6 ms·

This is equivalent to a Youtube video where someone demonstrates how to play a popular song on a guitar. Anyone against that is not on the same team as me.

• anonymousab 13y ago
  So...most major musicians, according to their representatives?
• methehack 13y ago
  I disagree that your example is equivalent. If I understand how the OP is using the times content, I think the equivalent would be using, without permission, the entirety of a popular video or song to demo a media player that you wrote. Personally, I'm acutely aware of and entirely in support of the times' need to protect their vast investment in generating the very best news that people are capable of generating. TBH, I'm a little surprised and confused that the OP is surprised and confused.
  • stonemetal 13y ago
    He used images to show how his implementation compared to the original. At the first C&D he took it down and replaced it a simple compare with the times article sentence. They sent him a C&D for that sentence. The first is understandable. The second not so much.
  • ben0x539 13y ago
    > I think the equivalent would be using, without permission, the entirety of a popular video or song to demo a media player that you wrote. I disagree with that, since people who make money with movies and music tend to do that via selling access to the media, which the NYT doesn't seem to be doing in this case and the OP consequently doesn't interfere with (even before the OP apparently didn't reproduce the NYT content in its entirety).
    • doktrin 13y ago
      > I disagree with that, since people who make money with movies and music tend to do that via selling access to the media That is excessive rationalization. What the creators intend to do with their content is kinda up to them. The fact that they haven't tried to directly monetize it doesn't somehow make it fair game, and the OP even acknowledges this.
• jlarocco 13y ago
  I don't agree at all because the scrolling effect isn't the issue. The content is the issue. The guy could have used any generic content in the world to demonstrate scrollkit. He could have used "lorem ipsum" and random Creative Commons images from Flickr. He could have done his own investigation about the avalanche and created his own article. He could have made an article about some other event. He could have written an article about scrollkit and used it to demonstrate scrollkit. There are practically an infinite number of ways he could have avoided this. Instead he used very specific copyrighted content from an article by a huge media company. I almost want to say the guy is just trolling for page views. He copied an entire NY Times article, and he's surprised the NY Times has a problem? Who is that dumb?
  • bspatafora 13y ago
    He is clear that he complied with the first C&D, which asked him to remove the infringing content. His post is primarily about their second letter, which demanded he remove two sentences that simply make reference to "Snow Fall."
  • pyrocat 13y ago
    Did you stop reading after the first couple sentences? He took down the content. The NYT then came back and said even having the text "The NYT spent hundreads of hours hand-coding “Snow Fall.” We made a replica in an hour." on his site was copyright infringement.
    • itafroma 13y ago
      > The NYT then came back and said even having the text "The NYT spent hundreads of hours hand-coding “Snow Fall.” We made a replica in an hour." on his site was copyright infringement. No, they didn't. They took issue with the fact that he merely set the video to "private" instead of taking it down and with the continued use of their name. They did not make the claim that the use of their name was copyright infringement: in reality, the new claim they make in the second C&D is trademark infringement. It's still specious (nominative use of trademarks is generally fine), but not nearly as absurd.