What is Digg?145 Comments
- marksven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15This story needs to get on the front page. We as Digg users need to be careful of mob mentality (like the Pricerite photo story), especially when it accuses someone personally of wrongdoing.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"@rm999: kevin rose threw gas on the fire. Read the original story to see his comments."
Exactly my point. He is doing the opposite of what a responsible leader of this website should have been doing. He was understandably pissed, but he should waited for more facts before publicly attacking one of his colleagues. There is a lot of anger on this site - stories specifically engineered to cause hate are the most dugg stories. There is something wrong with the mentality of the site in general IMO. I stopped posting comments (until now) because of this. - Fantt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Maybe Digg needs a way to vote in a correction to a story or something. Some guys apparently did the research to exonerate the guy and it would have been cool if the story could have been self-correcting.
- lavawalker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"We did not realize, until now, that the CSS was taken from Digg and modified to fit Meneame. We just never thought to compare."
-- A Pligg Developer, from one of his comments. - steveo2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6An angry mob is (often) an uninformed and stupid mob.
- zemote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ok, I love digg and all, but they support open source and all, but really are they practicing what they preach? Personally I don't think CSS == real code, it's just a style sheat, the rest of the pligg code didn't look the same. This has been so been blown way out of proportion.
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Wow, such few responses."
It's only because it's a school night and most of the "diggarmy" is asleep....shhhh - sancho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mrinternet said, "But let's not forget that it was pretty clear that Pligg was using Digg code, so why does that mean it is OK for anyone to use Pligg without consequences?"
Should a person who uses Linux be liable if it were ever found that the Linux kernel was infringing on some patent held by Microsoft?
There's a good faith issue here. Steve was using Pligg with the good faith assumption that the code therein was freely usable.
drycounty: Part of the problem is that it's a content management system. They're made presicely for this sort of thing--you install it, pick a theme, and then you start using it. If you want to customize it, you are free to, but any themes which come with a CMS should be freely usable. It is the CMS developer's fault if they screw that up, not the end user. - andrewr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Are we seriously afraid of these digg clones becoming more popular? I sure am not, so I don't know why we all make such a big deal of this.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Where is the original Digg? Did they take it down or was it voted out?"
Nope, it was just overrun buy bored kids. - rousehouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Look, I think everyone agrees that it's not great that meneame used Digg's CSS code. Pligg and meneame are already taking steps to rectify that "misuse". Yeah, I use Pligg too, so you can lump me right in with Steve, and I'll fix my code too when the next Pligg version comes out.
Considering how much of the web is copied from other parts of the web, I think the continuing negative comments are a bit much. We all know that CSS is formatting and not actual application logic. I'm not sure how much copyright can be applied to the color, font and table tags of any web site, but for the sake of argument, we'll say it is (that said, I'm not a lawyer like so many of you seem to be).
In the context of that statement, people should realize that both Pligg and meneame changed the formatting tags to be unique. So, we are just talking about some common structure, which is prevalent throughout the web.
How many web developers used code from another web site, application, or a forum to build a web site? "View Source" is a web developer's best friend. Copying some formatting tags is less offencive compared to copying actual application code, which almost everyone who build a web site has done.
Considering what was actually done, the reaction compared to the minor offence (that meneame copied parts of diggs formatting tags, which was unintentionally incorporated into Pligg) is beyond reasonable. Steve is almost completely blameless. Considering that meneame said the code was GPL, Pligg and its users are victims of sloppy QA.
At the end of the day, we're talking about some copied formatting tags. Considering the scorched earth related to this topic, I'm not sure that anyone is taking a reasonable look at the issue. Also, keep in mind that the original poster deliberately attempted character assassination against Steve without checking any facts (or worst, possibly deliberately concealing them). Steve is a victim here in more ways than one.
Considering how many users of Digg abuse copyrighted material openly, this righteous indignation is more than ironic, and downright ridiculous. Digg users who crusaded against Steve owe him an apology, and should learn a lesson of the responsibilities of participating in a Web 2.0 community.
Otherwise, let those without sin cast the next stone, but instead I would ask that you let it go. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"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 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4marksven said "This story needs to get on the front page. We as Digg users need to be careful of mob mentality (like the Pricerite photo story), especially when it accuses someone personally of wrongdoing."
