New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
The biggest issue we have is that the thieves are profiting off of the work others have invested time and money into.
Agreed, @gsrdgrdghd, it's not theft. They're not taking away your ability to use the design you paid for. Good luck proving any damages. You're free to enforce your copyright obviously if someone is copying your work verbatim (just as music companies should be free to enforce their copyrights if I sell a CD compilation of their music), but my point was that the copying in and of itself isn't bad. What's wrong with taking your template and using parts of it as inspiration for my own site as long as I don't completely copy your work? I guarantee you whoever designed your site did the same thing, whether they even realize it or not.
Anyway, not trying to start an argument over it. My point was just that the copying isn't bad in and of itself, unless they're reproducing it and claiming it as their own work, and that I wouldn't give money to any provider who supports the DMCA.
People should take a look at industries where there is no copyright protection at all, especially the fashion industry. They innovate at a faster pace than anyone, and there's no design protection at all. I'm free to copy a Gucci design, I'm just not allowed to use Gucci's trademarks (this is why you see so many clothing designs that incorporate a company's logo-- to discourage direct copies, and to make it easier to spot the knockoffs). Major design houses end up competing on quality of materials and craftsmanship, rather than on the novelty of a design.
There's a BIG difference between @Francisco sitting down with his graphics program to whip up a fresh site design (without referencing other places) and then writing all of the code from the ground up, and simply going "Oh, nifty, I like how that scrolling menu works, I should learn that".
Likewise, there's also a very large difference between someone noticing that we used div-based tables and deciding to give it a try themselves, and just hitting 'view source' and making a few name changes. I do agree with you that the former is a pretty good way to learn new tricks. But the latter is what was being discussed here, and what xproto had been doing.
The quality and value of the original diminishes with every copy made. There's a reason providers do their own design instead of using free templates.
I'm sorry, since when has lack of originality ever been a good thing? Besides, there's another factor you're missing there... designs, not just brands and logos, can also be protected. Car models are a good example of this.
What? When's the last time you had a look at teen culture? (Which is what your fashion argument mainly applies to). Quality is irrelevant... whether made from high-grade materials in a state-of-the-art factory or coming from child labor in a sweatshop, the 'social status' depends on what brandname is on the clothing. I've owned some really poor quality genuine Nike clothing, and I've got some no-name workshirts that have lasted me 5+ years. Not to mention that the vast majority of your "industries where there is no copyright protection" are typically very cheap knockoffs, not a competing quality product.
You can also take a provider's webdesign as a whole representation. Frantech/BuyVM is known for our very simple, un-elegant sites. @miTgiB 's site is easily recognized by it's primary-whites, text-based menu, and grid background. @KuJoe 's SecureDragon LLC is a pretty distinct red/black/gray pattern. Each site would be pretty recognizable without our logos on them... and yet you claim that someone taking the entire site and only changing the logo and a bit of text in order to appear to be us (or related to us) is perfectly fine?
Karma's going to bite you in the ass should you ever attempt to make a living from distributing/selling your own work.
@Naruto you're a cool guy.
The color blue is a trademark of LameVPSCompany LLC.
In the cases we are talking about, you are probably right! But as a very average designer but good coder as I hope I am, some of my own copies are much better than the originals... In case you're wondering, I always ask first :-)
@Aldryic stealers gonna steal ... you can't argue with them
There is no copyright protection in the fashion industry. 17 USC specifically exempts utilitarian articles from copyright protections. The fashion industry is a textbook example (literally) of an industry that thrives despite lack of copyright protections. Many famous designers have cited that lack as part of the reason for the rapid pace of innovation in the industry, which is clearly beneficial to design houses. And no, I'm not talking about teenagers, I'm talking about the real world.
You can't possibly think you're the first company to ever have a simple, utilitarian site, or that SecureDragon are the only people ever to combine red, black, and grey. Still, I'm not claiming people should copy your site verbatim and just change the logo. What I'm talking about is people being inspired by the look of your site, whether it's a menu style or a way of doing a plan comparison table.
You seem to be mischaracterizing my argument quite a bit. I'm not defending copyright violation. I'm saying you wouldn't be drawing a paycheck without a culture of copying and sharing, because that's the foundation of the Internet. Also I'm saying that anyone aggressively using DMCA takedowns over a website design is probably the type of person I don't want to do business with. It's one of the worst laws on the books.
If this is so, then your argument deserves its own topic, rather than this one. You appear to be pretty much defending xproto's blatant ripping and reselling of sites.
If he's selling the designs, I don't defend that. If he's making copies of the HTML and advertising it as a "copy BuyVM!" kit, With instructions to Insert Logo Here, I don't defend that. If he's posting free copies of the designs in their own right with credit to the owners, I'd defend that, but not people taking those copies and using them verbatim, or with only a logo changed. My original point was not to demonize the simple act of copying, and that it's all about how the copy is used.
Suddenly, this topic is alive again
You folks do realize that he can just make another account, right?
Childish anger .-.
There was a recent post by "xprotocept" on LEB. Except that it wasn't actually him, but rather a provider here using his name.
Now that is amusing, heh.
@Aldryic
How did you find that out before me :S
NOBODY hides from Pony
You sir never fail to amaze me.
Damn, now this idiot must be laughing with this post revival... can we stop?