3 ms·

Here's how their post starts: Román Cortés is having a lot of fun with CSS tricks these days. He just built an example rolling CSS coke can that uses backgroun

Here's how their post starts: Román Cortés is having a lot of fun with CSS tricks these days. He just built an example rolling CSS coke can that uses background-attachment, background-position, and a few other tricks to get the effect. No fancy CSS3 needed here! It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue. It seems even more benign than piracy. (And as sophacles points out, this uses less bandwidth than a direct link, too.) Clearly, Román is willing to have his bandwidth used in order for people to look at his cool CSS trick. So why is this a problem when it's a little less bandwidth, plus a third-party endorsement?

glhaynes 17y ago
Isn't that interesting how having no price on the post seems like it would make one look differently at the seemingly-legitimate-copyability of one's work? And, I suppose, sometimes people make a lot of money off of a work and then don't mind copies because they feel like they've already made (and continue to make) much from it.
otakucode 17y ago
>It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Perhaps you missed the quite important point that Ajaxian was using this post to drive traffic to their site effectively and selling advertisements based on its, and not their own, merits? They're not just linking to something and showing it to their users, they're getting his paid-for account to serve the content so that they can make advertising revenue off of his work. I think the ethical issue with such an action should be clear.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  They promoted him. They showed the same content he did, plus a strong endorsement, minus some of the bandwidth costs. And he's mad that they might have earned a few dollars from their ads?
  - jerf 17y ago
    "They showed the same content he did..." Yeah... his content. You're begging the question here, casually skipping over the question of whether they can just appropriate it by trying to draw some sort of stretched equality here. There's an enormous difference between him posting his content and them posting his content!
  - Kejistan 17y ago
    He is angry that they effectively hijacked his bandwidth to earn them revenue off of his work. And all without the courtesy of asking his permission. Twice.
  - Pistos2 17y ago
    > minus some of the bandwidth costs It wasn't: Ajaxian.bw--; Cortes.bw.noop It was: Ajaxian.bw -= cost; Cortes.bw += cost
slavingia 17y ago
I think that's part of the post that Roman edited. It wasn't like that before.

glhaynes 17y ago

Isn't that interesting how having no price on the post seems like it would make one look differently at the seemingly-legitimate-copyability of one's work? And, I suppose, sometimes people make a lot of money off of a work and then don't mind copies because they feel like they've already made (and continue to make) much from it.

otakucode 17y ago

>It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Perhaps you missed the quite important point that Ajaxian was using this post to drive traffic to their site effectively and selling advertisements based on its, and not their own, merits? They're not just linking to something and showing it to their users, they're getting his paid-for account to serve the content so that they can make advertising revenue off of his work. I think the ethical issue with such an action should be clear.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
They promoted him. They showed the same content he did, plus a strong endorsement, minus some of the bandwidth costs. And he's mad that they might have earned a few dollars from their ads?
- jerf 17y ago
  "They showed the same content he did..." Yeah... his content. You're begging the question here, casually skipping over the question of whether they can just appropriate it by trying to draw some sort of stretched equality here. There's an enormous difference between him posting his content and them posting his content!
- Kejistan 17y ago
  He is angry that they effectively hijacked his bandwidth to earn them revenue off of his work. And all without the courtesy of asking his permission. Twice.
- Pistos2 17y ago
  > minus some of the bandwidth costs It wasn't: Ajaxian.bw--; Cortes.bw.noop It was: Ajaxian.bw -= cost; Cortes.bw += cost

slavingia 17y ago

I think that's part of the post that Roman edited. It wasn't like that before.