20 ms·

Dear Al-Jazeera: Why Steal Our Code?

387 points by tilsammans 10y ago

chillydawg 10y ago
I'd start serving hilarious, huge pictures of dicks and boobs on the dodgy asset links or injecting js that does silly (but not malicious) things to browsers.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Horrible idea, are you serious?
- ideamaniac 10y ago
  Or just inject some ads and actually make some money...
- diggan 10y ago
  Well, if you understood their motivation for this post, you wouldn't. > We’d love to work with you Al-Jazeera. But not like this. > So how about starting over and signing up for an account. > We will even keep that eggplant emoji in there for you. > We look forward to hearing from you.
  - emerongi 10y ago
    That isn't directed at Al-Jazeera though. If they wanted Al-Jazeera to sign up, they would not have started with a DMCA. This is pure marketing. They go out of their way to explain what features their product has and why it is beneficial to sign up. If they get even just 2 new sign-ups with this article, it has already paid off. The "our service is great!" message is not there to remedy things with Al-Jazeera.
    - angry-hacker 10y ago
      This. It would have been perfect opportunity to pitch their product but decided to make a fiasco put of it. I'm surprised they didn't start serving dick pictures to Al Jazeera from their server to get even more attention and 'new customers' .
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Well, it appears they didn't start with a DMCA.
- tomphoolery 10y ago
  haha! I remember when there were blogs who lifted entire Something Awful articles but forgot to change the image links, so SA replaced the files with a big image that just said "STOP STEALING OUR IMAGES!" If these guys were seriously angry at Al-Jazeera I'm sure they'd have done the same.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Just the words? That's weak. When someone used our large images in their signature on a popular forum (eating half our traffic cap), I found a quite disturbing public domain photo to use in its place. It stopped in just a couple of hours :) Still, doing so as a business would be just stupid, frankly. Simply cut them off (send an HTTP error) and send them an email.
batrat 10y ago
Nice storytelling. (couldn't stop it)
homoSapiens 10y ago
Ooops
sneak 10y ago
You still have your code, so your accusations of theft don't really hold up.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  They sell a product. That product is the ability to produce beautiful stories for online publications. There is code in there, and because of the poor copy, it's obvious that the code was stolen. But, what I don't understand is, why didn't they call it plagiarism, which is usually what you would call a copied story. both are copyright violations, but is one worse in terms of law?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Yeah, despite even the SCOTUS making that clear[1], many people still use that manipulative technique. Still, in this case AJ actually used resources hosted on Scrollytelling's servers, so I supposed they can be said to have stolen the bandwidth. [1] From Dowling v. United States: "It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal (...). The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
witty_username 10y ago
This is slightly off-topic, but why does this website hijack the middle-click button? It's pretty annoying.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  It doesn't for me, not on the blog at least. But I wouldn't be surprised as it's a "scrollytelling" website, which is probably made to hijack lots of browser controls, especially those to do with scrolling. We all hate it, but I guess it looks cool if you're trying to be a modern newspaper.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Actually, the middle-click is hijacked only for the main page.
t_fatus 10y ago
Whoa ... I'm sure you've thought about changing the urls of your assets and update you code before publishing it again, then why haven't you done this ?
- diggan 10y ago
  Probably because they are trying to open up an account for them, rather than Al-Jazeera stealing their code. Changing the URLs would probably make them angry/upset and not thinking about making business with Storytelling
  - GordonS 10y ago
    Probably moot; I rather doubt that sending them a DMCA takedown notice will make them too interested in doing business with them
- tilsammans 10y ago
  I've thought about this but that does not move the discourse forward at all and it hurts the readers of the story. We're not here to make anyone upset, least of all readers of the story. We'd just like Al-Jazeera to not leech off our bandwidth bill. And if they want to come on board, that's awesome. Still welcome.
nxzero 10y ago
Something feels off about this whole post, but can't put my finger on it. For example, appears the company makes money selling their code to online newspapers, but when a major media company uses their code the response is to tell them to stop doing it. I would be curious to see the take down notice that was sent literally said.
- KnightHawk3 10y ago
  Because they didn't pay for it?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  Al Jazeera are essentially pirating - the company makes money selling their code to online newspapers, not giving it away.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Right, that's obvious, just like it's obvious you'd call them up and sell them on paying you to use it, not tell them to stop via so legal notice that might not even legally apply to them.
    - sooheon 10y ago
      So what's your move when they simply ignore your call and continue to use your work? After all, they got it for free, no one else seems to care, why should one call from you convince them to pay after the fact?
      - nxzero 10y ago
        AJ is a professional company. If you read the other comments, which were posted after my comment, it's clear the developer made an agreement a freelance journalist, not AJ; which isn't even mentioned by the developer in the blog even though they're 100% aware of it. Given near the journalists or the developer have committed publicly to the terms of the agreement between them, I don't see the point in speculating what their agreement was; I do know on GitHub that the developer use the MIT license for some other code, which would have allowed the journalist to reuse the code where ever they wanted. As for what to do, volumes of books are published on the topic. If the content was hosted in the US, the next step would be contact the ISP that's hosting the content.
dewey 10y ago
"We knew there must be some mistake, so we quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests and waited patiently." That does not seem like the best way to start a business relationship...
- whack 10y ago
  When someone blatantly plagiarizes your work without any attribution, I think it's perfectly appropriate.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  No... stealing is not the best way to start a business relationship.
  - dewey 10y ago
