THN Magazine Stole Our Code and Design
blog.hackermonthly.com
blog.hackermonthly.com
However, that changes when we see that the css file has been copied exactly. That makes a much stronger case that they may have started with your design and altered it just enough to seem to be different.
As I tried to make clear, that the css file is stolen straight out, that's clearly plagiarism/theft of that file. And even though the file lacks a copyright notice such notices are no longer strictly required.
The layouts of course look very similar because they are both using the same css to set everything up.
That all said, Helvetica/Arial in menu categories, Georgia as body font and 40px margins is something on a lot of sites. These are quite generic settings. There's not a lot of leeway possible for something like margins, there's a small finite range of reasonable settings. It's expected that many sites will have the same ones.
It's also exceptionally common to have a logo in upper left, section selections to the right, a bar at the top, and text with margins below it. This is a completely standard web layout.
Even seeing everything here exactly the same but with different text, sections and css files, it would no longer be certain to be cloned, but entirely possible to be just another person using a standard web layout with the same settings.
How many typewritten letters have I received with 0.5" or 1" margins? A lot. Sent a lot too. Margin settings are not intellectual property at all, neither is font selection, especially when choosing completely standard web fonts in the same way that is used by many sites. Even if someone did peek at their css and "steal" their 40px setting because they like those margins, it's not theft to do so. Stealing the entire layout by copying the css file, yeah, that's a problem though.
Let's assume I also decided to design a site with the same core layout - a bar on the top with the logo and the menu, content on the bottom, that's not unusual as you point out, but already a coincidence. However, I have to decide on the height of the top bar - is any value between 40 and 60 objectively better than all the other ones so that everyone deciding on this kind of design would settle on the same one? Next step, I decide on a drop shadow below the top bar, again a reasonable coincidence. Again however, a graphic program will typically require to specify the color, the opacity and the radius of the shadow with thousands of combinations possible that look almost the same aesthetically so there is no reason people would pick one over another very often. Then you decide for the color of the highlight of the button, again, there are hundreds of colors that give almost the same effect visually but they "picked" _exactly_ the same one. It's the same with many other small nuances, font size, line height, border color, link color etc.
Even if there would be just 10 rational choices in each step, with 20 steps (both values way underestimated) that's already 10* *20 possible combinations. If you create a design in a space of a 20 dimensions and a total of 10 trillions of possibilities having differences in say 3 of the dimensions cannot serve as a defence. Hence almost always when people bring this argument up a closer examination shows little signs of plain old copy-paste beyond any reasonable doubt, just like the example with google analytics people point out below.
As far as using the same web layout as far as having header footer menu and columns it's not even a coincidence, it's just a standard layout. It's not a coincidence that someone else has a red car, they are very common.
I will address the issue of whether a layout that looks similar is definitely a copy. I don't agree with that.
Is using "0px 2px 5px #CCC;" as drop shadow settings proof of copying as you are claiming? Absolutely not. It is not some obscure color, it's GRAY. Gray drop shadows are very common. The assertion that the other settings are too particular or unique among billions of possibilities is completely absurd. You really think this is the only site with this drop shadow setting? I will bet you $500,000 it is not. Warning: I already checked. That is not surprising at all. 0px for horizontal offset is not just common but required for shadows coming from an above light source. 2px vertical offset is common as well. 5x blurring is common as well. The entire combination is common and obvious as well. But let's say some random site has 3px vertical offset instead. It's going to look quite similar to one with 2px. Is it a copy or not then? Can't tell from just that, it's irrelevant in fact. Two sites that look similar on the web, using generic common layouts, are not necessarily copies of each other. Even if they use a lot of the same colors and drop shadow settings and margins, especially when we are not talking about #CCC and not a color like #12dca9. It is also not uncommon to have white background behind text and a single pixel grey border. That is on thousands of sites. As is the light grey background. Google finds "background: #F9F9F9" on over 500,000 pages, many predating the existence of HM's domain name registration. Did they steal background: #F9F9F9 from others? Probably. I mean, why #f9 and not #f8. #F9 is a bit of an odd choice. HNM at least used blue for their masthead background. HM uses: #F60. Where have we seen that exact shade of orange before? Hint: it was "stolen" by HM from the top of this page you are looking at. This leads to another problem. Hacker is a common term. Hacker News is reasonably generic, but it is known as being this site. When I see a site that says "Hacker Monthly, the print magazine of Hacker News" and uses the exact same recognizable color scheme as Hacker News, I definitely assume that it is run by the same company. Only if I scroll down to the bottom do I see a "not affiliated" disclaimer. This is quite confusing given that it claims to be "the print magazine OF Hacker News". That is obvious confusion in the public, and the name, claim to be "of Hacker News", and exact color scheme match is a clear trademark violation.
