5 ms·

As much as I hate the DMCA, when this happens and a U.S. host starts ignoring legitimate DMCA notices, start emailing their upstreams. Softlayer is probably doi

As much as I hate the DMCA, when this happens and a U.S. host starts ignoring legitimate DMCA notices, start emailing their upstreams. Softlayer is probably doing this because they have an inexperienced tech handling your request. Email ATDN, Global Crossing, Cogent Communications, and many of the other companies they peer with and say the website has not been shut down despite emails sent to Softlayer. Those companies may threaten to nullroute the website's IP. If they don't do anything (unlikely) get an injunction. It's trivial for this guy to get it hosted elsewhere, however. This is just me, but I wouldn't expect to build anything in HTML5 that couldn't be copied-- the platform is inherently open. If the only creative and useful properties of your work is built in the open, there does not seem to be a compelling reason why you would be protected by copyright. This person could build a website around your "copyrights" in little time.

grabeh 14y ago
Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. This could be the same skill put into a non-open source piece of software, just that the opportunity to copy isn't so readily available. Also, saying that the person who copied the website could build around the website in no time at all rather assumes that they have the skill to do so.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  > Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. I never said it did, and that's what's unfortunate about this situation. His service has no backend that could not be easily replicated, and the frontend is portable. You cannot build software like this without being copied... by nature it is not practical to expect to limit others' behavior with open platform code. There are no laws that will protect you from sufficient copying effort. Whether the person is skilled or not is another issue. The OP would still be mad if somebody ripped off his website and made it just different enough.
  - grabeh 14y ago
    Ah I see - yes, I take your point. I agree that if it is easily available, it is likely to be copied, such is the reality of human nature. Unfortunately, it does rather incentivise keeping things locked up which is a shame in some respects in terms of increasing knowledge. Some times the best way of protecting your innovation is simply not to disclose. I agree that most people have an emotional connection to their product and if someone designed around it, it would still hurt. However, this process would take time and is the nature of competition. As such, the impact can't be as great as in the instant case where the infringer has just ported the whole platform.
- davidw 14y ago
  > non-open source "Open source" does not mean "you can view the source". It means software that is freely usable and redistributable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#The_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines...
  - grabeh 14y ago
    Thank you for the correction. Is there a term to describe code which although freely viewable is not open-source?
    - ewillbefull 14y ago
      Proprietary.
      - grabeh 14y ago
        But that for me doesn't capture the aspect of it being freely available to examine/read - perhaps such a term doesn't exist!
        davidw 14y ago
        I don't think there's one term. "An application with exposed/visible source code", maybe.
        bigiain 14y ago
        The term "shared source" exists, and sort-of covers this scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Microsoft_Reciprocal_License_.28Ms-RL.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Mi...
        simonster 14y ago
        Minified JavaScript is only marginally easier to read than disassembled/decompiled binaries.
wilfra 14y ago
That's like saying a book is not copyrightable because anybody who understands that language can easily copy it. Of course things built on the web in HTML5 can be copyrighted, regardless of how easy one can copy them. Protecting them is another matter and I agree with you on that. You can go to great lengths to obfuscate the code or whatever but in the end anybody with enough skill and motivation will be able to copy your work.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  People can write ripoff books that are different enough to be free from recourse. In HTML5, the platform is even more narrow than natural language. A "thief" has available to them all of the approaches, quirks and libraries of the original author -- none of which is exclusive. Together with the lack of practical enforcement, there doesn't appear to be any utility in the law. Saying an HTML5 web app should be protected by copyright is a bad joke at this point.
  - posabsolute 14y ago
    It's not a bad joke, and what he is selling is not a web app either. There is a lot of open source projects that you have to buy commercial licence in other more closed languages. What he is selling is a programming framework to do games and it is not licenced to be resold, simple as that. If the guy would be in the US, it's clear that action would be easily enforceable. Softlayer should atleast take down the website.
AJ007 14y ago
If Softlayer ignores the DMCA complaint, thats good news from a monetary standpoint, because now they have fallen out of the safe harbor and there is someone to collect money from. Then they get to do the hard work of collecting from "Long Yang."
nroach 14y ago
The OP wrote that "I prepared a DMCA and sent it via fax to Softlayer. I never heard back and finally gave up on the whole thing." This is probably not the most effective way to handle a DMCA notice. While it would be nice if every company's compliance team was responsive and open, this task is often outsourced and because the DMCA is fundamentally a legal process, review and action can be very conservative. If you want to fast-track action, certified or registered mail beats facsimile every time. A follow-up letter including a copy the certified delivery receipt is very effective. This is even more true if it's on law firm letterhead or company letterhead and professional in tone. Presumably, if this is a big enough issue to post on HN and if there's some lost revenue, it's probably worth the time to follow up on the DMCA takedown request(s). It may also be worth the time to ask an attorney to prepare a sample letter you can use for this and future takedown procedures. I'd encourage the OP to not give up on the DMCA process, as it can be very effective with a little bit of followup.