    Someone is interested in your product, even if they are ripping it off. The next step is to make them a paying customer and look at it as a chance to start something. Just because it started the wrong way doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
- iagooar 10y ago
  My thoughts. Why not just drop them an email, or call to ask them to remove it? It would be so much nicer, plus you could always send the DMCA afterwards and refer to your previous, "nice" enquiry.
- sgt 10y ago
  Personally I'd try to first contact Al-Jazeera (in a friendly and direct way, not DMCA) before a name and shame. This could after all be the fault of some technical intern at Al-Jazeera who didn't think twice about ripping code. And I suppose DMCA notices are easily ignored if they come via e-mail.
  - bwilliams18 10y ago
    They didn't just rip code though. They ripped the entire story...that's gotta go higher than some random intern.
fivesigma 10y ago
Someone should make a blacklist with websites that hijack scrolling. Or an /etc/hosts.
- mnadkvlb 10y ago
  I use an extension called stylish, where you can pretty much inject your own css handlers for each website. I know its a bit tough to deal with but maybe someone can make a list which people can subscribe to just like the ad-blocking lists (eg. easylist).
jstanley 10y ago
> We knew there must be some mistake, so we quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests Is that really the most appropriate way to start?
- whack 10y ago
  When someone blatantly plagiarizes your work without any attribution, I think it's perfectly appropriate.
  - jstanley 10y ago
    I'm not saying it's not an option to consider, but starting out by engaging them politely is more likely to lead to a mutually-beneficial outcome than sending in the lawyers.
  - sgt 10y ago
    Are they sure they didn't get permission from de Volkskrant to re-publish the article (effectively white labelling the article)?
    - parent5446 10y ago
      Why would de Volkskrant have the legal ability to grant them permission to redistribute somebody else's code?
      - bwilliams18 10y ago
        Maybe they didn't understand they didnt have that legal ability...theyre used to work in a particular medium (text) where I'm sure they usually buy exclusivity and re-publish rights.
      - mikekchar 10y ago
        Obviously they do not, but did Al-Jazeera even know that the original came from there? They bought the story from the author. It is possible (even probable in my eyes) that they thought that all of the assets were included in the sale. It is possible (even probably in my eyes) that the author told them this outright (because he was mistaken). And if I'm running a company in a non-US country, a DMCA request is going straight into the round file. I'm sorry that people assume they can inflict their laws on people outside of their country, but it is not the case. If you are in the business that storytelling.io is in, you have to assume that some fraction of people are going to make mistakes. You also have to assume that most of those people will not be in the US. Al-Jazeera is in Qatar. Qatar only joined the Berne convention in the year 2000. Their attitude toward a DMCA request is pretty predictable. Honestly, I found the article insulting, myopic and reactionary. The imprecise (and legally incorrect) usage of the word "stealing" is simply used to justify their outrage. Even though they appear to have edited their page 2 or 3 times to improve the content based on suggestions in this thread, it still has no details on how the original transaction was handled (what did the original author sell?). There is no indication that storytelling.io made any attempt to rectify the situation other than sending an incorrect legal request and then complaining on social media. To be totally blunt, if I were thinking of using a service like theirs, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole because they really appear to have absolutely no idea what they are doing on the legal front -- something which seems to be crucial to their business survival. I hope they can figure it out. I'd start with realising that even when you are in the right, you can do the absolute wrong thing to try to correct it. This is going to happen again, so back up, take stock and ask yourself how you are going to improve your reaction next time.
qz_ 10y ago
They also translated the whole article from De Volkskrant and used the exact same images. So, plagiarism and theft, nice.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I highly doubt that plagiarism is taking place. I bet you that the original outlet simply gave AJ permission to use the article's content and template.
  - JackFr 10y ago
    Do you have some special knowledge to indicate that this was done with permission? When reprinting it's common to include a 'with permission of' or 'originally published in' or especially 'translated from the original'. I might have missed it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't there.
    - frankydp 10y ago
      There is a twitter post above of the author promoting the AJ story.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      I've been watching and reading AJ (in both Arabic and English) for >10 years, and I've never seen them do something like this i.e. blatant plagiarism. Actually, I don't think any reputable news org would ever do that on purpose.
- tingol 10y ago
  Maybe because the same guy who wrote the article works for both the De Volkskrant and Al-Jazeera?
OJFord 10y ago
> What Happened to Journalistic Integrity? Did Al-Jazeera ever have any?
- spb 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=aljazeera.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=aljazeera.com
- harisvs 10y ago
  Al Jazeera always had one ! This must be the fault of some tech intern.
  - OJFord 10y ago
    It's owned by the Qatari government; I'm not sure why anyone should trust the independence of a news outlet owned by a foreign democratic government, nevermind Qatar's [0]. But then, a shocking number of people seem to love Russia Today in the UK, so it really is a sad state of affairs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar
gulbanana 10y ago
https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558784 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558... it appears the journalist works for both de volkskrant and al-jazeera. scrollytelling is mad that they haven't got paid twice.
- caf 10y ago
  Do you suppose the journalist got paid once or twice?
- frankydp 10y ago
  Yeah that twitter conversation seems to lend credence to the idea that the Dutch paper or the writer redistributed the story and attempted to bring the presentation with it. I would be curious to see the license that scrollytelling uses, as redistribution is such a key functionality of the industry.
  - frankydp 10y ago
