radar.oreilly.com— Earlier today, O'Reilly found itself at the center of a controversy when the O'Reilly Network editor and blogger was publicly accused. Turns out to be be without merit.
Jan 10, 2006View in Crawl 4
"I missed out on the story to begin with, but what kind of crappy coder doesn't even look at their CSS code and try and figure it out? Christ, if there is one thing the guy is guilty of, it's being so stupid as to not even know what code is on his sites. I don't care if it's a steal of a steal of the original stolen code, that's no excuse -- his only attempt at excuse is laziness. What a hack."And what excuse do you give for YOUR laziness in not doing your research on this story, oh and the next time you try to setup a portal or CSS, please by all means feel free to read through every one of the HUNDREDS of lines of code and then compare them to all the other similar portals/CMSs, and then check with the copyright office, and then you can run off a cliff like all the other lemmings that gave us such a black eye. Now sit down and STFU before you really hurt someone with that weapons-grade ignorance you just spouted off.SB
silentbobsc, if you go to your profile, you can undigg a story. Also, if I digg something, it isn't because I necessarily agree with it. I am just acknowledging the fact that it's "news worthy".
Under, HOW TO PROMOTE STORIES.To help promote stories to the homepage, simply visit the digg area and digg stories you think are cool.Just because a story is Dugg doesn't mean I agree or disagree with that story. I may just find it COOL.
QUOTES from the people who run DIGG....I've seen a ton of digg clones, but this is the first to actually copy and paste CSS and use our images. Daniel Burka (digg/mozilla.org designer) put a lot of work into creating the site - it's sad to see someone steal it (and illegal). posted by kevinrose (58) at 01:19 PM 1/09/06Digg's code is copyrighted. All of it. This isn't legal, period. What is worse is to actually use the code to compete with the site. Frankly, I'm still in shock. I half expected this to be false, but I checked and sure enough, confirmed. posted by jayadelson (0) at 01:20 PM 1/09/06Honestly, we're still a bit in shock, we don't know what to make of it. There is no "official Digg point of view" on this yet. posted by jayadelson (0) at 01:37 PM 1/09/06 Appears that as CEO Jay Adelson would have at least come back to this article and posted a recant or something... I know that most CEO would know what point of view to take with this articleWhat is really annoying is that Both Kevin and Jay were one of the first people to comment on the article... could they have not taken some of that venture capital money and had someone look into the validity of the story? Good thing that there are DIGG users out there that are able to check into the story though.Seems though that the "DIGG effect" should now represent the true ignorance of the reader to blindly believe any story, as well as show their ignorance in the comment section. DIGG effect=1000000 monkey's typing the greatest novel... djfjslajlfdkl;sflks?
The original article had very little to do with tech news. This article has just as little to do with tech news as the original. It just goes to show how people can be influenced.
So, this is Web 2.0? Lynchmob mentality followed by oops we got the wrong guy followed by well there's no smoke without fire. Surely that's Humans 1.0?As far as I can make out, the problem has always been about attribution and the misconception that copyright means you can't copy. It means nothing of the sort - rather it means that you cannot copy WITHOUT PERMISSION. Let's face it, no-one's too precious about CSS and would probably be flattered by a little email saying something along the lines of "hey, I really like your site and would you mind if I used your stylesheet as a basis for mine?" You might let them do it so long as they cited your general cool-ness somewhere. I have to say though, the line in the article that really bugged me was "This is a classic Web 2.0 problem: it's hard to aggregate the wisdom of the crowd without aggregating their madness as well." Something that's new cannot by definition have classic problems. I really wish that O'Reilly would stop making this kind of statement while simultaneously hyping it to hell. How about some constructive comments as to how this "fiasco" (as one of the commentors on the linked site aptly put it) could have been avoided?For what it's worth, if people had a page citing inspirations for their site stories like this should not have such tinder-esque qualities unless truly deserved.
