7 ms·

SOPA is all fun and games until NBC rips off Apple's artwork

417 points by brodd 15y ago

tocomment 15y ago
Has anything come of this? Has Apple been notified?
- sukhbir 15y ago
  The last paragraph mentions this: "We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a licensing arrangement has been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it.".
- tocomment 15y ago
  I'm probably going to get downvoted for this. FML.
ambirex 15y ago
Giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, this easily could have been a placeholder image that was missed when it was pushed into production. The real problem is the gulf between the law and perception on what is content "theft". There are many people who wouldn't see a problem using the XCode logo for other purposes (read http://clientsfromhell.net/ http://clientsfromhell.net/ for several examples of people not understanding copyright infringement). The article seems a little overblown in its tone. We should allow NBC the same latitude we would want if one of our employee's had made the same mistake. We should also ask NBC to support legislation that would allow for education and forgiveness.
- Monkeyget 15y ago
  That's why you ought to put a big ugly red placeholder text on every temporary content.
  - mgcross 15y ago
    Yep. A big, hot pink "FPO" stamped on anything w/out usage.
  - TheBranca18 15y ago
    Or just use a website like http://placehold.it http://placehold.it and grab an image: http://placehold.it/256x256 http://placehold.it/256x256 It's pretty obvious then when you need to replace something before going into production.
    - adam_freidin 15y ago
      I've always liked http://placekitten.com/ http://placekitten.com/
- ktizo 15y ago
  To test if this article is overblown, you could launch a new product with one of NBC's major logos as one of your main promotional images and then see if NBC shares your view.
jonnathanson 15y ago
More likely than not, this is -- as the article surmises -- the result of some intern at a far-flung backwater of NBC's having been sloppy. Probably a Google image search for some query that incidentally returned Apple's artwork among the pile, followed by a "Hey, that looks cool," followed by an appropriation. This is copypasta, not intentional infringement. (It's infringement just the same, and should be taken down, but there are mountains and then there are molehills). Let's remember the old dictum: never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. I'm not excusing NBC in any way here, least of all for SOPA (those who've read my comments and writings know I'm a huge opponent of the latter). But the likelihood that anyone in any position of power at NBC even saw that page is slim to none. I've worked for NBC in a past life, and I can tell you that the divisions responsible for these web pages don't even show up on the radar. They're so far removed from the power centers of the organization that many people probably aren't even aware they exist. (That, in itself, is a problem; don't get me wrong). If you want to find much more malicious and intentional rip-offs of this logo, they abound on the interwebz. For example: http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/bigthumbs/500-600/preview-link-building-tools-better-online-visibility.jpg http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/bigthumbs/... Had NBC been using something like that, I think we'd have far more cause for indignation and uproar. Something like that image bespeaks a rather deliberate and shameless attempt to rip off Apple's artwork.
- krschultz 15y ago
  So? A) Intent never seemed to matter in the SOPA debate. B) A corporation is responsible for every employee, no matter how lowly, that's the way it works. Look at the FedEx employee who threw a monitor he was delivering over a fence on camera - even though he is but one of 20,000 delivery men, they still were completely responsible for that.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    I don't disagree with either of your points. I'm just saying that the spin being put on this story is out of synch with the magnitude of the story.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
> so why not just steal it? Can we please stop using the terms "stealing" and "theft" to refer to copyright infringement?
- sp332 15y ago
  I think they're talking about appropriation, as in, NBC claims that Apple's graphic is really their own. That's why it's "stealing."
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    Apple still have their logo. If Apple exces go to the graphics storage cupboard and find the logo missing and unavailable for them to use, then it might well have been "stolen".
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      As my boss constantly likes to point out; the law on "theft" was long ago changed from "permanently deprived" to cover information loss. (at least in the UK, I understand the same happened in the US)
      - nextparadigms 15y ago
        I very much doubt it. The Supreme Court declared a while ago that copyright infringement is not theft.
        ErrantX 15y ago
