3 ms·

> I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header The article stat

by untog 11y ago

> I can't help but think that it would make sense for Mr. Yau to either (a) Change the server setting to emit the X-Frame-Options: DENY header The article states that the Daily Mail scraped the files and uploaded them separately, to avoid his iframe detecting JS. And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly?

fixermark 11y ago
As noted in my original comment: yes. However, he's had issues with multiple sites iframing his content against his will, not just Daily Mail. DM just went the extra mile to straight-up rehost the content, which crosses a line that directing a user's browser to mash up content from multiple servers isn't generally considered to cross (and can be controlled by content providers via use of existing cross-domain headers).
DanBC 11y ago
> And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly? Send them an invoice for using his material, with an additional fee for not getting permission in advance. Then take it to small claims if DM doesn't pay.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Could an US citizen living take them to small claims court from the US?
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  This is a viable approach. Small Claims is a simple process, you don't need a lawyer, and you can claim for a non-trivial sum plus damages and costs. The DM gets sued regularly, so it's not as if they're invincible.
logfromblammo 11y ago
As long as you're fiddling inside the HTTP server, why not just redirect requests from IP addresses known to belong to the serial offender sites to an infographic showing the number of times those blocked sites have copied valuable content without licensing it first? It wouldn't be more than an inconvenience to them, but some people deserve to get rude gestures when they come 'round to mooch.

by untog 11y ago

fixermark 11y ago

As noted in my original comment: yes. However, he's had issues with multiple sites iframing his content against his will, not just Daily Mail. DM just went the extra mile to straight-up rehost the content, which crosses a line that directing a user's browser to mash up content from multiple servers isn't generally considered to cross (and can be controlled by content providers via use of existing cross-domain headers).

DanBC 11y ago

> And "just monetize it" feels like a... simplistic approach. Even if the Daily Mail did a normal iframe embed, how would the author monetize, exactly? Send them an invoice for using his material, with an additional fee for not getting permission in advance. Then take it to small claims if DM doesn't pay.

icebraining 11y ago
Could an US citizen living take them to small claims court from the US?
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
This is a viable approach. Small Claims is a simple process, you don't need a lawyer, and you can claim for a non-trivial sum plus damages and costs. The DM gets sued regularly, so it's not as if they're invincible.

logfromblammo 11y ago

As long as you're fiddling inside the HTTP server, why not just redirect requests from IP addresses known to belong to the serial offender sites to an infographic showing the number of times those blocked sites have copied valuable content without licensing it first? It wouldn't be more than an inconvenience to them, but some people deserve to get rude gestures when they come 'round to mooch.