Hacker News Reader

Comment by mylons | Hacker News Reader

because it's code in a browser. if the author didn't want us to look at the code, why would they let us download it?

Because you can see the code does not mean you have the right to distribute it. With your argument you mean it is ok to record music from some music service and post this wherever you like just because it is possible?

Ability to do something does not mean it is ok to do it.

I'd argue that it WOULD be okay to repost sound files. Just because someone was the first to string together a set of information means that nobody else is allowed to share it?

Please look up copyright. I know the concept of magical numbers that nobody is allowed to duplicate is grating, but this is what business and life is built on.

As a musician, if I posted a piece of music to a site that permitted it to be played in their Flash player on the site, this does NOT mean I want it to be distributed does it? Unless I explicitly stated that it was alright to distribute it.

EDIT: I didn't mean this to come across as snappily as it did btw!

Seems to me you might be discussing two different things: moral and law.

Nobody's talking about looking at the code — the issue here is redistributing it on a platform outside of the author's control.

via reductio ad absurdum, do you also think it's alright to reappropriate swaths of CSS, HTML, and images from other people's web designs?

This isn't reappropriation. It's just putting something in public view in another form of public view, for better analysis.

This is close. Assuming this is all academic, then the error is lack of attribution.

if a person didn't want his car stolen, why would he leave his car door unlocked?

just because it's viewable, does not mean you are granted the rights to do whatever you want with it.

I checked - his code is not stolen - it's still there at the website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com