Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This felt like a completely pyrrhic victory. Not only did they expose how unnecessary their own product was, but they exposed how unprofessional of a shop they were by leveling accusations over Twitter [0].

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

> ScrollyTelling demonstrated that it would rather burn them than mediate technical fuckups.

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?

> 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.

On the other hand, the idea that large entities should be able to get away with "small" transgressions just because it would be too costly than is worth it to pursue litigation isn't exactly the best situation either.

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.

I asked them on Twitter what the timeline was for the DMCA and they never replied. Their original post is vague on the timeline of when they attempted friendly contact and to whom:

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.

This is a good summary. Their market is not very big and they really need to face what the market realities are, however unfair they may be. Which means acting in a constructive way. Snark is very much the last thing that comes to mind when I see "professionalism".

Meh, I think "professionalism" just means "following the social rules corporations want you to follow", so I don't much care. I don't really think there's a good "professional" way to handle this situation.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com