    Some other thoughts and speculation. If the Dutch paper did redistribute/re-license the story to AJ, and if that is in fact a violation of the scrollytelling license, then they(the paper) should be the customer that scrollytelling should be name/shaming and DMCAing. It is also likely that AJ views this(DMCA/blog post) as a upstream licensing issue, and the fact that they have a business relationship with the Dutch paper may lead them to take that up with the paper and not respond to scrollytelling. As, from AJ's point of view, they have already payed a license for the content in this scenario. EDIT: If scrollytelling does not have a straightforward and integrated solution for redistribution licensing then this was bound to happen and probably has before, they just didn't notice because it wasn't an outlet the volume of AJ.
- wila 10y ago
  They are upset that their code has been used in production without their consent. I'd say rightfully so. Also note that the twitter post is from August 28 and the blog post that was written is from today (September 18) So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue.
leke 10y ago
I would love to hear the AJ response to this. I hope they are allowed to make it public.
lumberjack 10y ago
Copying front-end code is hardly "stealing". At best you can call them out for not properly attributing merit where merit is due.
- cryptarch 10y ago
  It is copyright infringement and piracy; they had no right to redistribute this code, even if they had kept the copyright notice. Aside from that, I do think it is theft in the sense that AJ is using bandwidth not paid for by them.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
EDIT: I understand the comparison to books and other creative works. However, many writers don't outright copy someone else's work word for word, they appropriate the tone, style, setting, etc. The point I was trying to make is that front-end devs are like the creators of Stranger Things. We may not outright copy code character for character on the front-end, but we sure do give a lot of nods to the greatest hits. And the web is a better place for it
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Isn't the entire point of copyright to protect things that people put "out into the world"? Proprietary server-side software is already a trade secret, but creative works that must be published to have any use at all (like books, newspaper articles, and client-side software) is properly protected by copyright.
- sjs382 10y ago
  Yes, HTML/CSS/JS is covered under copyright. Even though you can see the source.
- Torn 10y ago
  Just because code is transmitted to be executed by browsers doesn't mean it's free from copyright or other intellectual property rights.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wila 10y ago
  Following your logic books are free to copy too. Even if you can read the details, the copyright still stands. You do not need to compile/obfuscate your work in order to have it be protected by copyright.
puppetmaster3 10y ago
Each Andorid app is obfuscated by ProGurd. If I'm in the jury and I can easily cut/paste - than that is on you. Obfuscation has to get better in HTML5. There are now some paid tools that obfuscate CSS and HTML5 variables, not just Base64, and inject that it can run on only one domain. Did they do any of that?
- retox 10y ago
  >Obfuscation has to get better in HTML5 Why? I learned development by looking at the source for sites that interested me.
- ameesdotme 10y ago
  Android applications are compiled, so they can be obfuscated. Web applications do not work that way at all, and proper obfuscation is impossible. There will always be a way to reverse this, and the actual content shouldn't be obfuscated anyway, as this would have severe negative effects on SEO. Other than that, just because you can steal other people's hard work doesn't mean you should. You clearly do not understand this situation.
  - puppetmaster3 10y ago
    'Web applications do not work that way at all' You clearly do not understand the tech. Most (good) web sites are SASS, and that gets compiled for one. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
    - ameesdotme 10y ago
      What. SASS doesn't get compiled, it gets transpiled to CSS, which is human-readable. Trolling?
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Each Andorid app is obfuscated by ProGurd Actually, I managed to reverse all of the Google apps as compsci student in a matter of weeks, within the legal boundaries, and write specifications how to write apps to replace them. Android is far less obfuscated than most stuff on the web.
zeckalpha 10y ago
What's with the flag?
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's a pirate flag (often in copyright infringement articles) with Al Jazeera's logo replacing the skull.
  - zeckalpha 10y ago
    Still, a bit tasteless.
user5994461 10y ago
Lesson #1 - It will be hilarious when they'll discover that Al-Jazeera is actually paying a license to them. Just under a different name. (Yes, big international companies have many legal names and subsidiaries and buying departments). Lesson #2 - Seriously. Do NOT let 20 yo bro-grammers handle the business and marketing. Noone could care less about your code + The DMCA notice is plain silly. This is exactly how you SHOULD NOT handle business leads and customers.
- riotdash 10y ago
  What kind of bullshit is this? If they actually legally purchased the software then why the fuck you think they removed all the copyright notices etc? Also why did the Al-Jazeera not respond to any of the allegations?
- sooheon 10y ago
  The "business" mindset is a funny thing. It turns bullies at worst and thieves at best into leads and customers, just because they're big.
- user1111111111 10y ago
  1. As they are also host the content, I doubt their contracts are signed without knowing who will be hitting their servers. (How do you think they knew some random party was pulling from their servers?) 2. Seeing as they're a small start-up, the bro-grammers can do jsut fine without business and marketing. Which cannot be said about business and marketing doing well without bro-grammers. 3a. Who cares about what Peter Noone thinks? 3b. I agree, the DMCA is notice is plain silly, they should have sued them outright as per breach of the issuing contract.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
HillRat 10y ago
This ... is not the best way to take advantage of what is basically a sales lead. After all, Scrollytelling is a small company with only a handful of clients, of whom De Volkskrant appears to the most important, so why barge in with DMCA takedowns and angry allegations before you have to? This would have been a great opportunity to work through Scrollytelling's existing relationships with their clients (and their clients' reporters) to get in front of AJ and make a case for their platform (and only go for the lawyers if talks broke down). Instead they've now ensured that, regardless of anything else, at least one reporter is never going to use their platform again and is going to be one hell of a net detractor. For a small company, garnering a reputation as being troublesome loose cannons isn't a good way to grow market share.
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  Even large companies do that. When a company I was working for began to grow, we got some contacts from Adobe etc. About "hey, you're using illegal copies and we can help you go legit."
