Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs:

"So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup.

In other words, The Daily Mail deliberately stole my work."

Yes, but the parent poster isn't wrong; the bulk of the article is about iframe embedding, and it's a clear distinction people should draw in terms of responsibility.

In addition, DM crossed a line that they shouldn't have crossed by re-hosting the content. But conflating iframe embedding and content theft is a bad precedent.

> Didn't you read the article at all? It's only a few paragraphs:

This is an unhelpful comment to make. But if you're going to take that tack, one could plausibly make the same remark in response to your comment. Because farther down, the post talks about the other time the Daily Mail used one of his visualiations:

They didn't just screenshot the map. They didn't just embed the map itself. They iframed my entire site, which is why the FlowingData logo and header appear on their site.

So there were two instances. One in which they copied the code and removed the code snippet, and another in which they just iframe-ed the page. The charitable interpretation of the GP's comment is that they were referring to the latter.

Since the latter isn't the point of the article, the charitable interpretation is actually that the OP didn't read it

Dodgy as hell though, if you do it without attribution. And you are sticking the true owner with the bandwidth costs.

Also: "So how did Daily Mail embed the visualization without the word “poop” popping up on an empty page? They downloaded all the files from my server on to their own server and deleted the snippet that brought up a poop alert. That way they didn't have to deal with those pesky safeguards I setup."

He had, shall we say, "protections" in place to prevent his page from being embedded.

Daily Mail downloaded his source files, removed the protections, and then embedded their own iframe referencing the copied files with the protections removed.

I'd say that counts as stealing.

This sort of thing happens all the time with images though. It just sounds worse and different because it is a fancy visualization rather than a .jpg or .gif.

... and many photographers have successfully sued for various websites using their imagery without permission - regardless of whether or not it was publicly available on the author's website.

The fact that copyright is violated on a regular basis does not make this case any more or less excusable.

I agree with you but that didn't come across well in my comment. My point was to say that it is indeed the same thing, only it sounds different because it took more steps to accomplish.

It's worse! You still route traffic to the site and don't even pay for your own bandwidth, while reaping the benefits of their content.

Also, they didn't just embed an iframe - read the whole article.

Downloading all files and re-uploading them without attribution is pretty akin to digital IP theft however.

You can remove 'pretty akin to digital'. But also it's copyright infringement, not theft.

Though I agree and understand the difference (layman's mistaken terms aside), it's also a criminal version of copyright infringement which, if memory serves correctly, in the US is a more stiff penalty than petty theft even.

Downloading someone's website and re-hosting it one your own server without permission is surely a copyright infringement?

> You didn't read the article did you.

This comment breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.

Well if you moderated comments/users that made threats of physical violence against me I wouldn't be tempted to make posts referencing them. You can't deny seeing the comment in question since you replied to it.

> I wouldn't be tempted

It's up to you (i.e. to each of us) to resist that temptation. Somebody else breaking the rules doesn't entitle you to as well.

Sounds like somebody didn't read the article.