5 ms·
Copying someone elses site and tricking their users to use your copy is a copyright violation and fraud. Nothing cool about it.
by TekMol 8y ago
Copying someone elses site and tricking their users to use your copy is a copyright violation and fraud. Nothing cool about it.
- mosselman 8y agoYour statement is far too broad and lacks context. Where is this a violation and where is it considered fraud? There must be some countries where this isn't the case or at least where the article and non-commercial use of the technique are considered to be mitigating circumstances. Also, who doesn't find it cool? You don't seem to be saying that what is described in the article isn't cool, you seem to be making a broader claim that copyright violation and fraud aren't cool. Lets assume you find what is described in this article copyright violation and fraud, because after all, you said it is. Apparently some people on HN find what the author has done cool, judging by the comments. Ergo, some things that you, specifically, consider 'copyright violation and fraud' are in fact cool.
- fabricexpert 8y agoHe copied Google's SERP page, AND copied all of his competitors websites. That's definitely copyright infringement, you'd be livid if you were a competitor, and as a user you'd be pretty annoyed. It's still an interesting hack, so good to see it being talked about. But it is not ethical and definitely illegal in almost any jurisdiction.
- EdwardDiego 8y agoCopyright infringement is a civil case in almost any jurisdiction, not a criminal case. The USA is a notable exception, perhaps due to the vested interests with deep pockets.
- fabricexpert 8y agoA civil case you would lose though.
- jakoblorz 8y agoJust to be clear: you do not endorse copyright infringement for the sake of being cool, do you?
- mosselman 8y agoI believe much of modern copyright law in Europe but especially the US is broken, but in general I don't find crime cool, nor do I find 'cool' a justification in itself to do certain things. Not all laws are sacred though. I was merely reacting to broad nature of the claims in parent comment. There is a world beyond the US and Europe, laws are not universal truths, they are a representation of what we have come to agree upon as rules to play by. In copyright law specifically though there is often a chasm between what the people find good rules and what companies find good rules. But that is a different discussion.
- stef25 8y agoIt's a POC with no intention other than seeing if it would be possible, isn't it?
- dejanseo 8y agoNot the first time either. Every now and again I get an interesting idea, test it and share it with the world. The test that was left forgotten had no commercial impact on anyone and very low traffic.
- p49k 8y agoExcept for the part where he said he moved the code to another site five years ago where it has been running since and even ranks highly for some search queries? Unless I’m misreading that paragraph.
- rkangel 8y agoWhile that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally. If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
- treerock 8y agoIf you didn't steal anything, what would the charge be?
- close04 8y agoBreaking and entering or trespassing at the very least.
- wongarsu 8y agoIf you get caught while doing it you would likely be charged with attempted burglary. It's up to you to convince jury/judge that you didn't intend to steal. If you only get caught after leaving the premises it is trespassing, since it's apparent you didn't steal. Picking a lock in order to trespass might make the sentence a bit harsher than normal.
- falcor84 8y agoIt's also a big trademark violation, right?
- code_duck 8y agoI would say copyright violation.
- falcor84 8y agoYeah, copying the content is definitely copyright violation. But I meant to say that by hosting these sites, the developer could also get sued for attempting to conduct business under the trade name of another entity. And that includes, in particular, hosting that fake Google SERP.
- Quarrelsome 8y agobut if you don't care so much about those things it is kinda interesting.
- tomp 8y agoCopyright violation? You're literally just "archiving" their website. Exactly the same as Google are doing themselves.
- mattmanser 8y agoNo, you're using their content to gain financially, and in this instance, at their expense. And that's putting aside all the other possible counter-arguments, of which there are many. I'm no fan of long copyrights, etc., but in this case to me it's a clear cut case.
- detuur 8y agoNo, you're not just "archiving". Besides the point that archiving itself is already in a legal grey zone, at the very least it has the defence that it presents the website unmodified, in exactly the same state for no other purpose than showing the web as it used to be. Like file-sharing websites, archive websites rely on the fact that it's an automated process and they can continue to host anything until they get a DMCA takedown. Not to mention organisations like Archive.org are literally run by librarians which gives their argument of preservation a lot more weight. When you're stealing assets and adding your own tracking code, you're transforming the work, which is a definite no-no for copyright and trademark law. Not to mention that by intercepting traffic which was meant for a competitor you're literally interfering with their business and risk fraud charges.
- 3eto 8y agoWhat's not cool at all is the fact exposed here that Google lets anyone trick their users.
- zepolen 8y agoI guess you don't put locks on your home because you have a 'dont come in' sign on the door right?