  - laurentdc 10y ago
    Illegal copies of software (e.g. Photoshop)? I wonder how do they know that - do pirated versions leave fingerprints in your graphic assets? I know for example that typography companies or stock photo agencies crawl the web seeking for unlicensed use for their .woff files or pictures. (I'm just curious, I have a CC subscription)
    - extra88 10y ago
      The traditional way is for Adobe to receive a tip from a disgruntled former employee about the business using unlicensed software.
- ada1981 10y ago
  Completely disagree with this, you handled yourself well and expressed yourself honestly and made an interesting PR case for yourself and your firm. I'm inspired by how you stood up for yourself. "a reputation as being troublesome loose cannons isn't a good way to grow market share." They sent a DMCA notice that was ignored and are justified in being angry. Perhaps a reputation as someone worth copying who doesn't put up with bullshit is exactly the reputation they want vs. willing to roll over because we think we might make some money somehow, or want to win the approval of others. There is a misconception that being "angry" is somehow a character flaw. We live in this world where everyone is pretending to be "happy" and we shame others for expressing anger.. Anger is a super healthy emotion and when acknowledged and not stuffed into your shadow it can help drive amazing progress.
awinder 10y ago
What's up with the Al Jazeera logo with swords underneath it? Might be misunderstanding but I thought misappropriating branding logos was usually something that was a touchy subject (i.e., no license to modify the brand logo).
- mhurron 10y ago
  It would appear to be a modification of the Anonymous Pirate Flag. They're making a 'statement.' They were so mad about this event, they photoshoped Al Jazeera's logo.
hcho3 10y ago
I'm really shocked how many people here are blaming the victim here...
- look_lookatme 10y ago
  There are good ways to handle these situations. A cloying name and shame blog post with allusions to journalistic integrity is not one.
- omginternets 10y ago
  When the victim thrusts himself into the public sphere, it's sensible to raise alternate hypotheses and call his story into question ... if only to conclude that he is, indeed, the victim! This knee-jerk cry of "don't blame the victim" is just that: a knee-jerk response. Few people want to humiliate victims, but I don't see a reason not to ask pointed questions. I mean no disrespect, but I think comments like yours lower the level of discourse and are pretty toxic despite their good intentions.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  > I'm really shocked how many people here are blaming the victim here... Welcome to Hacker News.
- tilsammans 10y ago
  That's fine, I posted the story expecting exactly that. And to be fair our original post missed details that needed clarification. Always a tough choice between a short, shareable story and a longer, complete one. People have all the right to doubt our claims, and I hope I've been able to post sensible replies.
baybal2 10y ago
Good luck enforcing an dmca on a website code vs a foreign company. The court history of such cases is rather funny. From cases thrown out of the court, to unenforceable defaults
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Not to mention, a "company" owned by the government of Qatar. You couldn't hope to enforce this against a private company in Qatar, and there's no way you'll enforce it against a national government.
- tilsammans 10y ago
  They do have a documented procedure for this, posted on http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/terms.html http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/terms.html - paragraph (V)(B). It likely does not apply to Al-Jazeera worldwide, though.
webwanderings 10y ago
How does one scroll on a laptop without the browser's scroll bar on the right? What's the point of the "software" if you take away the base feature of a browser?
GirlsCanCode 10y ago
Arabs steal. That's not news.
microcolonel 10y ago
Al-Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, the only country in the world with a major slavery problem in 2016; I don't think plagiarism is what you should be worried about.
hiou 10y ago
I almost cared until I read the snarky, passive aggressive tone this article took along with the fact that it intentionally attempts to frame the entire situation differently from how it actually happened. This is not randomly scraping some content and then re-publishing it. It's a contract dispute about whether the original publisher had rights to redistribute it. What a bunch of brats. Grown up. Yuck
- user1111111111 10y ago
  Yeah, kids these days, expecting their signed contracts to not be breached. Why don't they get a real job, like used cars sales?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - philtar 10y ago
    Except that it's the Dutch author who breached the contract. But bitching about AlJazeera gets more publicity. What a bunch of brats.
emptystacks 10y ago
It might be wise to just hire an attorney and file a copyright infringement claim. You have a pretty solid case.
ricardobeat 10y ago
Looks like a) journalists using their platform don't really understand what they are paying for [1]: a license to use the story platform, when they expect to use it as a content creation tool and fully own the result. And b) either Al-Jazeera has copied them before [2] or there is some mutual stealing going on... [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777509638002634752 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777509638002634... [2] http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/BanishedNepal/ http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/BanishedNepal/
- Macacity 10y ago
  > And b) either Al-Jazeera has copied them before [2] or there is some mutual stealing going on... looking at the source and at what they are showing in the updated page of the eggplant story[1] they seem to be using an open source version[2]. [1] http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/gmo-eggplants-aubergines-bangladesh/index.html#2208 http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/gmo-eggplants-aube... [2] https://github.com/codevise/pageflow https://github.com/codevise/pageflow
mlinksva 10y ago
Dear Al-Jazeera: 1) instruct your developers to only use open source code so as to avoid situations like this 2) slideshows are terrible, lots of work for viewer to get through. text or video work great, stick to them, don't use a format only suited for demo-ing the limited capabilities of cd-roms circa 25 years ago.
csomar 10y ago
Take down the AJ flag with swords. Russians will see it as someone is acknowledging that Qatar is supporting ISIS. I'm not kidding.
calimac 10y ago
Scumb bags
kylehotchkiss 10y ago
Homepage: > We are ready for you hitting the big time. We make sure your stories keep being told, even if they're on the frontpage of The New York Times. So they wouldn't have send the DMCA to NYT?

