascot Reville, a collie. The band members had to be snuck (sneaked?) out of the football stadium in food service vans.

The Aggies wanted to kill the band members because they made fun of a DOG!!! Tradition is one thing but organized lunacy is another thing entirely...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

Just slashdot it out of existence if it bothers

[eclectro]

you by posting a story about it on the main page. The computing lab at his school will call him in the front office for clogging up the lines. His site will be down for good! Sounds like a plan to me!

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :-))

Re:copyRIGHTS !

[Score Whore]

Are you trying to tell us that VA Linux's initial offering price was 100+? Because otherwise they don't get a penny of the money when their stock is traded.

Mirror Site

[naloxone]

It looks like the site in question has been slashdotted.
Please refer to the archival mirror here.

Beyond legality...

[disarray]

Cute as it may seem, there's no appropriate application for the "do it now and ask forgiveness later" principle. The moral course of action is to *ask permission*, not give credit and hope the originator of the design doesn't complain. Design is the result of someone's hard work and quite possibly the investment of money in that design, as is the case with Linux.com.

Moreover, what's the purpose behind that design? There's more to it than 'making something look cool'. An integral part of design is establishing a visual identity. Take cnet or Yahoo or any such 'collection' of sites. They all have a uniform style--one can easily recognize movies.yahoo.com as part of Yahoo. Stealing the design of a site dilutes the visual recognition the 'parent' site has established.

Make no mistake--as a Web designer (possibly not an accomplished one, but one nonetheless) I hold a bias. I'd be pretty darn annoyed if someone ripped off one of my designs. If said design was on a personal site, however, I'd entertain a request from someone to use it--but I wouldn't tolerate blatant theft. On the other hand, if someone stole one of my client's designs, it's out of my hands. I created it for them; how they defend it is their choice.

All IMHO, of course. Likewise, none of this speaks to the legalities involved--merely the moral implications.

(OT)Turning off JS in IE

[yerricde]

Microsoft can't say "Java" anymore because its "J++" language was found not to be 100% compatible with Java® technology. In IE, you can turn off J?v?Script by turning off "Active Scripting" in the Internet security zone.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

If Hyundai made BMW-look alike.

[RottenApple]

Well, I can't understand computer users' opinion when they say "borrowing your design without permission is OK."

What if Hyundai made cars just look like BMW's?
( without permission )
The SSANGYONG ( Korean company ) made a model of Benz, and when it sold in Korea, the shape of front side is looking different from the model sold in foreign market. Because the car has SSANGYONG as its brand name.

When desing is for differentiating one product from others' products, it should not be copied by others.
But if the design is not registered for legal protection, the owner of the design has no right on protecting the design. It's that simple rule.

Computer users don't seem to think like that, though.

Grey Boundries

[DeamonGorgos]

I see a potential for difficulty in tell what is a rip-off and and what is not. I, for example, read about frames (something that seems to go in and out of style, but is most out now) soon after Netscape developed them, and used them to create a scrollable table of content -- but mine was on the left side, something I've only seen in one other site since, becuase I had just made the layout up. Many others would come up with a similar idea. Many elements are bound to appear repeatably for practical reasosn. Thus, it is sometimes hard to tell where coincidence, rip-offs, and come influence (electronic or otherwise) / current culture, are the reasons for similarity.

Still, if it is a total copy, it seems to go without saying that, at least credit should be given. Still, I'd hate to see formal copyrights become a common and legally powerful practice in this area, since that would open a can-of-worms; there are to many people trying to pattent the wheel (read: mouse clicks, or commerse, or....) already, and the inherent vagarities would make this a dangerous area for such tactics.

I for one wouldn't borrow actual code from someone else's pages, unless I were making new pages for the the same site, and needed an identical layout (which I have done). Seems like bad form. Still, I suppose, thats one way to do it .... :-/

Religious Bias

[Phrogman]

I am sorry to hear that my misfortune and frustration has entertained you in this way. I gather you do not count compassion or sympathy amongst your ethical preferences here.

I never said I believe in Moral Absolutes per se, simply that I do believe in the concept of copyright for one's works. My rights as such have been violated in my opinion. It's too bad your view of my religious choice has caused you to ignore speaking on this issue, and instead focus on maligning my religion. In my posting I made no comments of a religious nature at all, and in fact hoped to avoid any such discussions, but your inane and biased comments force me to make some reply.

In what way, are my religious beliefs (about which you know SQUAT by the way since I did not post them) "fundamentally in opposition to the entire idea of objective truth"? What objective truth, and in what way are they opposed to it?