I dont know where you are from, but I'm an American and if I'm not part of an angry thoughtless mob, then . . . well, I might as well just move to Canada. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I must have missed the warning when I signed up that to leave any comments you must first fully research the authors articles."
The problem isn't our comments neccessarily, we've all been guilty of spouting off before we knew the whole picture, the problem is the "DiggArmy" that took it upon itself to:
a) Post 4th grade-level comment spam on the guy's site
b) Post his PERSONAL information in this comment thread
c) discuss launching a DoS attack against the guy and other 1337-haxor attacks
This sort of stuff SHOULD be done away with, maybe if we were given the power to "vote" a certain user's comments out of the thread. Of course, then I may never see another one of my comments in a digg anymore either :)
SB - alexbahr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is a tad hypocritical of Kevin Rose/Digg to make public statements about the guy when half of the content they produce is about "taking it to the man". Just look at his old stuff like dark tips. I guess when people's pockets start to fill up they understand why other's spent so much time trying to protect their own.
- aforonda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We all have to learn from this one, word.
- TheRappingShoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg is the group of people with their ear to the ground, gossiping about the latest happenings, some of which are spot on, and some of which are not quite accurate
Slashdot is the pseudo-intellectual news program that reports on events. And that repeats every hour ;) - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg feels like it's overrun by hyperactive kids that don't have much interesting to do and get bored and then run to support different "causes". As a rule you should not digg a story that is not balanced and where you can see there's a clear interest in reporting (not necessarily in this case but good to keep in mind).
- eyechart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@rm999: kevin rose threw gas on the fire. Read the original story to see his comments.
- Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It'd be nice to see some of the idiots who called for a lynchin' to show up here and digg this to the front page and apologize through their collective asses. But I'm probably putting too much faith in the "diggarmy"..
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I didn't know that when I dugg a story that I necessarily agreed with it."
When you DIGG a story, you're basically endorsing it for others to read, when it gets X amount, it gets pushed to the front page. It's always best to read before you Digg, I have many times wished I could take back my digg after finding out an article was heavily biased or misleading.
SB - cambragol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Am I the only one not seeing the original digg? Is this a case of an editor editing digg stories? Censoring? Searching through several pages now and can't find the original digg....
Wouldn't this be an even bigger controversy than what started it? - mrinternet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hats off to Cauldron of the digg-army that flagged that it was Pligg and not Digg.
But let's not forget that it was pretty clear that Pligg was using Digg code, so why does that mean it is OK for anyone to use Pligg without consequences?
Hats off to Pligg (Ash) that is addressing the issue and Steve for addressing it head on as well but he needs to be careful if he flings too much mud on it.
Take it on the chin and move on. - DaveHimself, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This "mob mentality" made me aware that CSS is not only occasionally stolen, but that the stolen data may also be recycled by unsuspecting or uncaring 3rd parties. Good job mob.
PS. O'Reilly Radar is guilty of stealing the Engadget logo anyway. :) - lavawalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Being a web developer myself, I would be very against anyone that would steal any part of my work—not to mention the exact code like what happened here. The concession by the developer of Pligg is a welcome one, however I don't know how involved he was with the project. It seems http://meneame.net/ is the one to blame, where Pligg got their code from.
http://www.pligg.com/story/28/ - werns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does it matter who originally stole the code? You wouldn't get away with driving a stolen vehicle just because someone else stole it before you.
It shows a lack of diligence on the part of the Pligg authors and the guy getting it in the neck now. Did they audit any of the code at all? Judging by such a blatant oversight, the answer must surely be 'no'. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You know, I don't see how Kevin "threw gas on the fire". He mentioned that it was not legal for them to use what they were using, because they owned it. However O'Reilly's guy came upon it doesn't change whether or not it was legally used. He may not have been aware of it (same with Pligg), but that doesn't make it legal, either - even with good intentions.