387 points by tilsammans 10y ago

I'd start serving hilarious, huge pictures of dicks and boobs on the dodgy asset links or injecting js that does silly (but not malicious) things to browsers.

nxzero 10y ago
Horrible idea, are you serious?
ideamaniac 10y ago
Or just inject some ads and actually make some money...
diggan 10y ago
Well, if you understood their motivation for this post, you wouldn't. > We’d love to work with you Al-Jazeera. But not like this. > So how about starting over and signing up for an account. > We will even keep that eggplant emoji in there for you. > We look forward to hearing from you.
- emerongi 10y ago
  That isn't directed at Al-Jazeera though. If they wanted Al-Jazeera to sign up, they would not have started with a DMCA. This is pure marketing. They go out of their way to explain what features their product has and why it is beneficial to sign up. If they get even just 2 new sign-ups with this article, it has already paid off. The "our service is great!" message is not there to remedy things with Al-Jazeera.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    This. It would have been perfect opportunity to pitch their product but decided to make a fiasco put of it. I'm surprised they didn't start serving dick pictures to Al Jazeera from their server to get even more attention and 'new customers' .
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Well, it appears they didn't start with a DMCA.
tomphoolery 10y ago
haha! I remember when there were blogs who lifted entire Something Awful articles but forgot to change the image links, so SA replaced the files with a big image that just said "STOP STEALING OUR IMAGES!" If these guys were seriously angry at Al-Jazeera I'm sure they'd have done the same.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Just the words? That's weak. When someone used our large images in their signature on a popular forum (eating half our traffic cap), I found a quite disturbing public domain photo to use in its place. It stopped in just a couple of hours :) Still, doing so as a business would be just stupid, frankly. Simply cut them off (send an HTTP error) and send them an email.

batrat 10y ago

Nice storytelling. (couldn't stop it)

homoSapiens 10y ago

Ooops

sneak 10y ago

You still have your code, so your accusations of theft don't really hold up.

bluejekyll 10y ago
They sell a product. That product is the ability to produce beautiful stories for online publications. There is code in there, and because of the poor copy, it's obvious that the code was stolen. But, what I don't understand is, why didn't they call it plagiarism, which is usually what you would call a copied story. both are copyright violations, but is one worse in terms of law?
icebraining 10y ago
Yeah, despite even the SCOTUS making that clear[1], many people still use that manipulative technique. Still, in this case AJ actually used resources hosted on Scrollytelling's servers, so I supposed they can be said to have stolen the bandwidth. [1] From Dowling v. United States: "It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal (...). The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

witty_username 10y ago

This is slightly off-topic, but why does this website hijack the middle-click button? It's pretty annoying.

lucb1e 10y ago
It doesn't for me, not on the blog at least. But I wouldn't be surprised as it's a "scrollytelling" website, which is probably made to hijack lots of browser controls, especially those to do with scrolling. We all hate it, but I guess it looks cool if you're trying to be a modern newspaper.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Actually, the middle-click is hijacked only for the main page.

t_fatus 10y ago

Whoa ... I'm sure you've thought about changing the urls of your assets and update you code before publishing it again, then why haven't you done this ?

diggan 10y ago
Probably because they are trying to open up an account for them, rather than Al-Jazeera stealing their code. Changing the URLs would probably make them angry/upset and not thinking about making business with Storytelling
- GordonS 10y ago
  Probably moot; I rather doubt that sending them a DMCA takedown notice will make them too interested in doing business with them
tilsammans 10y ago
I've thought about this but that does not move the discourse forward at all and it hurts the readers of the story. We're not here to make anyone upset, least of all readers of the story. We'd just like Al-Jazeera to not leech off our bandwidth bill. And if they want to come on board, that's awesome. Still welcome.

nxzero 10y ago

Something feels off about this whole post, but can't put my finger on it. For example, appears the company makes money selling their code to online newspapers, but when a major media company uses their code the response is to tell them to stop doing it. I would be curious to see the take down notice that was sent literally said.

KnightHawk3 10y ago
Because they didn't pay for it?
vertex-four 10y ago
Al Jazeera are essentially pirating - the company makes money selling their code to online newspapers, not giving it away.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Right, that's obvious, just like it's obvious you'd call them up and sell them on paying you to use it, not tell them to stop via so legal notice that might not even legally apply to them.
  - sooheon 10y ago
    So what's your move when they simply ignore your call and continue to use your work? After all, they got it for free, no one else seems to care, why should one call from you convince them to pay after the fact?
    - nxzero 10y ago
      AJ is a professional company. If you read the other comments, which were posted after my comment, it's clear the developer made an agreement a freelance journalist, not AJ; which isn't even mentioned by the developer in the blog even though they're 100% aware of it. Given near the journalists or the developer have committed publicly to the terms of the agreement between them, I don't see the point in speculating what their agreement was; I do know on GitHub that the developer use the MIT license for some other code, which would have allowed the journalist to reuse the code where ever they wanted. As for what to do, volumes of books are published on the topic. If the content was hosted in the US, the next step would be contact the ISP that's hosting the content.

dewey 10y ago

"We knew there must be some mistake, so we quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests and waited patiently." That does not seem like the best way to start a business relationship...

