What is Digg?74 Comments
- 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. - S!L3N7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He aint stealing code if hes included the authors information.
- 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. - davidcann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That "Acknowledgements" link is definitely new... look at google's cache:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:-xZ-WTmPmVEJ:www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp+mpaa+reportpiracy.asp&hl=en&client=safari - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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...
- 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.
- nick53, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2^^ Exactly, they have included a link... no digg
- panic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is retarded. Did you guys actually view the source code? I'm assuming you're talking about the i-code URL that's in there.
/***********************************************************/
/** this script is free for any use, but please include **/
/** a link to i-code.co.uk in any redistribution **/
/** Author : Stephen Griffin, www.i-code.co.uk **/
/**********************************************************/
The MPAA is NOT redistributing this javascript, they're using it on their website the way it was meant to be used. If someone wants to grab the code from the MPAA to use it on their own web site, they will still have to view the source and see the URL. The MPAA is not doing ANYTHING wrong (at least not with this javascript). I mean do you think that average user Joe Blow is going to put that link on their website? NO! And they have absolutely no reason to. No digg.. anyone who dugg this is a... nevermind. Sometimes I can't believe the stuff I see on Digg, and it's even more appauling that people are actually leaving comments agreeing with this. Just because it's the MPAA doesn't mean they should be flamed for everything they do, especially when they're not doing anything wrong. - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for finding that. Good call. I was trying to get google caching to work but for some reason I couldn't get that page.
Good work davidcann. - thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://i-code.co.uk/vipergb/index.php
haha - Silv3Ro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I'm not going to comment on the matter, but I think there is a good chance that the guys over at MPAA read digg.com.
It seems that at the bottom of their piracy-reporting page there is a link to this other page:
http://www.mpaa.org/acknowledgements.html
That has one simple line:
Thanks to Stephen Griffin, www.i-code.co.uk, for use of his code.
Google's cache, though, shows that the original piracy-reporting page didn't have an "Acknowledgements" link at the bottom...
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:-xZ-WTmPmVEJ:www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp+mpaa+reportpiracy&hl=en&client=firefox
At least they are doing the right thing... you can't expect a public apology from them (Sony didn't do one for the OpenSource code they included in their DRM software). - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow. That wasn't there yesterday! I looked around the MPAA site before I posted this article.
Cool, he got credit! :) I wasn't mad at the MPAA, but I found it interesting.
However moorinho, I do find it interesting that you joined Digg TODAY, and that this is the ONLY story you've ever commented on or dugg.
Do you work for the MPAA?
Either way, I'm glad Stephen Griffin got his credit. That's all I was hoping would happen. - moorinho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uhmm, look at the that MPAA website footer and click on the 'Acknowledgements' link.
"Thanks to Stephen Griffin, www.i-code.co.uk, for use of his code." - moorinho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mateo60: haha, no 'im not working for the MPAA. i'm just a newcomer to Digg, and I've only been visiting for a few days. i've never commented before since i had nothing to add, but since nobody noticed the link on MPPA (i guess it wasn't there before, sorry i only read this post today)i decided to log in and comment it.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree. When I posted this, I didn't expect public uproar or hackers taking the MPAA site down. All I wanted was for the author to get credit. I must admit, as a web developer, I've used code in the past that I didn't properly give credit for (I always give credit now).
It's pretty cool though that that Digg article made the MPAA give credit where credit is due. I've since checked out Stephen Griffin's site, and he does nice work. - remotedeals, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From my understanding ( and I don't really care that much ) the author of the code clearly is asking for a direct link and not just a "URL" to direct people to his source... As for those who are claiming that a URL is an actual link to the site, then I think you best get educated further...
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thats okay. I just find it odd that more than 500 people "missed" that link. It seems like it was hastily added too. It's a rather obtrusive little link in their Acknowledgements page. I think they just added it. Which is just fine. I'm happy credit is given where it is deserved.
- seanroth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It says for redistribution that they have to give credit. No digg.
- 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. - mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, it seems I can't type. :)
- crazy2012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd like to make a small point - about copyright law. When a program is loaded into memory from disk - THIS IS DISTRIBUTION. That is a legal definition not a technical one - but it IS copyright infringement. That is the law, learn it, hate it, change it. But the MPAA has no defense on this - except maybe the poor wording of the notice.
It's intent is clear, and a comment in source code is not a link. - 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.
- 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.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It says for redistribution the hav eto give a LINK.
- vh1`, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1let me get this right:
last week, you guys raise hell when someone "steals" (borrows) the "digg source code" (css) that doesn't even ask for the author information to be kept.
and now, you're raising hell again because someone borrowed code and does exactly what the original author wants?
I know see where the digg logic fails, horribly - inactive, 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. - photosave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0DIGG! The writer of the code did not get a link to his site. The MPAA simply copied and pasted not offering the average user the oportunity to see where it originated. The writer certainly implied (and I think we all know what he meant) a hyperlink posted clearly on a page that led to his web site. The MPAA should know better than to try to BEND the rules on their own ani-piracy page. Give the guy a break and give him a link to his web site. He did afterall write the code and give it away. Just give him a link.
- nailerr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Lame vote.
- FarcePest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I believe the original author intended a visible, clickable link, not simply retaining the comment. Valid complaint.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0votaml:
they damn well better make sure their site complies with their entire moral crusade - GLSmyth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Absolutely valid complaint. Dugg.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Someone should report them to an anti piracy website.
- 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.
- 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. - MOBOB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0haha good find
- 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
- 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. - 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. - seaner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is one of my favorite stories of alltime.
- DrunkenStumble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0good ole corporate BS...
"Its OK to steal, as long as you dont steal from me!" - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The MPAA sucks...but so does this post. They didn't do anything wrong. No Digg.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0the URL is in the source code, it is NOT A LINK.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0As the person who posted this article, let me clarify why I posted it:
The MPAA has been on a moral tirade lately. The manner that they've used their website code is most likely not illegal in any way. However, they've included the notes left by the author who says that in order to use his code, they must include a LINK. Not just the URL somewhere in the source code.
Is the MPAA doing something horrible by doing this? Not really. However, I do think they're violating the spirit of the request that the author of the source code made by not posting an actual link.
Mostly, I found that it was interesting and a little ironic that they're doing this. It would be wise for the MPAA to avoid even the appearance of impropriety if they want to be taken seriously. I'm not advocating that their site be taken down, or that anyone should get really ticked off about it. I just thought it was a little funny. -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 