If we are sitting next to each other and are told to write down a random 50 character long string built from digits from 1 to 5 and we would end up having the same digits on 30 positions, with long subsequences being the same (= many decisions regarding closely related design parameters being the same), would you be more willing to attribute it to chance or to one of us copying from another?
What exactly are you arguing for? My original post makes that point that this is definitely a violation since there IS exact copying of the CSS file. And yes, the copied Google analytics id makes it 100% sure.
We are then arguing not about exact copying of text but about very similar layouts. I am saying very similar layouts are not proof of copying. You are saying they are. OK. That's your position, I have mine. The arguments you have used are weak and rather than concede any of them when their flaws are pointed out you just start making new claims. Therefore this could go on forever and never be resolved. So let's end it, all right?
I do understand you are fascinated with this particular case. Let's talk about that.
I've never seen anyone file a CSS file with the copyright office, therefore it's unlikely this CSS file is filed. That means that, while their copying is illegal and a copyright violation, any lawsuit would result only in actual damages and not statutory damages, per US copyright law. (We'll assume this case gets filed in the US as claims with parties in two different countries are nearly impossible for small concerns to prosecute.) There are no actual damages though, so it's a pointless waste of money to pursue a case.
So what to do? Name and shame, what they are doing here. That's the best approach since they are 100% certain there was copying going on, and any reasonable jury would see that, therefore there is no risk of a defamation claim, they are stating facts.
Is this sufficient? I say no. Who is the person who lazily copied the CSS file rather than be a pro and write his own? His name should be disclosed publicly and he should forever be blacklisted from the industry. That's the way to do it. Who is their layout guy that checked in this file? They need to state his name and particulars so everyone knows to avoid him. His career needs to be over, permanently. That's how to stop the widespread thievery going on. If The Hacker News Magazine will not disclose the name of the person who did this and fire him immediately, The Hacker News Magazine should be boycotted, along with all its affiliates because such behavior can not be tolerated in our industry of creative professionals. If THNM agrees to fire him and disclose his name, and redoes their layout to be original work, then their inevitable CEO apology could be considered sincere. Without firing and disclosure though, any apology would just be an admission they are only sorry they got caught stealing, and such apology could not be considered sincere.
It is a useful model of the situation, you have 50 (lets say) decisions to make (border color, margin height, number of images per row, ...), each with 5 (lets say) equally likely outcomes (#666 is quite as good and popular as #777,#888,#555,#444; 1.0em like 1.5 em,0.5em,2.0em,2.5em; ...). All I'm saying is that you cannot explain that many visual and conceptual solutions being the same with chance alone, since that is an event with very low probability if you honestly perform each decision by yourself.
Turns out you're loading giant images (with original dimensions in the neighborhood of 1421x1352 and a filesize of 2mb) into an <img> with dimensions in the neighborhood of 570x542.
If you only need an image of size 570x542, please resize your images for the web and use those resized images in your post, rather than 2mb originals. This will help people load your page much faster and have a more pleasant experience reading your post.
Thanks. :)
Normally I'm pretty pro-code-reuse, but that is just lazy-sauce.
But wait, there is a comment in the CSS that clearly shows that they ripped it off! This changes everything!
Actually, no, it doesn't. This is a distraction. When something weird/awkward like this happens it's probably best to leave it out of the conversation. It would be different if rather than a comment it had been some non-trivial code that directly added functionality to the site, or improved the look and feel. But this is debugging material.
