Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
MPAA Steals Code for Anti Piracy Website
designetc.net — I just wanted to make sure that everyone noticed the hypocracy. Go to: http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp and click 'view source' and see for yourself. For anyone else, I wouldn't find it all that big of a deal. But an anti-piracy witch hunt website? Credit is all he asks for in his source code. The MPAA doesn't give that credit.
mateo60- 634 diggs
- digg it
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Someone should report them to an anti piracy website.
- matx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Lets sue the mpaa
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://i-code.co.uk/vipergb/index.php
haha - quaffapint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0While maybe not illegal, it certainly doesn't seem proper etiquette to not include the requested link to benefit the script author...
--
http://www.funnyandfun.com - anthony1124, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0lol.
- Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Does serving a page count as distribution? From what he said in the comments of his script you don't have to put a link on the pages you are serving. It seems as though he just wants the comment with the link to his left intact, or credits in the source itself.
I don't like what the MPAA and RIAA are doing...but this kind of knee-jerk reaction only makes those of us "fighting the power" seem like idiots and lessens our credibility. - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0it says "please include a link to i-code.co.uk in any distribution". There is no link to this website on the MPAA site.
I'm not saying that we go burn their building down, but the hypocrisy needs to be noted. Also, if the situation were reversed, I don't think the MPAA would be as reasonable and forgiving as you. - MOBOB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0haha good find
- S!L3N7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He aint stealing code if hes included the authors information.
- Ratty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It says include a link in any redistribution, which means inside the code itself. They have done that.
No digg. - dodger2020, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I hate the MPAA and RIAA as much as the next guy. But all he says is to include a link. It doesn't say where and it doesn't say it *has* to be in the visible web page. I think all they would need to do is leave the comments and link intact in the source and they'd be fine. I *wish* someone could stick something more serious on their asses but this is really nothing.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0What a load of ***** ... they can't even include a link back to the guy who made it? That's really low ....
- jj555298, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Dugg just because I want this to see some exposure.
- votamli, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This post is childish. You cannot equate the webmaster of the MPAA with MPAA's policy of its leadership. In any good-sized organization, there is a large disconnect between and little relationship between some lowly webmaster and the VPs.
The webmaster (HTML guy, etc) probably has no clue or care about MPAA's policy (which is another realm different from HTML coding). For all we know, this function could of been outsourced to another company. So, its unfair to equate what the webmaster does with the MPAA.
Laugh if you want, but anyone who understands the structure of a large organization (or even a medium sized one) would say this is muchado about nothing. - aa3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dumb,
First is it not Redistribution.
Second, it does not say "Include visible Hyperlink on website"
It says, include the link. Which means, as pointed out already, include the link in the source. Do not remove his tag from the source when redistributing. - nick53, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2^^ Exactly, they have included a link... no digg
- boostedfc3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stealing it would have been to remove that commented section. They arent offering it for redistribution. I hate the mpaa/riaa as much as anyone, but no digg since they didnt do anything wrong.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@votamli
You may be right to an extent, but don't you see the irony in it all? Also, you know nothing for sure about the MPAA's web developer's status within the company. - DrWho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I reported the MPAA to itself anyway.
- vermin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually, they do include the link and it's in the source code as you found. This is retarded... no digg.
- HighDecibel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yes it helps to actually read whats on the picture. He did quote them, he did link to them. Notice he said link, not hyperlink also.
Having said that these are the same people who will probably start taking down movie scripts from sites, despite the directors, producers etc being credited in each script. At that point, then yes it would be hypocritical, but until that happens I have no further comments. - savmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think "link" is the key word. How do you put a link in the source? The only way for there to be a "link" is for it to be visible on the page. Otherwise it's just a URL.
- hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2wait a minute there is links and stuff still in the code? I thought what this was about all along ( I never looked at the source myself) you guys are complaining that they dont have a link on the actual displayed webpage? WTF nobody does that with source code they use. It should only be in the code. ARGH)#(*)*(*#%(#*
DIGG NOT. - tophfisher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I hate these people, but not as much as the ass hats at the RIAA.
- 0Troy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm no fan of the MPAA, but unfortunately they're right. Redistribution would be presenting the code for others to download (which they are not doing by using it in their source). What they are doing is USING the code, which only requires that credit be given in the script (and since they're using the script in its entirety, there's no problem). Oh well. no digg...