whack 10y ago
When someone blatantly plagiarizes your work without any attribution, I think it's perfectly appropriate.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
No... stealing is not the best way to start a business relationship.
- dewey 10y ago
  Someone is interested in your product, even if they are ripping it off. The next step is to make them a paying customer and look at it as a chance to start something. Just because it started the wrong way doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
iagooar 10y ago
My thoughts. Why not just drop them an email, or call to ask them to remove it? It would be so much nicer, plus you could always send the DMCA afterwards and refer to your previous, "nice" enquiry.
sgt 10y ago
Personally I'd try to first contact Al-Jazeera (in a friendly and direct way, not DMCA) before a name and shame. This could after all be the fault of some technical intern at Al-Jazeera who didn't think twice about ripping code. And I suppose DMCA notices are easily ignored if they come via e-mail.
- bwilliams18 10y ago
  They didn't just rip code though. They ripped the entire story...that's gotta go higher than some random intern.

fivesigma 10y ago

Someone should make a blacklist with websites that hijack scrolling. Or an /etc/hosts.

mnadkvlb 10y ago
I use an extension called stylish, where you can pretty much inject your own css handlers for each website. I know its a bit tough to deal with but maybe someone can make a list which people can subscribe to just like the ad-blocking lists (eg. easylist).

jstanley 10y ago

> We knew there must be some mistake, so we quickly sent you a DMCA takedown requests Is that really the most appropriate way to start?

whack 10y ago
When someone blatantly plagiarizes your work without any attribution, I think it's perfectly appropriate.
- jstanley 10y ago
  I'm not saying it's not an option to consider, but starting out by engaging them politely is more likely to lead to a mutually-beneficial outcome than sending in the lawyers.
- sgt 10y ago
  Are they sure they didn't get permission from de Volkskrant to re-publish the article (effectively white labelling the article)?
  - parent5446 10y ago
    Why would de Volkskrant have the legal ability to grant them permission to redistribute somebody else's code?
    - bwilliams18 10y ago
      Maybe they didn't understand they didnt have that legal ability...theyre used to work in a particular medium (text) where I'm sure they usually buy exclusivity and re-publish rights.
    - mikekchar 10y ago
      Obviously they do not, but did Al-Jazeera even know that the original came from there? They bought the story from the author. It is possible (even probable in my eyes) that they thought that all of the assets were included in the sale. It is possible (even probably in my eyes) that the author told them this outright (because he was mistaken). And if I'm running a company in a non-US country, a DMCA request is going straight into the round file. I'm sorry that people assume they can inflict their laws on people outside of their country, but it is not the case. If you are in the business that storytelling.io is in, you have to assume that some fraction of people are going to make mistakes. You also have to assume that most of those people will not be in the US. Al-Jazeera is in Qatar. Qatar only joined the Berne convention in the year 2000. Their attitude toward a DMCA request is pretty predictable. Honestly, I found the article insulting, myopic and reactionary. The imprecise (and legally incorrect) usage of the word "stealing" is simply used to justify their outrage. Even though they appear to have edited their page 2 or 3 times to improve the content based on suggestions in this thread, it still has no details on how the original transaction was handled (what did the original author sell?). There is no indication that storytelling.io made any attempt to rectify the situation other than sending an incorrect legal request and then complaining on social media. To be totally blunt, if I were thinking of using a service like theirs, I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole because they really appear to have absolutely no idea what they are doing on the legal front -- something which seems to be crucial to their business survival. I hope they can figure it out. I'd start with realising that even when you are in the right, you can do the absolute wrong thing to try to correct it. This is going to happen again, so back up, take stock and ask yourself how you are going to improve your reaction next time.

qz_ 10y ago

They also translated the whole article from De Volkskrant and used the exact same images. So, plagiarism and theft, nice.

Cyph0n 10y ago
I highly doubt that plagiarism is taking place. I bet you that the original outlet simply gave AJ permission to use the article's content and template.
- JackFr 10y ago
  Do you have some special knowledge to indicate that this was done with permission? When reprinting it's common to include a 'with permission of' or 'originally published in' or especially 'translated from the original'. I might have missed it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't there.
  - frankydp 10y ago
    There is a twitter post above of the author promoting the AJ story.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    I've been watching and reading AJ (in both Arabic and English) for >10 years, and I've never seen them do something like this i.e. blatant plagiarism. Actually, I don't think any reputable news org would ever do that on purpose.
tingol 10y ago
Maybe because the same guy who wrote the article works for both the De Volkskrant and Al-Jazeera?

OJFord 10y ago

> What Happened to Journalistic Integrity? Did Al-Jazeera ever have any?

spb 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=aljazeera.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=aljazeera.com
harisvs 10y ago
Al Jazeera always had one ! This must be the fault of some tech intern.
- OJFord 10y ago
  It's owned by the Qatari government; I'm not sure why anyone should trust the independence of a news outlet owned by a foreign democratic government, nevermind Qatar's [0]. But then, a shocking number of people seem to love Russia Today in the UK, so it really is a sad state of affairs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar

gulbanana 10y ago

https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558784 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/769636034749558... it appears the journalist works for both de volkskrant and al-jazeera. scrollytelling is mad that they haven't got paid twice.

caf 10y ago
Do you suppose the journalist got paid once or twice?
frankydp 10y ago
Yeah that twitter conversation seems to lend credence to the idea that the Dutch paper or the writer redistributed the story and attempted to bring the presentation with it. I would be curious to see the license that scrollytelling uses, as redistribution is such a key functionality of the industry.
- frankydp 10y ago
  Some other thoughts and speculation. If the Dutch paper did redistribute/re-license the story to AJ, and if that is in fact a violation of the scrollytelling license, then they(the paper) should be the customer that scrollytelling should be name/shaming and DMCAing. It is also likely that AJ views this(DMCA/blog post) as a upstream licensing issue, and the fact that they have a business relationship with the Dutch paper may lead them to take that up with the paper and not respond to scrollytelling. As, from AJ's point of view, they have already payed a license for the content in this scenario. EDIT: If scrollytelling does not have a straightforward and integrated solution for redistribution licensing then this was bound to happen and probably has before, they just didn't notice because it wasn't an outlet the volume of AJ.
wila 10y ago
They are upset that their code has been used in production without their consent. I'd say rightfully so. Also note that the twitter post is from August 28 and the blog post that was written is from today (September 18) So it seems that Al Jazeera was not that interested in resolving the issue.