BTW I like Hacker Monthly but I don't currently use it, because I'm already fairly comfortable with how I consume articles here. Keep up the good work, though!
Otherwise, emulating decent look-and-feel is often a good thing: it is how we come to better designs and users with predictable expectations.
He just highlights that comment as it is sufficient proof that the code is copied.
So all of the stuff that is non-trivial was copied as well.
There's also passing off to consider.
Will this fiasco harm your business? Probably not. If anything, enjoy the extra boost in traffic and sales.
Does that only apply to content creators outside this community?
If you download Game of Thrones to watch on your laptop, there is a long and circuitous argument we can have about exactly how much you're harming HBO, but it's pretty clear that the only thing you're gaining is the ability to consume the TV show you've pirated. If your business's web site is based on someone else's code without proper licensing, and that design is presumably a factor in customers choosing to patronize you, you now have a tangible financial gain that is owed (at least in part) to a copyright violation.
It's a flawed analogy, but this is less like downloading an episode of Game of Thrones and more like selling bootleg DVDs of the show.
Are they to be condemned?
2) I copy what you have, claim it as my own, and make money off it.
These scenarios are not synonymous.
Calling it "stealing" is political propaganda as part of an agenda aimed at poisoning any constructive debate about the future of copyright in the information age.
Language matters, especially in this context, where people go to jail for doing no harm whatsoever.
Years ago, I met with a potential client who was really upset that a competitor had hacked them and "stolen" all of their image assets and that's why they hadn't launched their site yet. After pressing on, they told me that the files were stolen, and were therefore gone from their server. I decided to pass on that project.
In retrospect, I probably should have offered my services to "steal" them back.
I think in that situation your design can be effectively stolen - if you can no longer use it, because someone else in your field is using it and your own use would look like plagiarism. They have it and, crucially, you can no longer use it with commercial effect.
Legal, but trashy.
Also it has to be a copy, not a close similarity.
This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but plagiarism to be not-fine. There is nothing inconsistent in this position and, while you don't have to agree with it, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to hold.
In other words, if you redistribute stuff without permission, it's generally not that heinous, but if you take credit for it too, you'll get severe looks of disapproval.
What about software? I can't think of any example, for instance, where this community reacted to a story of a GPL violation by almost universally saying it is fine.
So opposing copyright in general but supporting the GPL is actually an entirely consistent and rational position.
2) Even if it were, I'm sure film-industry workers have a very different consensus.
Therefore, most people are just talking their book. Web graphics and css are terribly precious, but we'll militantly defend megaupload.com, who profited hugely from enabling copyright infringement, because we want nice things. It's only simple when it suits us to think it is.
1) Since the two sites would look the same, I could be mistaken for the copycat.
2) My users who go to both sites could be confused, possibly thinking they're related.
Those are two differences I can think of, though I don't particularly support torrenting, either.
On the other hand, using someone else's copyrighted material and passing it off as your own, using it as the public face of a venture, that's deriving massive benefits from its use.
Besides, wasn't someone complaining about how no one ever actually practices code reuse a few articles back? ;-)
They did use the word "stole" but they used it in a casual, non-legal sense and followed up with an explanation of exactly what they mean. It's completely different from a sustained propaganda campaign that explicitly tries to equate the crime of theft with copyright violation, which is what the MPAA and RIAA did.
Censuring them for using the word "steal" in this case is just nitpicking. That's why no one's doing it. It has nothing to do with "only applying to creators outside the community"
What I'm saying? I don't know. Designs are designs, nothing revolutionary about this one... Shrug it off, and move on.
http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/
CSS and HTML aren't the only things 'Mohit Kumar' copies, it would appear.
IANAL (see above) but if it's a 100% clear cut case of IP theft, and you have some ownership of the IP that's been stolen, I think you can even file a DMCA takedown request to whoever is hosting their material.
They really deserve to learn the lesson.
yes, they could have worked a little harder to give their site a little bit more "originality", but other than that, it is the internet way.
i have cloned (parts of) hundreds of websites, any my websites (and parts of it) were cloned even more often, even before github.
be flattered, move on (with your great magazine).