        Thanks, that's good info. I'm surprised. When the issue of auto-theft came up (many years ago) the ruling was very different. Legally speaking if you took a car for a spin and dumped it (back with the owner, or whatever) this was technically not theft - as there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the car. I'm pretty sure they ruled it was still considered theft - off the back of similar legislation changes in the UK.
PeterisP 15y ago
SOPA would be great - it would mean that the owner could (and should) go to a judge and take NBC's website(s) offline. And then ask their official opinion about SOPA.
trotsky 15y ago
So if I dug through a bunch of environmental activists' trash and found a stray recyclable would that be an indictment of mandatory recycling laws? The only thing thing interesting about this article is how easy it is to use SOPA as cheap link bait.
- dubya 15y ago
  If the same activists were advocating laws allowing them to go through other people's garbage looking for recyclables, with disproportionate fines or the suspension of all municipal services as the penalty for violation, then yes.
  - uvdiv 15y ago
    You mean, Cleveland? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/city_of_cleveland_to_use_high-.html http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/city_of_cleveland_to... Government agents there are empowered to root through private citizens' trash without probable cause, to search for recyclables. Additionally they put small computers on private trash cans, to monitor their movements -- to continue the analogy: it would be as if SOPA mandated government spyware on your hard drive.
  - trotsky 15y ago
    Is anyone under the impression that if SOPA had passed this example would have lead to Apple pursuing an infringement action under it against NBC Universal, who happens to be a big Apple partner, over the misappropriation of an icon? There are plenty of very good arguments against SOPA and PIPA - it's easy to find them, they were/are bad laws. But is a single example of a non-willful violation that they'll be happy to remedy one of them? Not really.
    - isleyaardvark 15y ago
      That's just an example of the unequal enforcement of the law. In order to avoid getting your site shut down, you'd need to be friends with the rich and powerful.
coob 15y ago
Icon infringement is rampant: http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/ http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/
aptwebapps 15y ago
Man that was a lot of words to not much purpose. The basic fact of it is funny enough, but c'mon, this has nothing to do with SOPA.
- roc 15y ago
  Except to point out that with SOPA, Apple could have shut down NBC's entire domain until NBC's lawyers had jumped through the requisite hoops. And that just about every web site on the internet would be just as vulnerable to be shut down by such requests due accidental infringement.
  - aptwebapps 15y ago
    No they could not have. Certainly not in the later versions and, I think, not in the earlier versions but I couldn't swear to it. In the later versions the site in question would have to be a non-US site (they don't need SOPA for US sites as we've seen with Megaupload) and the site would need to operate with the intent to promote copyright infringement. Obviously that is very broad, but I don't think anyone could stretch it to one misappropriated jpeg in a site completely dedicated to something else. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely opposed to SOPA and legislation like it, I just don't think this is relevant. Edit: typos
cstuder 15y ago
On a similar note: I've taken a picture back in 2007 of a notice beneath the Sony Center in Berlin: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hymnos/1987519794/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hymnos/1987519794/ Sony PR was unable to clear all copyrights for pictures they had used in a exhibition about the past of the building. And publicly admitted it.
darksaga 15y ago
I think its important to note, even if this was some contracted company who put up the site, you would think designers would either know better, or at least have the skills to create something similar. I'm by no means a whiz with Illustrator, but I bet I could whip something up in a few hours that's similar without infringing on Apple's copyrights. I mean hell, all you have to do is google "blueprint icon tutorial" and you get over a million hits. There is absolutely no excuse for someone doing this with such a vast amount of resources at their disposal.
talos 15y ago
yowza that's pathetic -- they didn't even bother to efface the 'XCODE' text in the lower right, or the Apple logo on the lower left! http://hometransformers.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hammer_icon.png http://hometransformers.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hammer...
- hisabness 15y ago
  xcode photo was just removed, and intern probably fired. stolen background image still in use.
  - blahedo 15y ago
    Still haven't removed the background wallpaper, though.
Skroob 15y ago
I'm also pretty sure the background on their page is Louie Mantia's work as well. It's an older version that he's since replaced, but you can see it on this site: http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.html http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.ht... FWIW, the current version (Blueprint Neue) is here: http://mantia.me/wallpaper/blueprint/ http://mantia.me/wallpaper/blueprint/