With that said, I'm sure that Kevin will mention the situation on Diggnation and set things straight. I just can't imagine him _not_ doing that and it would only be fair to the guy at O'Reilly who got his name dragged through the mud for a few hours today. - mattclare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the analogy of "Does it matter who originally stole the code? You wouldn't get away with driving a stolen vehicle just because someone else stole it before you." is apt. I feel badly for Steve, but I've looked at the digg CSS is understand some Ajax stuff and I recognized it immediately on. Those ids like "#main-digg" are the scratch marks around the ignition key.
Unfortunately, this is what Microsoft means when they say Open Source exposes you to risk. It's not all FUD.
I feel badly that Steve had all this wrought upon him, that's not fair, but he does have copyrighted code on his server. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2didn't digg the old story, not digging the new story.
All it is is a pile of idiots jumping on the let's hate the rest of the tech community bandwagon. - comforteagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My statement after a lot of reading, writing, and a restless night: http://steve.tawkr.com/2006/01/10/my-response/
- eyechart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@drycounty
did you even RTFA? when you install an open-source application, do you look through every bit of code to make sure it is not infringing someone else's copyright? If anyone is to blame on this it is the pligg devs, and according to TFA they (pligg devs) are aware of this issue and are fixing the problem. - Sophren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personally I think the mob mentality has it's pluses. I mean, if the original article was never published, then we would never know that Meneame stole digg's code. In the same amount of time it took for everyone to get hyped up against O'Reilly, it should take the same amount of time for everyone to realize what really happened (i.e. this article)
- drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been watching this story since it broke yesterday. Some interesting things came out of all this situation in regards to this Community.
1) Very quick to "burn a witch" before actually reading the story or doing some basic research before screaming "Witch!"
2) Hypocritical. Let's say this was true and the Mallette did in fact steal some of the code behind digg.com, that in and of itself is a violation of an existing copyright, no? Don't get me wrong I steal music and movies just like everyone else, but don't be hypocritical when something you support is "pirated".
3) Web-Logs are the debil - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'm not sure how much copyright can be applied to the color, font and table tags of any web site, but for the sake of argument"
Ok, I couldn't resist this one... I'm not trying to encourage the flame war, just making a point...
If Coca-Cola, John-Deere, McDonalds, Wendys, Honda and Kawasaki can all copyright a certain set of fonts, colors, and imagery... why shouldn't a website at least be able to protect itself from being duped? The biggest problem that everyone here had was that the actual CSS code had obvious Digg references in it, which made it look all the more suspicious.
No, I'm not a lawyer, nor would I like to be, just always up for discussion and/or debate.
SB - datapimp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2QUOTES 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 1/09/06
Digg'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 1/09/06
Honestly, 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 article
What 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? - goatfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm glad this made to the front page after that stupid mob-mentality post yesterday.
People who write open source should take extreme care to make sure that their code including HTML and CSS is not copyright infringing.
But honestly re-using CSS and/or HTML and even javascript from another website is really not news worthy. Everyone who has ever hand coded any of these has done it from time to time. That is part of the learning process. But you need to take what you learn and make it your own and not just copy/paste it verbatim. - RiddickRom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1comforteagle wrote in his blog "Due to its inflammatory nature it was voted “thumbs-up” evidently without much investigation by many digg readers."
When I visit a news site, whether it be Digg or the BBC, I take what is there as probable fact. If I have any doubt I'll cross reference it or do my own research. In this case I did just that. Not much research I grant you but what I thought was enough. It turns out it was not enough to get the whole story (but IMO still enough to stand by my initial reaction of distaste) and I like many others are chastised for not doing enough research.
I must have missed the warning when I signed up that to leave any comments you must first fully research the authors articles.
Also I did not digg this because it was inflammatory. I dugg it because I've had experience of people taking my work before and could do nothing about it. I personally felt something for this article.
I remain unimpressed with your response but it seems a majority are impressed and that really is the best you could have hoped for. - compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He didn't think that the images looked exactly the same? *****. Although I don't put 100% blame on him, he still gets a 50% cut becuase of not realizing the images were THE EXACT SAME. Don't use something unless you know about it. And certainly don't turn the other way when you see that HEY there might actually be something wrong here.
- technoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I now see the usefulness of Slashdot being so slow to post new stories. It seems there is a reason to let the rest of the world find out what really happened and then reporting on it once the truth comes out.