- alchemista, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is stupid. You try to make the MPAA look hypocritical as if they're stealing something or doing something wrong. However, in reality this makes them look good because they're doing the right thing - including the link to the code in the source. So, this story would just backfire on you.
- DubbedOver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is stupid. Most free code sites don't say you need a link back on the main page but to leave the credits intact in the code itself. Story voted as lame.
- nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Not sure if I agree with that or not, but I went ahead & reported it to the MPAA for investigation ;-)
- somefool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0pfft.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0votaml:
they damn well better make sure their site complies with their entire moral crusade - nickster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you look at the source code on the other pages of their website they have the same code but they removed the i-code stuff fromt it.
- soccerob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1not stolen at all. it is used properly by leaving that note about the source's origination.
http://soccerob.com - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0And if the MPAA had removed that comment block containing the URL, they would have stolen it and nobody would have even known about it.. And we wouldn't have people urinating their pants on digg.
- chiefwahoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"I think "link" is the key word. How do you put a link in the source? The only way for there to be a "link" is for it to be visible on the page. Otherwise it's just a URL."
I agree with savmac. The implied use of the word link is to provide a means to visit another site on the web. Also, since the section with the disclaimer is commented out it should not consitute a link even if the URL is present. - Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh, bay. I've been really ill this last 2 days but this really made me feel better.
- junkyinny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0do as i say not as i do
- edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The code was used fairly and as per the writers instructions. No Digg.
- juanbobo808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0No digg. Don't get your panties up all in a bunch so easily. I'm sure I'm repeating what some others have said, but it doesn't say to include a visible link, just a link. And if someone wanted to use their source, they'd have to come across the link to the /original/ site the MPAA got their source from.
- GatorVIP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@votamli
>>You cannot equate the webmaster of the MPAA with MPAA's policy of its leadership. In any good-sized organization, there is a large disconnect between and little relationship between some lowly webmaster and the VPs. - Arbinshire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is seriously lame. Not for the alleged fact that the MPAA did this, but that this was even mentioned on DIGG.
There is a link on the page? How do I know? Look at the bloody source code. So what if its in a comment? The text is still there, left entirely intact. - StickyDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Off topic but I found this to be rather interesting...
http://mpaa.org/researchStatistics.asp
They show a 24% increase in ticket sales from 2003-2004 and yet they still whine about losing money to piracy? What a bunch of greedy pricks. - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Having the URL posted in the original source code somewhere is NOT a link.
I'm not saying anyone should be sued or something, but not having a link, violates the spirit and good faith of the instructions in the code.
Also, it's not a horrible misuse of the code, however an anti-piracy site should use the code 100% fairly. I think they're being a little unfair to the author. - nailerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Lame vote.
- scooterMX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2DIGG is about to create its own destruction.
Its become all hat and no cattle. Voice without message. words that never go beyond just being words.
everyone wants to be mad at someone, and they spend their time searching for things that have somehow 'violated' them.
DIGG is a mockery of itself. - bazilio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow the idiots who submit these kind of posts to digg.com make it look really bad. This is similar to the post about some guy stealing digg.com code, when in fact he did not do anything wrong.
I hate MPAA too, but this is too childish. - jerbacca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Ok guys, the MPAA can be lame with the whole anti-piracy thing, but this seems legit to me. They left the original author's comments in, and as a webmaster myself, that seems like all the guy who wrote the code wanted.
No digg. - Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is perfectly legal. They don't need to post a visible link anywhere other than in the source.
Lame vote. - Bren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sure it's not piracy PER SE... but come on! If it's not okay for us to use MPAA stuff without, the same goes both ways.
Therefore I reported their own "borrowing" on their site. Feel free, only requires a desc., country and province/state. - Bren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If even for the reason that the MPAA are herding the masses into the brainwashing that they are suffering soooo much
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0> gatorvip wrote: "...there is a large disconnect between and little relationship between some lowly webmaster and the VPs."
The RIAA is suing those people who are paying for the internet access where it is alleged that stolen music is being downloaded. The RIAA has made it quite clear that they don't care if the person being sued has anything to do with, or is even aware of, the alleged crime; the person named on the bill from the ISP is the person who they claim is responsible.
So, with this in mind, please explain why the RIAA/MPAA big-shots should not be responsible for the activities of those they've hired?
By the way, I am aware that this submission deals with the MPAA and my example cites the RIAA. But in my view they are two sides of the same coin. Or more to the point, two sides of a three sided pyramid with the industry's congressional butt-boys making up the final side. -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