badalyan 15y ago
What about this? http://abc.go.com/watch http://abc.go.com/watch
AgentConundrum 15y ago
Off-topic, but that site was pretty much unreadable to me for a minute or so. At the top of the page, in a fixed-position div, there was a share button with an incrementing counter of shares. My eye was constantly drawn to the ever-incrementing counter, but because it was fixed, I couldn't scroll past it. Bad UX.
- clebio 15y ago
  It's particularly annoying that the counter re-runs from zero just by refreshing the page -- and yet shows the same final count each time. Is it even actually dynamic, does the counter increment in real time if there's a new share while you're on the page?
  - AgentConundrum 15y ago
    I think it actually is a live counter. I fired up HTTPFox and the page keeps sending requests to a URL containing "stream.thenextweb.fyre.co/livecountping/" - it appears to be intermittently polling for a new count, but I didn't notice it actually increment when I read the site the first time, and I'm not interested in monitoring it now to be sure.
JamisonM 15y ago
Is that not just a piece of generic clip art that both companies could have licensed from the same source? The whole article seems like a lot of conjecture about something only vaguely related to SOPA in order to publish a story about SOPA.
Tmorahan 15y ago
giggles I love it when a plan comes together.
EGreg 15y ago
Look people. We all know that SOPA sucked. Personally I called my congressman and suggested the following amendment to SOPA: When the dept of justice (or whoever is tasked with prosecuting these sites) finds a site, they contact it and issue a invitation to participate in domestic proceedings, and the invitation is good for a certain period (30 days for example). During this time, the site can respond, realize the problem, maybe make amends or reach a settlement. If they do not respond within the time period, then they are considered in default, and US financial institutions, search engines etc. could be compelled block them. However, at any time they can start legal proceedings within the US, and try to get reinstated, until the statute of limitations runs out (a few years). This would have introduced the proper concepts of due process (inviting them to participate and offer them an opportunity to resolve the matter before taking drastic measures), jurisdiction (only US financial companies would be compelled to stop dealing with them, and possibly search engines, etc.) And IMHO it would be a good compromise. Finally, here is why it would work: it takes a while from a site to grow from an insignificant pirate hub (where people can download movies, etc.) to something that lots of people in the US know. Remember, the problem is only that US citizens are downloading pirated US movies & shows (which cost a lot to make) from abroad. Once lots of people in the US know how to get to it using domain X or method X, then the entertainment industry can take notice. By that time, the site has been operating for a while (probably over a year). What is another 30 days at this point. The due process should take place. The entertainment industry is presumably going after big fish, not fly by night file hosters. So there is no reason to shoot first and ask questions later. I am probably going to get downvoted because I am talking about SOPA and saying it could work using some sort of compromise. But I try to be open minded. Those who know me know I criticize copyright, but I don't think our society is ready for a completely wikipedia-like approach to art. I have thought about the issue and in practical terms, copyright is actually quite useful as it enforces copyleft. And in fact, using copyright and copyleft, we have a competition of content creation by open groups and by proprietary interests. Which is good for society. Patents in software, on the other hand, should be abolished :)
shtylman 15y ago
The last paragraph should have been the first. Why write this piece on "stealing" and infringement when you don't even know the facts?
J3L2404 15y ago
Cognitive dissonance. If you really think this justifies copyright violation of software and films you need to grow up.
MRonney 15y ago
Super long, condemning article that points out hyper-hypocrisy, then I get to this. We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a licensing arrangement has been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it. So, what we have here is someone who took the time to write all of that and not even fucking fact check first. I also doubt Apple licensed their artwork, but you can't fucking post shit like this before you know for sure.
- WiseWeasel 15y ago
  You need to relax, buddy!
uncoder0 15y ago
Here is the link to the original Post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774416
glenntzke 15y ago
Upon my most recent visit, the image is no longer there. Not just hidden, but they removed the markup and it is no longer loaded with the site. I would like to believe that this post created enough of a cease and desist to effect the takedown.