The difference between layout and look and feel

[terminalkaleidoscope]

I'm a webmaster, and I can assure you that there are VERY limited ways that a web site can be laid out. That's one of the challenges of and attractions to this medium.

See, it's all boxes stacked on boxes within other boxes. There's only so many ways to stack them, folks. The art of web page design is in transcending these boxes, by creatively arranging your content, whether it be artwork or text or what have you.

Like a cereal box, there's only so many ways to package our information -- what separates us is our CONTENT --- and I think everyone can agree that that should be protectable.
Bearing in mind that I haven't even seen the site in question here (it seems to be down), so I don't know whether graphics or text were taken or not (which would be another matter), I'm not even sure that attribution for a layout should even be expected. It borders on the absurd. Should newspapers have an 'inspired by the London Times' line on it?

When I write my code, should I be giving attribution to the sites, books and magazines I disected when I learned how to code? Ridiculous.

On the other hand -- if I took the look and feel of Amazon and applied it to another site, maybe you've got a case here.
I think this flies in the face of the idea of open source. After all -- at the very HEART of open source, isn't it the idea of figuring out 'how they did that' that brought us all here in the first place?

It may just be slashdotter protectionism at work here that this subject has so many posts -- I've seen it before in the Macintosh world: the company/group we're rooting for is being predatory and over-protective in ways that we'd find deplorable if by chance the offender wasn't on our team in the first place.

It's ridiculous, and reminds me of the Adobe 'tabbed palette interface' patent and Amazon's 'one-click purchasing.' How can we protect the interests of our friends, but when the concept is applied elsewhere, we decry it at the top of our geeky little lungs?

Gift Culture

[John Whitley]

If you buy into the idea of the open source movement being a gift culture, as suggested by ESR, then the answer to CmdrTaco's question "isn't saying thanks and crediting your source part of it too?" is obviously yes. In gift culture, it is precisely this lack of acknowledgement which is a major slight to the giver. It is a substantial part of the "payment" for the contribution of effort.

... and on a somewhat offtopic note, consider the 5-rated (!!) troll who wrote:

"...this is the road that RMS and the FSF want to lead us down. No IP rights, and no recourse against people who "share" the output of your hard work."

What a truly astonishing lack of clue about the FSF and its goals.

Everybody got tunnel vision?

[Anonymous Coward]

What needs to be looked at is the whole picture. A layout cannot be copyighted. If it could, there would probably be only a couple dozen useful websites out there. Would the first person that put links on the left hand side of the screen be the only person that can use that layout?

A good comparison to a website would be a book. Can you copyright the layout of the chapter title? No.

However, some people are not making one important distinction here. Content. If you have a poster with Linus on it, and his name is printed at the top of the poster in Courier, does that mean that a poster of Bill with his name in the same position and the same font constitutes as infringement? C'mon.

Disclaimer: the use of any person's name does not constitute support of that person or their companies.

Re:Right on. You forgot one point.

[PurpleBob]

Hypocrisy is when you say people should do one thing, and you do another.

If someone else says you should do one thing, and you do another, that's called "having a mind of your own".

Observe that the articles were submitted by different people. (CmdrTaco did not submit them. Learn how Slashdot works.)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.

Where is it?!

[slams]

Is it me or did the offending web page just disappear of the face off the earth.

-slams

A simple solution...

[digitalmind]

Yes folks, I have a simple solution to this.

An ass-whuppin.


Linux.com is owned by linux VA, which has a SHITLOAD of money. Whoever wrote up the site in question has very little of it, or else I find it hard to beleive that he couldn't spend fifty bucks for a descent graphics program (or, if he's into linux, he couldn't spend the $0.00 dollars for the gimp? whata cheapass.) He also is too cheap or too lazy to develop or even to buy his own content. I therefore say that he should be punished by a flogging for stealing design and a major lawsuit for violating copyright, stealing and piracy (piracy because he "borrowed" the icons from another site and by not giving credit where it is due is claiming it as his own. It would be like me "borrowing" all the slashdot icons for stories on my website [Even though news stories on my website don't use icons]).

NO CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE? HOW ABOUT A BEATING WHERE IT IS DUE!?



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Right on.

[NuclearArchaeologist]

That was well put. This guy's site is just a derivative and he did give credit to linux.com I don't see much difference between downloading source code, making some trivial changes and then republishing it for others to enjoy and learn from. This site is just an extreem example of content reuse.

