5 ms·

What scares me most is how many people here seem to think it is OK or 'not that bad'. I don't know a designer who hasn't or doesn't draw inspiration from other

What scares me most is how many people here seem to think it is OK or 'not that bad'. I don't know a designer who hasn't or doesn't draw inspiration from other websites. However, that process goes something like this... 1) Look at website. || 2) Assess what is good about the design || 3) Mock up own version. What a decent person doesn't do is rip the existing site. HTML + all. Tweak it slightly then publish it. What Curebit did is indefensible. This is something some 2-bit web designer fob's off to a client paying $200 for a website... the fact Curebit is a start up is not a defense. It is frankly scary that a company can get $1M+ in funding and not realise they cannot just rip other peoples work...

Peaker 15y ago
In what way is the world a better place when you have to reimplement the design from scratch - as opposed to a world where anyone can copy a design (assuming some credit is given)? Sounds like the latter world will free up a lot of resources for more useful creative work.
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  Assuming credit is granted. Creatives work on design to be creative; they don't outright steal it to save time and resources. It's what thy do and witness what happens when you cross them.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    I think the OP is about copyright infringement and plagiarism, which is a form of fraud. I do not justify it but it is not theft. I don't think the world has much to benefit from plagiarism, but I think the benefits of copying others' work and building upon them freely far outweigh the downsides.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  Design done well is fantastically useful, fantastically creative work. It is an art, and you do not reward those who are good at it by copying not just their ideas but their actual works. I agree, as a developer who does not have much talent for design, that it would be a 'better' world for me if I could just grab the html from places that do have that talent and not suffer for it. It is hard in an area where you dont have much to offer, to accept that you do not have a right to take from those who do, but accepting that and learning to work within those constraints will make you both a better person and a better developer.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    I haven't tried design, so I don't know if I have talent for it or not. But I do have talent for programming, and I don't mind people copying my knowledge and work there, assuming: A) a world where everyone does so, B) credit is given.
    - bandushrew 15y ago
      Fair enough. I am also happy to share my knowledge, such as it is, with whoever wants it. Some of my code I am happy to share, some I make money off and I would rather nobody copy wholesale to compete, some I have done on behalf of clients and cannot make the decision on. The nice thing about the world as it is, is you and I mostly have a choice about how we share our work and where/when we make our source code available. The interesting thing about designers is that on the whole, they have less of a choice. Everything that they do is out in the open and - if they do their job well - lots of people see it and want to copy it.
      - Peaker 15y ago
        One of the bad things about the world as it is, is it encourages people to release things closed, because they can make more financially that way -- and we get a very closed world. In an open world, we could all be making derivative works of awesome works and advance the state of the art, rather than having to duplicate it first, before advancing it.
        gurkendoktor 15y ago
        Without copyright (the law) there would be an even bigger incentive to obfuscate things or move them to the cloud. DRM only exists because the law by itself doesn't work. This is not an easy problem to fix.
        Peaker 15y ago
        DRM is backed by the law, and without its backing it would become a laughable measure that is completely ignored by everyone after the first hacker releases a DRM-free version that is completely legal.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? It's one thing to voluntarily release something into the public domain (or enable its direct re-use via licenses like Creative Commons). It's another thing to say that all work should be public property, usable as long as credit is given. Or are you suggesting that everything belongs to the People, comrade? Even disregarding the profit motive for a second here - if I created a successful web page, should, say, the Westboro Baptist Church be free to take my web page and use it to support their (IMO vile) efforts, so long as they gave credit?
  - danbmil99 15y ago
    > Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? heh, good thing this crowd sincerely applies that ethic to music and visual art/entertainment.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I don't think the community in general objects to ownership of music and visual art/entertainment. The objection usually centers around the draconian and unethical ways of enforcing this ownership. You can support the concept of intellectual ownership without supporting the draconian (and sometimes illegal) means by which some people would like to enforce said ownership. We can also accept the reality and futility of perfect control of your creations without relinquishing moral claim to our creative work.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    But we're talking about ideas and expressions, not property. Yes, the WBC should be allowed to copy if everyone else is. The benefits seem to me to dwarf the downsides.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      So you oppose the GPL, Apache, and BSD licenses? Or really, any software license? After all, they are conditions for the distribution and derivation of a creative work. You support private companies taking this freely-given resource, creating products from it, profiting from them, and not release the source as the conditions demand?
- ReinHPrime 15y ago
  In a world where anyone can copy a design, there is very little incentive for people to be creative. Why would I do the hard work of creating something if someone else can just appropriate my work for free? In short, there would be no designs to worth copying in the first place. Incentive to work is fundamental problem in any communal property system.
potatolicious 15y ago
I'm as disturbed as you are. Having seen the shenanigans of a bunch of Bay Area startups, and based on the tone of the responses in this thread, I'd gather that this quote from the article is a bit off base: > "Your conversion rates or, you know, your credibility and integrity and the ability to have lunch in Silicon Valley ever again." It would seem that, based on the tone here on HN, that these people will be able to have many, many more lunches in Silicon Valley. Hopefully they won't dine and dash.
tatsuke95 15y ago
>"It is frankly scary that a company can get $1M+ in funding and not realise they cannot just rip other peoples work..." And more to come. This is an inevitably when your business model revolves around getting as many start ups money as you can in the hopes that some hit it big. It's inherent when you don't (and can't) vet all the people and ideas; you'll eventually end up with "people of poor moral character" in your system. And there's no excuse for it. I wonder how it will be dealt with. I bet everyone involved was anti-PIPA.