417 points by brodd 15y ago

tocomment 15y ago

Has anything come of this? Has Apple been notified?

sukhbir 15y ago
The last paragraph mentions this: "We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a licensing arrangement has been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it.".
tocomment 15y ago
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this. FML.

ambirex 15y ago

Giving the maximum benefit of the doubt, this easily could have been a placeholder image that was missed when it was pushed into production. The real problem is the gulf between the law and perception on what is content "theft". There are many people who wouldn't see a problem using the XCode logo for other purposes (read http://clientsfromhell.net/ http://clientsfromhell.net/ for several examples of people not understanding copyright infringement). The article seems a little overblown in its tone. We should allow NBC the same latitude we would want if one of our employee's had made the same mistake. We should also ask NBC to support legislation that would allow for education and forgiveness.

Monkeyget 15y ago
That's why you ought to put a big ugly red placeholder text on every temporary content.
- mgcross 15y ago
  Yep. A big, hot pink "FPO" stamped on anything w/out usage.
- TheBranca18 15y ago
  Or just use a website like http://placehold.it http://placehold.it and grab an image: http://placehold.it/256x256 http://placehold.it/256x256 It's pretty obvious then when you need to replace something before going into production.
  - adam_freidin 15y ago
    I've always liked http://placekitten.com/ http://placekitten.com/
ktizo 15y ago
To test if this article is overblown, you could launch a new product with one of NBC's major logos as one of your main promotional images and then see if NBC shares your view.

jonnathanson 15y ago

More likely than not, this is -- as the article surmises -- the result of some intern at a far-flung backwater of NBC's having been sloppy. Probably a Google image search for some query that incidentally returned Apple's artwork among the pile, followed by a "Hey, that looks cool," followed by an appropriation. This is copypasta, not intentional infringement. (It's infringement just the same, and should be taken down, but there are mountains and then there are molehills). Let's remember the old dictum: never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. I'm not excusing NBC in any way here, least of all for SOPA (those who've read my comments and writings know I'm a huge opponent of the latter). But the likelihood that anyone in any position of power at NBC even saw that page is slim to none. I've worked for NBC in a past life, and I can tell you that the divisions responsible for these web pages don't even show up on the radar. They're so far removed from the power centers of the organization that many people probably aren't even aware they exist. (That, in itself, is a problem; don't get me wrong). If you want to find much more malicious and intentional rip-offs of this logo, they abound on the interwebz. For example: http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/bigthumbs/500-600/preview-link-building-tools-better-online-visibility.jpg http://cdn1.1stwebdesigner.com/wp-content/uploads/bigthumbs/... Had NBC been using something like that, I think we'd have far more cause for indignation and uproar. Something like that image bespeaks a rather deliberate and shameless attempt to rip off Apple's artwork.

krschultz 15y ago
So? A) Intent never seemed to matter in the SOPA debate. B) A corporation is responsible for every employee, no matter how lowly, that's the way it works. Look at the FedEx employee who threw a monitor he was delivering over a fence on camera - even though he is but one of 20,000 delivery men, they still were completely responsible for that.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  I don't disagree with either of your points. I'm just saying that the spin being put on this story is out of synch with the magnitude of the story.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago

> so why not just steal it? Can we please stop using the terms "stealing" and "theft" to refer to copyright infringement?

sp332 15y ago
I think they're talking about appropriation, as in, NBC claims that Apple's graphic is really their own. That's why it's "stealing."
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Apple still have their logo. If Apple exces go to the graphics storage cupboard and find the logo missing and unavailable for them to use, then it might well have been "stolen".
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    As my boss constantly likes to point out; the law on "theft" was long ago changed from "permanently deprived" to cover information loss. (at least in the UK, I understand the same happened in the US)
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      I very much doubt it. The Supreme Court declared a while ago that copyright infringement is not theft.
      - ErrantX 15y ago
        Thanks, that's good info. I'm surprised. When the issue of auto-theft came up (many years ago) the ruling was very different. Legally speaking if you took a car for a spin and dumped it (back with the owner, or whatever) this was technically not theft - as there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the car. I'm pretty sure they ruled it was still considered theft - off the back of similar legislation changes in the UK.

