Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs:
"So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup.
In other words, The Daily Mail deliberately stole my work."
Yes, but the parent poster isn't wrong; the bulk of the article is about iframe embedding, and it's a clear distinction people should draw in terms of responsibility.
In addition, DM crossed a line that they shouldn't have crossed by re-hosting the content. But conflating iframe embedding and content theft is a bad precedent.
> Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs:
This is an unhelpful comment to make. But if you're going to take that tack, one could plausibly make the same remark in response to your comment. Because farther down, the post talks about the other time the Daily Mail used one of his visualiations:
They didn't just screenshot the map. They didn't just embed the map itself. They iframed my entire site, which is why the FlowingData logo and header appear on their site.
So there were two instances. One in which they copied the code and removed the code snippet, and another in which they just iframe-ed the page. The charitable interpretation of the GP's comment is that they were referring to the latter.
Dodgy as hell though, if you do it without attribution. And you are sticking the true owner with the bandwidth costs.
Also: "So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup."
He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded.
Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then embedded their own iframe referencing the copied files with the protections removed.
This sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.
... and many photographers have successfully sued for various websites using their imagery without permission - regardless of whether or not it was publicly available on the author's website.
The fact that copyright is violated on a regular basis does not make this case any more or less excusable.
I agree with you but that didn't come across well in my comment. My point was to say that it is indeed the same thing, only it sounds different because it took more steps to accomplish.
Though I agree and understand the difference (layman's mistaken terms aside), it's also a criminal version of copyright infringement which, if memory serves correctly, in the US is a more stiff penalty than petty theft even.
More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.
Well if you moderated comments/users that made threats of physical violence against me I wouldn't be tempted to make posts referencing them. You can't deny seeing the comment in question since you replied to it.
