3 ms·

There are lots of pages that use this particular drop shadow but there are also lots of other possible and very popular variants of this particular setting. I a

by stiff 14y ago

There are lots of pages that use this particular drop shadow but there are also lots of other possible and very popular variants of this particular setting. I am not arguing any of the settings by itself is likely to be unique, I am arguing that once you have 30 or 50 decisions like that to make, each even with just a few reasonable possibile solutions, it is very highly unlikely two persons will chose the same combination of solutions in the majority of the decisions, even if the CSS to achieve the effect would be different, just because there are so many possibilities. And many decisions are much more arbitrary than the examples shown so far, like choosing the way you present the past issues of your magazine. If we are sitting next to each other and are told to write down a random 50 character long string built from digits from 1 to 5 and we would end up having the same digits on 30 positions, with long subsequences being the same (= many decisions regarding closely related design parameters being the same), would you be more willing to attribute it to chance or to one of us copying from another?

droithomme 14y ago
The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the case here. What exactly are you arguing for? My original post makes that point that this is definitely a violation since there IS exact copying of the CSS file. And yes, the copied Google analytics id makes it 100% sure. We are then arguing not about exact copying of text but about very similar layouts. I am saying very similar layouts are not proof of copying. You are saying they are. OK. That's your position, I have mine. The arguments you have used are weak and rather than concede any of them when their flaws are pointed out you just start making new claims. Therefore this could go on forever and never be resolved. So let's end it, all right? I do understand you are fascinated with this particular case. Let's talk about that. I've never seen anyone file a CSS file with the copyright office, therefore it's unlikely this CSS file is filed. That means that, while their copying is illegal and a copyright violation, any lawsuit would result only in actual damages and not statutory damages, per US copyright law. (We'll assume this case gets filed in the US as claims with parties in two different countries are nearly impossible for small concerns to prosecute.) There are no actual damages though, so it's a pointless waste of money to pursue a case. So what to do? Name and shame, what they are doing here. That's the best approach since they are 100% certain there was copying going on, and any reasonable jury would see that, therefore there is no risk of a defamation claim, they are stating facts. Is this sufficient? I say no. Who is the person who lazily copied the CSS file rather than be a pro and write his own? His name should be disclosed publicly and he should forever be blacklisted from the industry. That's the way to do it. Who is their layout guy that checked in this file? They need to state his name and particulars so everyone knows to avoid him. His career needs to be over, permanently. That's how to stop the widespread thievery going on. If The Hacker News Magazine will not disclose the name of the person who did this and fire him immediately, The Hacker News Magazine should be boycotted, along with all its affiliates because such behavior can not be tolerated in our industry of creative professionals. If THNM agrees to fire him and disclose his name, and redoes their layout to be original work, then their inevitable CEO apology could be considered sincere. Without firing and disclosure though, any apology would just be an admission they are only sorry they got caught stealing, and such apology could not be considered sincere.
- stiff 14y ago
  The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the case here. It is a useful model of the situation, you have 50 (lets say) decisions to make (border color, margin height, number of images per row, ...), each with 5 (lets say) equally likely outcomes (#666 is quite as good and popular as #777,#888,#555,#444; 1.0em like 1.5 em,0.5em,2.0em,2.5em; ...). All I'm saying is that you cannot explain that many visual and conceptual solutions being the same with chance alone, since that is an event with very low probability if you honestly perform each decision by yourself.

by stiff 14y ago

droithomme 14y ago

The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the case here. What exactly are you arguing for? My original post makes that point that this is definitely a violation since there IS exact copying of the CSS file. And yes, the copied Google analytics id makes it 100% sure. We are then arguing not about exact copying of text but about very similar layouts. I am saying very similar layouts are not proof of copying. You are saying they are. OK. That's your position, I have mine. The arguments you have used are weak and rather than concede any of them when their flaws are pointed out you just start making new claims. Therefore this could go on forever and never be resolved. So let's end it, all right? I do understand you are fascinated with this particular case. Let's talk about that. I've never seen anyone file a CSS file with the copyright office, therefore it's unlikely this CSS file is filed. That means that, while their copying is illegal and a copyright violation, any lawsuit would result only in actual damages and not statutory damages, per US copyright law. (We'll assume this case gets filed in the US as claims with parties in two different countries are nearly impossible for small concerns to prosecute.) There are no actual damages though, so it's a pointless waste of money to pursue a case. So what to do? Name and shame, what they are doing here. That's the best approach since they are 100% certain there was copying going on, and any reasonable jury would see that, therefore there is no risk of a defamation claim, they are stating facts. Is this sufficient? I say no. Who is the person who lazily copied the CSS file rather than be a pro and write his own? His name should be disclosed publicly and he should forever be blacklisted from the industry. That's the way to do it. Who is their layout guy that checked in this file? They need to state his name and particulars so everyone knows to avoid him. His career needs to be over, permanently. That's how to stop the widespread thievery going on. If The Hacker News Magazine will not disclose the name of the person who did this and fire him immediately, The Hacker News Magazine should be boycotted, along with all its affiliates because such behavior can not be tolerated in our industry of creative professionals. If THNM agrees to fire him and disclose his name, and redoes their layout to be original work, then their inevitable CEO apology could be considered sincere. Without firing and disclosure though, any apology would just be an admission they are only sorry they got caught stealing, and such apology could not be considered sincere.

stiff 14y ago
The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the case here. It is a useful model of the situation, you have 50 (lets say) decisions to make (border color, margin height, number of images per row, ...), each with 5 (lets say) equally likely outcomes (#666 is quite as good and popular as #777,#888,#555,#444; 1.0em like 1.5 em,0.5em,2.0em,2.5em; ...). All I'm saying is that you cannot explain that many visual and conceptual solutions being the same with chance alone, since that is an event with very low probability if you honestly perform each decision by yourself.