PeterisP 15y ago

SOPA would be great - it would mean that the owner could (and should) go to a judge and take NBC's website(s) offline. And then ask their official opinion about SOPA.

trotsky 15y ago

So if I dug through a bunch of environmental activists' trash and found a stray recyclable would that be an indictment of mandatory recycling laws? The only thing thing interesting about this article is how easy it is to use SOPA as cheap link bait.

dubya 15y ago
If the same activists were advocating laws allowing them to go through other people's garbage looking for recyclables, with disproportionate fines or the suspension of all municipal services as the penalty for violation, then yes.
- uvdiv 15y ago
  You mean, Cleveland? http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/city_of_cleveland_to_use_high-.html http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/city_of_cleveland_to... Government agents there are empowered to root through private citizens' trash without probable cause, to search for recyclables. Additionally they put small computers on private trash cans, to monitor their movements -- to continue the analogy: it would be as if SOPA mandated government spyware on your hard drive.
- trotsky 15y ago
  Is anyone under the impression that if SOPA had passed this example would have lead to Apple pursuing an infringement action under it against NBC Universal, who happens to be a big Apple partner, over the misappropriation of an icon? There are plenty of very good arguments against SOPA and PIPA - it's easy to find them, they were/are bad laws. But is a single example of a non-willful violation that they'll be happy to remedy one of them? Not really.
  - isleyaardvark 15y ago
    That's just an example of the unequal enforcement of the law. In order to avoid getting your site shut down, you'd need to be friends with the rich and powerful.

coob 15y ago

Icon infringement is rampant: http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/ http://www.panic.com/extras/ripoff/

aptwebapps 15y ago

Man that was a lot of words to not much purpose. The basic fact of it is funny enough, but c'mon, this has nothing to do with SOPA.

roc 15y ago
Except to point out that with SOPA, Apple could have shut down NBC's entire domain until NBC's lawyers had jumped through the requisite hoops. And that just about every web site on the internet would be just as vulnerable to be shut down by such requests due accidental infringement.
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  No they could not have. Certainly not in the later versions and, I think, not in the earlier versions but I couldn't swear to it. In the later versions the site in question would have to be a non-US site (they don't need SOPA for US sites as we've seen with Megaupload) and the site would need to operate with the intent to promote copyright infringement. Obviously that is very broad, but I don't think anyone could stretch it to one misappropriated jpeg in a site completely dedicated to something else. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely opposed to SOPA and legislation like it, I just don't think this is relevant. Edit: typos

cstuder 15y ago

On a similar note: I've taken a picture back in 2007 of a notice beneath the Sony Center in Berlin: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hymnos/1987519794/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hymnos/1987519794/ Sony PR was unable to clear all copyrights for pictures they had used in a exhibition about the past of the building. And publicly admitted it.

darksaga 15y ago

I think its important to note, even if this was some contracted company who put up the site, you would think designers would either know better, or at least have the skills to create something similar. I'm by no means a whiz with Illustrator, but I bet I could whip something up in a few hours that's similar without infringing on Apple's copyrights. I mean hell, all you have to do is google "blueprint icon tutorial" and you get over a million hits. There is absolutely no excuse for someone doing this with such a vast amount of resources at their disposal.

talos 15y ago

yowza that's pathetic -- they didn't even bother to efface the 'XCODE' text in the lower right, or the Apple logo on the lower left! http://hometransformers.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hammer_icon.png http://hometransformers.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hammer...

hisabness 15y ago
xcode photo was just removed, and intern probably fired. stolen background image still in use.
- blahedo 15y ago
  Still haven't removed the background wallpaper, though.