silentbobscJan 10, 2006
"I missed out on the story to begin with, but what kind of crappy coder doesn't even look at their CSS code and try and figure it out? Christ, if there is one thing the guy is guilty of, it's being so stupid as to not even know what code is on his sites. I don't care if it's a steal of a steal of the original stolen code, that's no excuse -- his only attempt at excuse is laziness. What a hack."And what excuse do you give for YOUR laziness in not doing your research on this story, oh and the next time you try to setup a portal or CSS, please by all means feel free to read through every one of the HUNDREDS of lines of code and then compare them to all the other similar portals/CMSs, and then check with the copyright office, and then you can run off a cliff like all the other lemmings that gave us such a black eye. Now sit down and STFU before you really hurt someone with that weapons-grade ignorance you just spouted off.SB
don613Jan 10, 2006
silentbobsc, if you go to your profile, you can undigg a story. Also, if I digg something, it isn't because I necessarily agree with it. I am just acknowledging the fact that it's "news worthy".
m10renJan 10, 2006
Under, HOW TO PROMOTE STORIES.To help promote stories to the homepage, simply visit the digg area and digg stories you think are cool.Just because a story is Dugg doesn't mean I agree or disagree with that story. I may just find it COOL.
datapimpJan 10, 2006
QUOTES from the people who run DIGG....I've seen a ton of digg clones, but this is the first to actually copy and paste CSS and use our images. Daniel Burka (digg/mozilla.org designer) put a lot of work into creating the site - it's sad to see someone steal it (and illegal). posted by kevinrose (58) at 01:19 PM 1/09/06Digg's code is copyrighted. All of it. This isn't legal, period. What is worse is to actually use the code to compete with the site. Frankly, I'm still in shock. I half expected this to be false, but I checked and sure enough, confirmed. posted by jayadelson (0) at 01:20 PM 1/09/06Honestly, we're still a bit in shock, we don't know what to make of it. There is no "official Digg point of view" on this yet. posted by jayadelson (0) at 01:37 PM 1/09/06 Appears that as CEO Jay Adelson would have at least come back to this article and posted a recant or something... I know that most CEO would know what point of view to take with this articleWhat is really annoying is that Both Kevin and Jay were one of the first people to comment on the article... could they have not taken some of that venture capital money and had someone look into the validity of the story? Good thing that there are DIGG users out there that are able to check into the story though.Seems though that the "DIGG effect" should now represent the true ignorance of the reader to blindly believe any story, as well as show their ignorance in the comment section. DIGG effect=1000000 monkey's typing the greatest novel... djfjslajlfdkl;sflks?
nstern2Jan 10, 2006
The original article had very little to do with tech news. This article has just as little to do with tech news as the original. It just goes to show how people can be influenced.
drbhoneydewJan 10, 2006
So, this is Web 2.0? Lynchmob mentality followed by oops we got the wrong guy followed by well there's no smoke without fire. Surely that's Humans 1.0?As far as I can make out, the problem has always been about attribution and the misconception that copyright means you can't copy. It means nothing of the sort - rather it means that you cannot copy WITHOUT PERMISSION. Let's face it, no-one's too precious about CSS and would probably be flattered by a little email saying something along the lines of "hey, I really like your site and would you mind if I used your stylesheet as a basis for mine?" You might let them do it so long as they cited your general cool-ness somewhere. I have to say though, the line in the article that really bugged me was "This is a classic Web 2.0 problem: it's hard to aggregate the wisdom of the crowd without aggregating their madness as well." Something that's new cannot by definition have classic problems. I really wish that O'Reilly would stop making this kind of statement while simultaneously hyping it to hell. How about some constructive comments as to how this "fiasco" (as one of the commentors on the linked site aptly put it) could have been avoided?For what it's worth, if people had a page citing inspirations for their site stories like this should not have such tinder-esque qualities unless truly deserved.
comforteagleJan 11, 2006
mrinternet (1): <a class="user" href="http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/steve-mallett-digg-code.html">http://diggtheblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/steve-mallett-digg-code.html</a>"When a story is accusatory, sometimes its often better to research further before digging (I dugg the story too). I'm happy to see the counter story, including Steve's blog, was also dugg to the homepage. More features coming, including a bury for 'inaccurate' posts."
scott1Jun 20, 2006
It's been 6 months after this and we still don't really have any mods.