Peaker 15y ago

In what way is the world a better place when you have to reimplement the design from scratch - as opposed to a world where anyone can copy a design (assuming some credit is given)? Sounds like the latter world will free up a lot of resources for more useful creative work.

jsavimbi 15y ago
Assuming credit is granted. Creatives work on design to be creative; they don't outright steal it to save time and resources. It's what thy do and witness what happens when you cross them.
- Peaker 15y ago
  I think the OP is about copyright infringement and plagiarism, which is a form of fraud. I do not justify it but it is not theft. I don't think the world has much to benefit from plagiarism, but I think the benefits of copying others' work and building upon them freely far outweigh the downsides.
bandushrew 15y ago
Design done well is fantastically useful, fantastically creative work. It is an art, and you do not reward those who are good at it by copying not just their ideas but their actual works. I agree, as a developer who does not have much talent for design, that it would be a 'better' world for me if I could just grab the html from places that do have that talent and not suffer for it. It is hard in an area where you dont have much to offer, to accept that you do not have a right to take from those who do, but accepting that and learning to work within those constraints will make you both a better person and a better developer.
- Peaker 15y ago
  I haven't tried design, so I don't know if I have talent for it or not. But I do have talent for programming, and I don't mind people copying my knowledge and work there, assuming: A) a world where everyone does so, B) credit is given.
  - bandushrew 15y ago
    Fair enough. I am also happy to share my knowledge, such as it is, with whoever wants it. Some of my code I am happy to share, some I make money off and I would rather nobody copy wholesale to compete, some I have done on behalf of clients and cannot make the decision on. The nice thing about the world as it is, is you and I mostly have a choice about how we share our work and where/when we make our source code available. The interesting thing about designers is that on the whole, they have less of a choice. Everything that they do is out in the open and - if they do their job well - lots of people see it and want to copy it.
    - Peaker 15y ago
      One of the bad things about the world as it is, is it encourages people to release things closed, because they can make more financially that way -- and we get a very closed world. In an open world, we could all be making derivative works of awesome works and advance the state of the art, rather than having to duplicate it first, before advancing it.
      - gurkendoktor 15y ago
        Without copyright (the law) there would be an even bigger incentive to obfuscate things or move them to the cloud. DRM only exists because the law by itself doesn't work. This is not an easy problem to fix.
        Peaker 15y ago
        DRM is backed by the law, and without its backing it would become a laughable measure that is completely ignored by everyone after the first hacker releases a DRM-free version that is completely legal.
potatolicious 15y ago
Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? It's one thing to voluntarily release something into the public domain (or enable its direct re-use via licenses like Creative Commons). It's another thing to say that all work should be public property, usable as long as credit is given. Or are you suggesting that everything belongs to the People, comrade? Even disregarding the profit motive for a second here - if I created a successful web page, should, say, the Westboro Baptist Church be free to take my web page and use it to support their (IMO vile) efforts, so long as they gave credit?
- danbmil99 15y ago
  > Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? heh, good thing this crowd sincerely applies that ethic to music and visual art/entertainment.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I don't think the community in general objects to ownership of music and visual art/entertainment. The objection usually centers around the draconian and unethical ways of enforcing this ownership. You can support the concept of intellectual ownership without supporting the draconian (and sometimes illegal) means by which some people would like to enforce said ownership. We can also accept the reality and futility of perfect control of your creations without relinquishing moral claim to our creative work.
- Peaker 15y ago
  But we're talking about ideas and expressions, not property. Yes, the WBC should be allowed to copy if everyone else is. The benefits seem to me to dwarf the downsides.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    So you oppose the GPL, Apache, and BSD licenses? Or really, any software license? After all, they are conditions for the distribution and derivation of a creative work. You support private companies taking this freely-given resource, creating products from it, profiting from them, and not release the source as the conditions demand?
ReinHPrime 15y ago
In a world where anyone can copy a design, there is very little incentive for people to be creative. Why would I do the hard work of creating something if someone else can just appropriate my work for free? In short, there would be no designs to worth copying in the first place. Incentive to work is fundamental problem in any communal property system.

potatolicious 15y ago

I'm as disturbed as you are. Having seen the shenanigans of a bunch of Bay Area startups, and based on the tone of the responses in this thread, I'd gather that this quote from the article is a bit off base: > "Your conversion rates or, you know, your credibility and integrity and the ability to have lunch in Silicon Valley ever again." It would seem that, based on the tone here on HN, that these people will be able to have many, many more lunches in Silicon Valley. Hopefully they won't dine and dash.

tatsuke95 15y ago

>"It is frankly scary that a company can get $1M+ in funding and not realise they cannot just rip other peoples work..." And more to come. This is an inevitably when your business model revolves around getting as many start ups money as you can in the hopes that some hit it big. It's inherent when you don't (and can't) vet all the people and ideas; you'll eventually end up with "people of poor moral character" in your system. And there's no excuse for it. I wonder how it will be dealt with. I bet everyone involved was anti-PIPA.