Slashdot Mirror
Stop! Website Thief!
Rick Zeman writes "We've all heard of people grabbing an image from this web site, ideas from that web site, or some content from yet another web site. But what do you do when someone takes your entire web site and hosts it in a foreign country? Silicon.com has an article that tells the tale of two such web sites."
This seems to have happened to fark.com, unless there's another explaination for this.
Slashdot comments can be accurate, highly modded, or posted quickly. Pick two.
"Information wants to be free. Copying digital data doesn't take away anything from the original."
But the information was already freely available on the original site. The forged, plagerised site stole the presentation of the information to make themselves some advertising revenue.
If an artist doesn't want something to be copied, they shouldn't release it."
I can honestly say I've never heard this argument used.
Digital content should be done for the joy of creating
The original site creator did do that. he made it for his enthusiasm in all things car related. He then found out he could pay for the site with ad revenue, and maybe make some money for his hard work. The plagerists stole the presentation of this persons information solely to make money. they had no interest in using the information in an intellectual way.
It's my hope that the "abolish online copyrights" crowd will chime in on this case and explain better than I can why pirating MP3s and movies is okay, and this is not.
I'm not against "online copyrights" as you say. I am against the extension of copyrights for the purpose of greed, ie, Disney's fight to not let Mickey Mouse get released into the public domain. Abolishing copyrights is rediculous. Sensible copyright law is not. We don't really have sensible copyright law these days.
I'm not in favor of pirating mp3's or movies, yet I do see a great difference between this and that.