leke 10y ago

I would love to hear the AJ response to this. I hope they are allowed to make it public.

lumberjack 10y ago

Copying front-end code is hardly "stealing". At best you can call them out for not properly attributing merit where merit is due.

cryptarch 10y ago
It is copyright infringement and piracy; they had no right to redistribute this code, even if they had kept the copyright notice. Aside from that, I do think it is theft in the sense that AJ is using bandwidth not paid for by them.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

EDIT: I understand the comparison to books and other creative works. However, many writers don't outright copy someone else's work word for word, they appropriate the tone, style, setting, etc. The point I was trying to make is that front-end devs are like the creators of Stranger Things. We may not outright copy code character for character on the front-end, but we sure do give a lot of nods to the greatest hits. And the web is a better place for it

sanderjd 10y ago
Isn't the entire point of copyright to protect things that people put "out into the world"? Proprietary server-side software is already a trade secret, but creative works that must be published to have any use at all (like books, newspaper articles, and client-side software) is properly protected by copyright.
sjs382 10y ago
Yes, HTML/CSS/JS is covered under copyright. Even though you can see the source.
Torn 10y ago
Just because code is transmitted to be executed by browsers doesn't mean it's free from copyright or other intellectual property rights.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wila 10y ago
Following your logic books are free to copy too. Even if you can read the details, the copyright still stands. You do not need to compile/obfuscate your work in order to have it be protected by copyright.

puppetmaster3 10y ago

Each Andorid app is obfuscated by ProGurd. If I'm in the jury and I can easily cut/paste - than that is on you. Obfuscation has to get better in HTML5. There are now some paid tools that obfuscate CSS and HTML5 variables, not just Base64, and inject that it can run on only one domain. Did they do any of that?

retox 10y ago
>Obfuscation has to get better in HTML5 Why? I learned development by looking at the source for sites that interested me.
ameesdotme 10y ago
Android applications are compiled, so they can be obfuscated. Web applications do not work that way at all, and proper obfuscation is impossible. There will always be a way to reverse this, and the actual content shouldn't be obfuscated anyway, as this would have severe negative effects on SEO. Other than that, just because you can steal other people's hard work doesn't mean you should. You clearly do not understand this situation.
- puppetmaster3 10y ago
  'Web applications do not work that way at all' You clearly do not understand the tech. Most (good) web sites are SASS, and that gets compiled for one. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
  - ameesdotme 10y ago
    What. SASS doesn't get compiled, it gets transpiled to CSS, which is human-readable. Trolling?
kuschku 10y ago
> Each Andorid app is obfuscated by ProGurd Actually, I managed to reverse all of the Google apps as compsci student in a matter of weeks, within the legal boundaries, and write specifications how to write apps to replace them. Android is far less obfuscated than most stuff on the web.

zeckalpha 10y ago

What's with the flag?

icebraining 10y ago
It's a pirate flag (often in copyright infringement articles) with Al Jazeera's logo replacing the skull.
- zeckalpha 10y ago
  Still, a bit tasteless.

user5994461 10y ago

Lesson #1 - It will be hilarious when they'll discover that Al-Jazeera is actually paying a license to them. Just under a different name. (Yes, big international companies have many legal names and subsidiaries and buying departments). Lesson #2 - Seriously. Do NOT let 20 yo bro-grammers handle the business and marketing. Noone could care less about your code + The DMCA notice is plain silly. This is exactly how you SHOULD NOT handle business leads and customers.

riotdash 10y ago
What kind of bullshit is this? If they actually legally purchased the software then why the fuck you think they removed all the copyright notices etc? Also why did the Al-Jazeera not respond to any of the allegations?
sooheon 10y ago
The "business" mindset is a funny thing. It turns bullies at worst and thieves at best into leads and customers, just because they're big.
user1111111111 10y ago
1. As they are also host the content, I doubt their contracts are signed without knowing who will be hitting their servers. (How do you think they knew some random party was pulling from their servers?) 2. Seeing as they're a small start-up, the bro-grammers can do jsut fine without business and marketing. Which cannot be said about business and marketing doing well without bro-grammers. 3a. Who cares about what Peter Noone thinks? 3b. I agree, the DMCA is notice is plain silly, they should have sued them outright as per breach of the issuing contract.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

HillRat 10y ago

This ... is not the best way to take advantage of what is basically a sales lead. After all, Scrollytelling is a small company with only a handful of clients, of whom De Volkskrant appears to the most important, so why barge in with DMCA takedowns and angry allegations before you have to? This would have been a great opportunity to work through Scrollytelling's existing relationships with their clients (and their clients' reporters) to get in front of AJ and make a case for their platform (and only go for the lawyers if talks broke down). Instead they've now ensured that, regardless of anything else, at least one reporter is never going to use their platform again and is going to be one hell of a net detractor. For a small company, garnering a reputation as being troublesome loose cannons isn't a good way to grow market share.