Copyright still applies.
view-source is how i started into webdevelopement in the nineties (remember, there was no github), and i'm glad people still use it (i do).
I, for one, applaud Hacker Monthly's response and actions. Had they pointed out their sending a DMCA takedown notice, I would have lost respect for them. You're doing the right thing. Stay the course! We're behind you all the way.
Sheesh, it takes someone quite clever to copy code comments linking back to the original code.
ed: phrasing corrected
PS - the difference is attribution.
I thought it was from a UK celebrity publicist but it seems not: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as...
Edit: Yes, as per your reply below, this comment stemmed from an eruption of confusion on my part. It (the confusion) is now contained and slumbering happily in the depths of my brain. I extend my sincere apologies.
It's so sad that someone inside the hacker culture has to go through things like these. Why stole a code?
Thanks for that.
"Hacker Monthly is a print magazine version of Hacker News — a social news website wildly popular among programmers and startup founders. The submission guidelines state that content can be “anything that gratifies one’s intellectual curiosity.” Every month, we select from the top voted articles on Hacker News and print them in magazine format."
Sure, it's a shame, but css, like html and javascript, is not a protected source. It's run client-side. Would you rather just receive a image/png from websites?
EDIT: I know someone who've experienced something very similar (with css prefixes obviously referring to his site rather than the microsoft.cn clone).
Grid layouts, pinning images, etc. are ideas. Ideas are not protected. The concrete implementations of them are. You can clone Pinterest, but you can't do it by stealing their JavaScript and CSS files. You have to write your own.
Is that a serious question?
They changed the logos and such (so it's not as if they are pretending to BE you), and made the colours their own. I'm not quite sure what you're mad about?
I would disagree with the concept of ownership of any kind of design work. Especially in the case of code considering how one-dimensional CSS is, there's really only one or two ways to build a site like this anyway.
CSS is open source by default, but this doesn't mean there's no copyright.
First off, I don't agree with the concept that anyone has the right to 'own' information in the first place (especially lines of code).
It isn't 'stealing'. It's not as if they have deprived hackermonthly of their site. At worst they copied.
I'm not sure what you are saying in regards to CSS being 'open source'. My point was that between syntax and formatting standards, CSS has very little creative control (in terms of the actual writing of the code). Sure you might decide to do 4 space indents, choose one line rules vs. multiple, etc. But usually there is a best way, or most standards compliant way of structuring and styling the design.
What I'm saying is two people coding the same design could easily produce nearly identical code, with the only differences being small irrelevant differences in formatting.
In the strictest, most literal sense, yes, the source is publicly available and readable by default.
Open source means it is licensed under an open source license. Even Microsoft is not trying to steal the term, opting for 'shared source' instead.
What they did was copy the actual files itself. Which is evident from the comments in the CSS. That's not fine.
Heard of Pinspire? The Samwer brothers have used the copy game over and over again to get mad rich.
It's not worth your time getting upset. Look at it as a form of flattery and move on. Your time is better spent on making your site better than bitching and/or attempting to get them to stop.
oh no! call the thought police!
Moaning to a bunch of grumpy programmers is only going to get you advice like that.
I don't see how giving them a whole load of PR, links and stern looks is going to fix anything given that they're unscrupulous enough to copy swathes of design and code.
It specially sucks when you are the one that created something and put all of your effort into it and then see someone outright copy your work and use it as their own.
So they went a short way and copied (not stole [1]) your code. So what? Please, steal from me! If you can take my ideas and make them better, I still can go back and see what I haven't seen before and learn from you, execute better next time. World is not a sum zero game where all ideas has been done and we just wait to die. We constantly progress! There will be new ideas to pursue.
And besides, what you gonna do now? You already cried and waste people's time on reading and commenting on it. Are you gonna sue them? Take a legal action? Burn your or your investors' money? What do you expect in return? Apology?? If there were go one step further and use search and replace on html and css and replace variable's names and classes, etc, would that satisfy you??
[1] arguably, nothing has been stolen from you, as of this moment, visiting hackermonthly.com I still can see the code and design being healthy and all OK.