I do seem to find it "cute" that the digg.com software isn't open source, but someone else got to make that choice. The users make the site worth visiting, not some copy written CSS code.
I still visit Slashdot first, then digg second...maybe as digg.com matures (i don't mean that badly, slashdot has taken years to become what it is), issues such as this sheep syndrome will have solutions. If the solutions are not found, digg.com will just become another myspace.com with 13-year olds submitting links that require no thought.
Atleast Kevin hasn't started censoring posts that mention competing sites... - RiddickRom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1technoid wrote "I now see the usefulness of Slashdot being so slow to post new stories. It seems there is a reason to let the rest of the world find out what really happened and then reporting on it once the truth comes out."
I see slashdot and Digg as two different animals living in the same zoo. I've tried hard to get into slashdot and always found it difficult to get into. I'm a complete geek so love the subject matter but it always felt too vast for me to settle into. I have other issues with it too but I still go back to it. I'm not putting the site down, it is a wonderful place. I got into Digg almost instantly though. It has that instant gratification on what you type is heard and responded to very quickly. You almost feel like the site is real-time at times. We just need the comments to appear fading in now as the spy feature does :)
hope Digg never matures to the point where it becomes another slashdot. There is space for many sites to come at subjects from different angles. - RiddickRom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree silentbob, I dont condone that kind of behaviour at all. Those were idiots that suggested hacking, got into revealing information that they had no business doing and the general immaturity of some of the comments was very sad to see. Digg does seem to have a lot of that young audience though and the best I can do is just ignore it and talk around it. Act as if I had that element on ignore in a chatroom and just carry on.
- auchia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Steve took the risk in having someone else do the work for him. It took the random surfer to figure out that code was stolen. Less than 24 hours of research found this code to be lifted. He should accept responsibility for his laziness. He did use stolen code. The fact that someone offers it to him for free does not vindicate him.
- lavawalker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The concession by the developer of Pligg.."
EDIT: I meant 'acknowledgement.' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One more thing, as for your comment "pack your bags and head on back to /. because at the end of the day who cares about steve what's-his-name. No one, thats who."
Judging from the number of comments and Diggs on the original story and this one, a fair number. - Twoism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What happened was a mistake, sure, and a mistake brought on by the group mentality here at digg. However, digg readers give Kevin Rose's comments validity, it's not something his comments have by default. I'm tired of all these comments putting him in the position of scape goat. Most of the time, you're all independent minded internet browsers concerned primarily with yourselves; it only follows that if you want to ever think of digg as a success, then you must agree we each give the same amount of validity to every article we digg. My digg is as important and as trivial as Kevin Rose's. That's the idea behind it. Whether or not you accept that is also whether or not you view digg as an idea above and beyond slashdot or at the same level. I'd like to think we've taken things further.
- rousehouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cal0001
Not so. The accusation was that Steve intentionally stole it, and then he spammed digg with stories from his clone sites. These statements were both completely false. This "controversy" was not digg's finest hour. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What the heck is this DIGGARMY? a group of immature and irresponsible children who have nothing better to do than to jump at the chance to harass people via the Internet in a collective fashion thereby displacing individual responsibility to the consequences of those actions and empowering a class of people who have not real power outside this pseudo mob.
- sgtpinky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, I never called for lynching, but I said it was blatent plagiarism. Either way, it's still boring to see basically the same page with the same ideas. Come up with some new ones for God's sake.
As for the statement that Digg user's have a mob mentality and are quick to condemn - just the high vote rating of THIS post proves that Digg user's are just as quick to forgive and set the record straight. - hayseed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i don't think he stole anything on purpose, he is just guilty of thinking that when something says "open source" that it is as reputable as a real project like phpMyadmin etc..
"Steve had assumed the open source code didn't violate copyrights, as we all do..." uh, no you know what they say about ass u ming
Things just happen so fast here - normally there would be simple email like "please stop using our code on your website - it is obviously copied directly from our site" of course he would have taken it down right away.
from oreilly: "Steve had been automatically submitting stories from his other sites to Digg (because a Digg front-page story gets a lot of traffic).."
hmm isn't that kinda spammy? - hayseed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2he's gotten more publicity for his sites from this than 10 years of "auto-submitting" his stories to digg
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is