The end result is, I now know there is an open source alternative, and if the need were to arise would use it.
I'll take scrollytelling at their word that they were doing this to take a stand for software copyright. Sure, I can respect that. But if you're fighting for a world where SaaS/PaaS developers are properly paid and valued, the most convincing victories are when developers (particularly ones that depend on open-source) and such platforms attract loyal, deep-pocketed clients who show everyone else that such a business can be viable.
This isn't like the case when The Oatmeal burned the HuffPo [1] for hotlinking. The Oatmeal presumably doesn't survive by syndicating to places like Huffpo. But clients who are somewhat unskilled at web production/hosting are the sole source of potential customers for ScrollyTelling, and ScrollyTelling demonstrated that it would rather burn them than mediate technical fuckups.
[0] https://twitter.com/Scrollytellio/status/769971459263459328
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/28/cartoonist-the...
edit: fixed typo in Oatmeal/Huffpo
From what I understand, they tried contacting them directly, but were given lots of promised callbacks / actions that never materialized. Is your opinion that the "professional" way to handle that just to ignore it and move on?
No. That's what courts are for.
This notion that you (in the general sense) should publicly shame businesses and people over private concerns is absurd.
I'm not saying that's the case here, but I can definitely see people at a large company working that sort of logic into their decision-making process. If all they had to do was ignore the "small guy" and he would eventually go away (due to the cost of long-protracted legal battle against an opponent with deep pockets), then they would.
https://twitter.com/dancow/status/777702314475819009
The earliest public Tweet I see about the issue is this, on Aug. 28, just a few weeks ago:
https://twitter.com/Scrollytellio/status/769971299317911552
So it looks like they've been emailing them at least before Aug. 28. But I disagree with the idea that there's nothing in between polite private emailing and then hostile subtweeting. Did Scrollytelling try the kind of gentle public shaming where they direct mention a few AJ editors about the matter? I don't see it.
Don't get me wrong, no matter what their intentions, AJ was in the wrong to host copyrighted frontend code, and in an ideal world, the wronged party shouldn't have to Google for Twitter contacts to get them to comply. But we don't live in an ideal world of instant feedback and retribution. Scrollytelling has the right, of course, to blow it up as they did. I'm just pointing out that it was not just limited to surrender vs. going nuclear on the blogosphere. And in the media world, media people are very quick to act on Twitter, even when they don't respond to emails. I once complained on Twitter about WSJ's paywall and immediately got a response from the executive editor of the WSJ. It ended up with him blocking me for probably being snarky, but the point is that media people up the chain can be reachable without Herculean effort.
And if you are a company whose customer base is completely reliant on media clients, it seems prudent to go for the constructive public outreach way rather than jumping right into "FUCK YOU PAY ME" discourse, especially when it seems that incompetence and not malice is the cause.
But as for how I'd handle this situation as a person, I'd consult a lawyer, and if a cease and desist wasn't likely to work, yes, I'd just ignore it and move on. Shooting yourself in the foot out of revenge isn't good for anyone even if you also manage to shoot the person using your content.
It's not that long in the business world, I'd personally wait about 90 days before making a public stink about anything except something that'd terminate my company before then.
But they tried that first? From the first blog post:
> Hidde promised to resolve the situation. In addition we contacted you directly too. After waiting patiently we received no response. After many tries through your editorial office we got hold of an editor who promised to return our call. This never happened either. As a final measure we sent you a DMCA takedown request and waited patiently. No response.
They then moved on to AJ whom they have no relationship with. They got a response back, but not to the speed they wanted. No idea how long this was from the article.
Besides, it's far from a secret that we're standing on the shoulders of Pageflow. It's on our homepage, and we have a good relationship with them. We are overall #5 contributor to Pageflow: https://github.com/codevise/pageflow/graphs/contributors
Al-Jazeera had been using Pageflow for a long time and it's great that they continue doing so. This outcome is perfect as far as we are concerned!
Do you think the infringing code would have been removed without public shaming? Not necessarily out of malice, but in large organisations these matters tend to be forgotten or idle for a long time.
Anyway they did try to settle things amicably, to no avail.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the first public tweet regarding this matter is this: https://twitter.com/Scrollytellio/status/769971299317911552
> @Hiddemhigh poor form to actively link to a stolen ripoff of our code. cc @martijnvtol
I've had luck communicating with media folks by prodding them on Twitter, e.g. "Hey @editor, who is the best person to talk about etc etc". Did ScrollyTelling do that? Was it necessary to jump from private prodding to hostile accusation via subtweet?
Now in this case the public shaming seems tame and does not seem to have devolved to individual witch hunts. But look no further then 'dongle gate' where a single twitter post led to two relatively innocent people being fired (neither intended the consequences of their actions IMO) and you can see where public shaming in general gets us.