The whole point of the web is to be able to link content and this is counter to traditional image and verbage copyright left over from the days of printing presses. Our maligned friend could have linked all of those images to his site so that linux.com's servers would bear the load of his traffic. I don't think he did (Damn ATT@Home for bad DNS). Instead, he elected to make a more permenent copy of the pictures linux.com put onto his computer and serve them himself. If you put something up, you are sharing it. Expect it to be used and rejoice. Every attributed copy is your praise.

Some of the coments around here are just depressing. It's sad to see posts advancing the agenda of people who are working to undo the great tool the internet can be. The issue is control. This line of reasoning can be used to keep you from linking anything. Movie studios are already fighting "deep linking" with some success. Don't give up your rights to use the information on your machine as you see fit.

You should go read the GPL.

[NuclearArchaeologist]

These things have been thought of before and you can find most of the ansers at the Free Softwar Foundation's web site:

http://www.fsf.org/

Of course, there you can also find the GPL:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

Enjoy and share.

None of this will keep you from earning a living, but you might want to reconsider how to do that. The web is a tool that is much better at dissemination of information than the copyright schemes that protect traditional publications. Sharing knowlege is both natural and in the public interest. Preventing others from doing is unnatural.

slashdot violated their "IP", doesn't matter

[Ender Ryan]

If I remember correctly, I think Slashdot left those posts up and basically told Microsoft legal to 'bring it on'.

That's correct, that's exactly what they did. They did not respect Microsoft's IP. Those documents are in fact copyrighted by Microsoft. Slashdot violated Microsoft's IP rights, because when it's someone else's IP, they seem to think the whole idea of IP is wrong. But when it's IP that has something to do with Linux, people on here(cmdrtaco and the slashdot crew included) don't stick to their ideals.

You can't have it both ways.

Re:slashdot violated their "IP", doesn't matter

[CR0]

sigh. no one (including me likely) looks at the big picture. why, oh why.

slashdot had nothing to do with MS's IP, the poster did. slashdot being the provider. same deal as if google linked to a web site that had copyright. not googles fault. it is the authors.

if now slashdot had removed the article, they would have in essence been saying they are responsible for and capable of monitoring and legalizing comments. not just this comment, but they would then be responsible for every comment ever posted on slashdot. hello censorship.

what slashdot did was right.

and btw: sticking to their ideals means releasing things like slashcode. i would say they are doing an admirable job. their IP rights are freely downloadable under an open source licence i believe.

Re:slashdot violated their "IP", doesn't matter

[Ender Ryan]

sigh. no one (including me likely) looks at the big picture. why, oh why.

I know what you mean. I try, but fail to see it often. But dammit, at least I look! ; )

Seriously, Slashdot isn't comparable to a search engine because a search engine merely links to other sources. Slashdot hosts the content. Although, just watch search engines come under fire with plaintifs(sp?) citing Judge Kaplan's ruling in the DeCSS trial blocking people from even LINKING to DeCSS.

Now, I'm not saying Slashdot was wrong in not removing the Microsoft documents, personally, I think current IP law is complete bullshit and needs a complete overhaul. What I was upset about was that everyone was getting so fired up about a guy using the same site design as linux.com. The guy even gave credit to linux.com. I thought it was very hypocritical.

Yes, slashcode has been released under the GPL, which is nice to see.

Have Sympathy...

[SUWAIN]

While I am certainly not implying that (s)he was correct in ripping stuff off from other people, I believe that it is rather hard not to, in some way, imitate another site. The site is down, so I can't judge how much of a rip-off it was.

I have been slowly trying to put a nice site together for myself, and have a really hard time deciding on a look. Essentially, whenever I go to a site with a really nice interface, I start studying how they did it. My problem is that, depending on my mood, I try to "reverse engineer" their site, and create my own looking similar. I do not steal their graphics, but I have tried to get sites to look similar.

So, in short, I think that what was done was wrong - but far too easy to do.

...............
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name

That would depend...

[Extremist]

...on whether or not the page was sent over an SSL connection. After all, SSL encrypts the data to prevent seeing information, some of which is surely copyrighted. Since the end user gets all the plain text, that makes it about as "secure" as CSS, so it's just as protected by the DCMA, right? ;)

Stealing the look and feel of an interface...

[lost_it]

If I recall correctly, there is a window manager (maybe that's not the right term for it, I've forgotten the right terms for the different parts of the X system) that looks almost exactly like Win9x? Was any credit given to MS for providing the work? I know that there is also a way to make X look like the Mac's interface. Was any credit given there?

Sorry, but don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

academia

[xant]

Well, now, that's academia. Clearly plagiarism of this sort is verboten in academia, because academic environments exist for the purpose of teaching, and nothing is learned by hitting the 'Paste' button. Also, in academia, the ONLY thing of value is the credit you get for having produced an idea first, which is something that is lost when someone takes your work without crediting you.