grabeh 14y ago

Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. This could be the same skill put into a non-open source piece of software, just that the opportunity to copy isn't so readily available. Also, saying that the person who copied the website could build around the website in no time at all rather assumes that they have the skill to do so.

ewillbefull 14y ago
> Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. I never said it did, and that's what's unfortunate about this situation. His service has no backend that could not be easily replicated, and the frontend is portable. You cannot build software like this without being copied... by nature it is not practical to expect to limit others' behavior with open platform code. There are no laws that will protect you from sufficient copying effort. Whether the person is skilled or not is another issue. The OP would still be mad if somebody ripped off his website and made it just different enough.
- grabeh 14y ago
  Ah I see - yes, I take your point. I agree that if it is easily available, it is likely to be copied, such is the reality of human nature. Unfortunately, it does rather incentivise keeping things locked up which is a shame in some respects in terms of increasing knowledge. Some times the best way of protecting your innovation is simply not to disclose. I agree that most people have an emotional connection to their product and if someone designed around it, it would still hurt. However, this process would take time and is the nature of competition. As such, the impact can't be as great as in the instant case where the infringer has just ported the whole platform.
davidw 14y ago
> non-open source "Open source" does not mean "you can view the source". It means software that is freely usable and redistributable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#The_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines...
- grabeh 14y ago
  Thank you for the correction. Is there a term to describe code which although freely viewable is not open-source?
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    Proprietary.
    - grabeh 14y ago
      But that for me doesn't capture the aspect of it being freely available to examine/read - perhaps such a term doesn't exist!
      - davidw 14y ago
        I don't think there's one term. "An application with exposed/visible source code", maybe.
        bigiain 14y ago
        The term "shared source" exists, and sort-of covers this scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Microsoft_Reciprocal_License_.28Ms-RL.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Mi...
      - simonster 14y ago
        Minified JavaScript is only marginally easier to read than disassembled/decompiled binaries.

wilfra 14y ago

That's like saying a book is not copyrightable because anybody who understands that language can easily copy it. Of course things built on the web in HTML5 can be copyrighted, regardless of how easy one can copy them. Protecting them is another matter and I agree with you on that. You can go to great lengths to obfuscate the code or whatever but in the end anybody with enough skill and motivation will be able to copy your work.

ewillbefull 14y ago
People can write ripoff books that are different enough to be free from recourse. In HTML5, the platform is even more narrow than natural language. A "thief" has available to them all of the approaches, quirks and libraries of the original author -- none of which is exclusive. Together with the lack of practical enforcement, there doesn't appear to be any utility in the law. Saying an HTML5 web app should be protected by copyright is a bad joke at this point.
- posabsolute 14y ago
  It's not a bad joke, and what he is selling is not a web app either. There is a lot of open source projects that you have to buy commercial licence in other more closed languages. What he is selling is a programming framework to do games and it is not licenced to be resold, simple as that. If the guy would be in the US, it's clear that action would be easily enforceable. Softlayer should atleast take down the website.

AJ007 14y ago

If Softlayer ignores the DMCA complaint, thats good news from a monetary standpoint, because now they have fallen out of the safe harbor and there is someone to collect money from. Then they get to do the hard work of collecting from "Long Yang."

nroach 14y ago

The OP wrote that "I prepared a DMCA and sent it via fax to Softlayer. I never heard back and finally gave up on the whole thing." This is probably not the most effective way to handle a DMCA notice. While it would be nice if every company's compliance team was responsive and open, this task is often outsourced and because the DMCA is fundamentally a legal process, review and action can be very conservative. If you want to fast-track action, certified or registered mail beats facsimile every time. A follow-up letter including a copy the certified delivery receipt is very effective. This is even more true if it's on law firm letterhead or company letterhead and professional in tone. Presumably, if this is a big enough issue to post on HN and if there's some lost revenue, it's probably worth the time to follow up on the DMCA takedown request(s). It may also be worth the time to ask an attorney to prepare a sample letter you can use for this and future takedown procedures. I'd encourage the OP to not give up on the DMCA process, as it can be very effective with a little bit of followup.