Waterluvian 10y ago
Even large companies do that. When a company I was working for began to grow, we got some contacts from Adobe etc. About "hey, you're using illegal copies and we can help you go legit."
- laurentdc 10y ago
  Illegal copies of software (e.g. Photoshop)? I wonder how do they know that - do pirated versions leave fingerprints in your graphic assets? I know for example that typography companies or stock photo agencies crawl the web seeking for unlicensed use for their .woff files or pictures. (I'm just curious, I have a CC subscription)
  - extra88 10y ago
    The traditional way is for Adobe to receive a tip from a disgruntled former employee about the business using unlicensed software.
ada1981 10y ago
Completely disagree with this, you handled yourself well and expressed yourself honestly and made an interesting PR case for yourself and your firm. I'm inspired by how you stood up for yourself. "a reputation as being troublesome loose cannons isn't a good way to grow market share." They sent a DMCA notice that was ignored and are justified in being angry. Perhaps a reputation as someone worth copying who doesn't put up with bullshit is exactly the reputation they want vs. willing to roll over because we think we might make some money somehow, or want to win the approval of others. There is a misconception that being "angry" is somehow a character flaw. We live in this world where everyone is pretending to be "happy" and we shame others for expressing anger.. Anger is a super healthy emotion and when acknowledged and not stuffed into your shadow it can help drive amazing progress.

awinder 10y ago

What's up with the Al Jazeera logo with swords underneath it? Might be misunderstanding but I thought misappropriating branding logos was usually something that was a touchy subject (i.e., no license to modify the brand logo).

mhurron 10y ago
It would appear to be a modification of the Anonymous Pirate Flag. They're making a 'statement.' They were so mad about this event, they photoshoped Al Jazeera's logo.

hcho3 10y ago

I'm really shocked how many people here are blaming the victim here...

look_lookatme 10y ago
There are good ways to handle these situations. A cloying name and shame blog post with allusions to journalistic integrity is not one.
omginternets 10y ago
When the victim thrusts himself into the public sphere, it's sensible to raise alternate hypotheses and call his story into question ... if only to conclude that he is, indeed, the victim! This knee-jerk cry of "don't blame the victim" is just that: a knee-jerk response. Few people want to humiliate victims, but I don't see a reason not to ask pointed questions. I mean no disrespect, but I think comments like yours lower the level of discourse and are pretty toxic despite their good intentions.
davidgerard 10y ago
> I'm really shocked how many people here are blaming the victim here... Welcome to Hacker News.
tilsammans 10y ago
That's fine, I posted the story expecting exactly that. And to be fair our original post missed details that needed clarification. Always a tough choice between a short, shareable story and a longer, complete one. People have all the right to doubt our claims, and I hope I've been able to post sensible replies.

baybal2 10y ago

Good luck enforcing an dmca on a website code vs a foreign company. The court history of such cases is rather funny. From cases thrown out of the court, to unenforceable defaults

microcolonel 10y ago
Not to mention, a "company" owned by the government of Qatar. You couldn't hope to enforce this against a private company in Qatar, and there's no way you'll enforce it against a national government.
tilsammans 10y ago
They do have a documented procedure for this, posted on http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/terms.html http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/terms.html - paragraph (V)(B). It likely does not apply to Al-Jazeera worldwide, though.

webwanderings 10y ago

How does one scroll on a laptop without the browser's scroll bar on the right? What's the point of the "software" if you take away the base feature of a browser?

GirlsCanCode 10y ago

Arabs steal. That's not news.

microcolonel 10y ago

Al-Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, the only country in the world with a major slavery problem in 2016; I don't think plagiarism is what you should be worried about.

hiou 10y ago

I almost cared until I read the snarky, passive aggressive tone this article took along with the fact that it intentionally attempts to frame the entire situation differently from how it actually happened. This is not randomly scraping some content and then re-publishing it. It's a contract dispute about whether the original publisher had rights to redistribute it. What a bunch of brats. Grown up. Yuck

user1111111111 10y ago
Yeah, kids these days, expecting their signed contracts to not be breached. Why don't they get a real job, like used cars sales?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- philtar 10y ago
  Except that it's the Dutch author who breached the contract. But bitching about AlJazeera gets more publicity. What a bunch of brats.

emptystacks 10y ago

It might be wise to just hire an attorney and file a copyright infringement claim. You have a pretty solid case.

ricardobeat 10y ago

Looks like a) journalists using their platform don't really understand what they are paying for [1]: a license to use the story platform, when they expect to use it as a content creation tool and fully own the result. And b) either Al-Jazeera has copied them before [2] or there is some mutual stealing going on... [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777509638002634752 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hiddemhigh/status/777509638002634... [2] http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/BanishedNepal/ http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2015/BanishedNepal/

Macacity 10y ago
> And b) either Al-Jazeera has copied them before [2] or there is some mutual stealing going on... looking at the source and at what they are showing in the updated page of the eggplant story[1] they seem to be using an open source version[2]. [1] http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/gmo-eggplants-aubergines-bangladesh/index.html#2208 http://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/gmo-eggplants-aube... [2] https://github.com/codevise/pageflow https://github.com/codevise/pageflow

mlinksva 10y ago

Dear Al-Jazeera: 1) instruct your developers to only use open source code so as to avoid situations like this 2) slideshows are terrible, lots of work for viewer to get through. text or video work great, stick to them, don't use a format only suited for demo-ing the limited capabilities of cd-roms circa 25 years ago.

csomar 10y ago

Take down the AJ flag with swords. Russians will see it as someone is acknowledging that Qatar is supporting ISIS. I'm not kidding.

calimac 10y ago

Scumb bags

kylehotchkiss 10y ago

Homepage: > We are ready for you hitting the big time. We make sure your stories keep being told, even if they're on the frontpage of The New York Times. So they wouldn't have send the DMCA to NYT?