In other realms, including the realm in which linux.com operates, plagiarism is tolerable, and even, in open source, useful. After all, the source is open so people can USE it, right?

Paradox: when copy becomes a theft

[ElitistWhiner]

Tim Berners Lee invented the _URL_ to enable people to link into works rather than copy verbatim. That culture of a copy at a click of a button has been short circuited by copying whole rather than linking in prior works. So much for good intentions.

Web technology makes it easy to copy works in the digital domain, at the expense of original art, making first authorship irrelevent much less reimbursed.

Boilerplate webpage designs are visual noise through which humans must squelch through to the real signal. Some designs are better suited for some signals than others. News sites, Digests, Banking, etc... share common elements that follow a stylistic norm.

When such website designs copy and share-in-common more than one of either content, context or infrastructure you have an actionable case based upon theft of property.

I think this is the distinction which clarifies the paradox of when does a copy become a theft.

Who cares what it violates?

[Jack9]

Anything on the internet is public domain. It just hasnt been codified yet. There's nothing to stop a 3rd world website from using all the images and content from another site...it's just a matter of time. Without a 1 world government, copywrite law is dead. Why would you want to fight such an obvious trend? Toothpaste. Tube. Dont argue about something that is inevitable. So be happy with capitalism and be part of history.

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.

Re:Web page looks as copyrightable as your home de

[jmp100]

I've noticed that Slashdot and just about every other news-oriented website is based on a much older design - the newspaper. Think about it. You have one big column in the center and two narrow columns on either side on the front page. And if you look at newspapers, you might even be able to trace THEIR layout to ancient manuscripts, if you really look hard enough.

You can't patent or copyright something for which there are examples of prior art, there are a few centuries of prior art to get over first. :)

Re:OT: Disabling scripting in IE 5.0+

[_xeno_]

Tools -> Internet Options... -> Security (tab) -> -> Custom Level (button) -> Scripting -> Active Scripting

(The Scripting and Active Scripting are way the hell down on the scrolling list of options.)

Choose "Disable" to prevent JavaScript (or VBScript, or any other script) from running. Choose "Enable" to allow. Choose "Prompt" to find out just how many sites use JavaScript. (It get's annoying after a while. Very, very, annoying.)

Yup, it must be a ripoff ...

[Roy Ward]

... I've definitely seen this layout somewhere before ;-) :

The requested URL could not be retrieved
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/

The following error was encountered:

Unable to determine IP address from host name for hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu

The dnsserver returned:

Name Error: The domain name does not exist.

This means that:

The cache was not able to resolve the hostname presented in the URL.
Check if the address is correct.

Copying websites?

[MadCat]

I wouldn't know, if one blatantly copies the exact layout (e.g. color schemes, button/banner placements, etc) that's a bad thing. Personally, for some of my own sites I've been inspired by other sites, for example a certain page layout done with tables. I loved it, looked at their code (a 9x9 table grid, sorta news-papery like) and used that on my own. But with my own buttons, text, colors and all that. You can't really put a copyright on a layout mechanism. For example, Slashdot consists of 3 vertical segments - there are plenty of other sites that use this type of layout.

It's sort of an iffy question really whether one can copyright a website layout - it's possible that 2 people on opposite ends of the world end up building 2 websites that look similar, and beyond that you can get down to the nitty-gritty of 'can you copyright a 3 column 6 row table layout'. You can't because it's a method of achieving a certain look, not 'the look'. The look itself is dictated with what you put -in- the table cells, and more importantly, where you place it.

Re:Right on. You forgot one point.

[cjsnell]

Fool, read the damned article. CmdrTaco was using IBM's logo without permission and apparently, in an improper way. It wasn't a story submission, dork.

Lets be for real

[skantman]

With millions of pages going up, changing, and going down every day how could we even hope to make an issue of this?

I mean, its like protesting somebody who wears the same shirt as you because they saw you wearing it and liked it. No one has become a loyal visitor of a site just because they thought the navigation was really great. Its the content that brings them back. I mean, is linux.com going to lose their regulars to this guy's site just because his layout is the same? If he was deliberately trying to trick people into his site by riping off the layout that would be an issue. I hate a bad design scheme as much as the next guy, but there are plenty of people out there who haven't a chance of becoming experts at design or html even, but they may have some worthy information to share. Are we to say, "Sorry, don't care about that. If you can't do it without ripping off someones html you can't do it at all."? As for as I'm concerned it's all about the info. If you have to use my design to do it, help yourself. I can always make more.