Skroob 15y ago

I'm also pretty sure the background on their page is Louie Mantia's work as well. It's an older version that he's since replaced, but you can see it on this site: http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.html http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1236/blueprint.ht... FWIW, the current version (Blueprint Neue) is here: http://mantia.me/wallpaper/blueprint/ http://mantia.me/wallpaper/blueprint/

badalyan 15y ago

What about this? http://abc.go.com/watch http://abc.go.com/watch

AgentConundrum 15y ago

Off-topic, but that site was pretty much unreadable to me for a minute or so. At the top of the page, in a fixed-position div, there was a share button with an incrementing counter of shares. My eye was constantly drawn to the ever-incrementing counter, but because it was fixed, I couldn't scroll past it. Bad UX.

clebio 15y ago
It's particularly annoying that the counter re-runs from zero just by refreshing the page -- and yet shows the same final count each time. Is it even actually dynamic, does the counter increment in real time if there's a new share while you're on the page?
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  I think it actually is a live counter. I fired up HTTPFox and the page keeps sending requests to a URL containing "stream.thenextweb.fyre.co/livecountping/" - it appears to be intermittently polling for a new count, but I didn't notice it actually increment when I read the site the first time, and I'm not interested in monitoring it now to be sure.

JamisonM 15y ago

Is that not just a piece of generic clip art that both companies could have licensed from the same source? The whole article seems like a lot of conjecture about something only vaguely related to SOPA in order to publish a story about SOPA.

Tmorahan 15y ago

giggles I love it when a plan comes together.

EGreg 15y ago

Look people. We all know that SOPA sucked. Personally I called my congressman and suggested the following amendment to SOPA: When the dept of justice (or whoever is tasked with prosecuting these sites) finds a site, they contact it and issue a invitation to participate in domestic proceedings, and the invitation is good for a certain period (30 days for example). During this time, the site can respond, realize the problem, maybe make amends or reach a settlement. If they do not respond within the time period, then they are considered in default, and US financial institutions, search engines etc. could be compelled block them. However, at any time they can start legal proceedings within the US, and try to get reinstated, until the statute of limitations runs out (a few years). This would have introduced the proper concepts of due process (inviting them to participate and offer them an opportunity to resolve the matter before taking drastic measures), jurisdiction (only US financial companies would be compelled to stop dealing with them, and possibly search engines, etc.) And IMHO it would be a good compromise. Finally, here is why it would work: it takes a while from a site to grow from an insignificant pirate hub (where people can download movies, etc.) to something that lots of people in the US know. Remember, the problem is only that US citizens are downloading pirated US movies & shows (which cost a lot to make) from abroad. Once lots of people in the US know how to get to it using domain X or method X, then the entertainment industry can take notice. By that time, the site has been operating for a while (probably over a year). What is another 30 days at this point. The due process should take place. The entertainment industry is presumably going after big fish, not fly by night file hosters. So there is no reason to shoot first and ask questions later. I am probably going to get downvoted because I am talking about SOPA and saying it could work using some sort of compromise. But I try to be open minded. Those who know me know I criticize copyright, but I don't think our society is ready for a completely wikipedia-like approach to art. I have thought about the issue and in practical terms, copyright is actually quite useful as it enforces copyleft. And in fact, using copyright and copyleft, we have a competition of content creation by open groups and by proprietary interests. Which is good for society. Patents in software, on the other hand, should be abolished :)

shtylman 15y ago

The last paragraph should have been the first. Why write this piece on "stealing" and infringement when you don't even know the facts?

J3L2404 15y ago

Cognitive dissonance. If you really think this justifies copyright violation of software and films you need to grow up.

MRonney 15y ago

Super long, condemning article that points out hyper-hypocrisy, then I get to this. We’ve reached out to Apple to see whether a licensing arrangement has been reached for this graphic…but we doubt it. So, what we have here is someone who took the time to write all of that and not even fucking fact check first. I also doubt Apple licensed their artwork, but you can't fucking post shit like this before you know for sure.

WiseWeasel 15y ago
You need to relax, buddy!

uncoder0 15y ago

Here is the link to the original Post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774416 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774416

glenntzke 15y ago

Upon my most recent visit, the image is no longer there. Not just hidden, but they removed the markup and it is no longer loaded with the site. I would like to believe that this post created enough of a cease and desist to effect the takedown.