AckAck

Slashdotting == DDoS?

[jeti]

I wonder if slashdotting a site counts as a DDoS and whether it's legal. The site of the suing party sure is down.

Re:You are living proof

[anonymous cowerd]

The GPL is a legal document. This discussion is not about law. It is about ethics, good taste, stuff like that which falls outside the ambit of lawyers, judges, and financiers. If it were about law, then the tagline would have read something like "VA Linux SUES hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu" or something ugly, stupid and pointless like that.

Of course it could be, emburdened as you are with your own procapitalist slant (hey whyncha sue me for appropriating your phrase, your innalechshul propitty, without proper attribution and royalties?) maybe you can't even imagine anything in the universe of human actions which is not strictly gagged and bound by money relations and police enforcement of the same. Capitalism has blinkered out the horizon of your thought. Too bad for you!

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Whither credit?

[barthel]

Look and feel are not protected by copyright, but the code and images used to create that "look and feel" are. Great. At the very least, we of the free software community ought to have the intellectual honesty to give credit to our sources. (Yep, sources. Stealing from one is plagarism, stealing from many, research.) But credit to whom? To the immediate source or the primary source? More importantly, how do we *know* where credit is due? I've seen collections of web graphics that claimed copyright on all of the images within their site yet included duplicates from other sources--even to the filename and size. Is it enough to say "I found it at Al's Used Icon Lot" or does it become incumbent upon me to discover that it was really drawn by Zoe (who released it for free distribution and use but maintains copyright on her work)?

To be honest, I've grabbed graphics from *all* over--and I'm not completely certain about the source of each (although I try to be careful to ensure that they're freely usable). Plus, I've tweaked some so much that the deriviation is not obvious to anyone but myself (since I keep copies of my source images).

While not in the same league as the wholesale copying from a single site, I'm not entirely convinced in my own mind that "stealing from many" is any better--especially when appropriate credit can by given.

--

It it just me ...

[VaNTeCH]

... or has this site been remoted, /.ed, or what?

I tried to look at it just now (Sept 2nd, 18:43 GMT) without success! Oh well will try again later.

Graham

Corrections

[VaNTeCH]

Maybe by the shear number of people correcting that mistake /. may do something about it ;-)

Graham

Graphical Design vs. Printed Design

[konala]

I'm a graphical designer and a programmer (yes, it can be an odd mix). I've had two instances where people have ripped off my design (and one was content too, and direct linking to my images). Most of the people here think that a graphical image created by someone has no bearing with copyright issues because it is on a public webpage. Well, I can go to a museum and see a painting, that's public. But do I go and steal the painting, no. If I like it that much, I'll paint something that was inspired by it. So, I guess that graphical design doesn't follow the same rules as printed design because they are two different mediums? It's a horrible feeling to have all of your hard work stolen, and then for the person to feel it's something that is allright to do (even when you state in your webpage specifically against that). Just my two cents (or maybe a dime). ~KONala >^..^

so why is slashdot still in business?

[SethJohnson]

If microsoft really had a case against slashdot on this issue, they would have filed a lawsuit. They didn't, and that's why slashdot didn't get sued over this. Sure, your interpretation may be that this was intellectual property, but that's not how a judge would have perceived it. Fair use. Plain and simple.

Seth

Re:so why is slashdot still in business?

[Ender Ryan]

I don't know about that, I think it would have gone the other way. The documents were posted in full, which really does not fall under fair use(I could be mistaken).

I think what they were really worried about was drawing attention to their attempted kerberos embracing and extending during this whole anti trust thing. They sure don't need any more examples of them being anti-competitive right now.

I was impressed that Slashdot didn't remove the postings. I also liked how they responded to M$.

A footnote...

[media.org!webchick]

I just wanted to provide a pointer to this interesting rant at the O'Reilly network called Cop yright in the Information Age

webchick

Re:Ok

[Web Design Guru]

Well, I feel that open source in some cases is ok, as relating to web design. But, If you plan on taking the exact code and using it on your web site, you should give credit to the original writer. If you change the code a lot, or rewrite it using the author's original code, then this would be considered ok in my eyes because it is the spread of technology. Open Source is ok when it doesn't relate to taking the code line for line. Developing a system of learning is important, but a thank-you here and there never hurts. At least let the original programmer know he/she has helped someone and that his/her work has been appreciated. Justin

Re:copyRIGHTS !

[Eccles]

Are you trying to tell us that VA Linux's initial offering price was 100+? Because otherwise they don't get a penny of the money when their stock is traded.

Short answer: you're right, I'm wrong.