View Full Version : stealing html code
MASSEY
28th May 2010, 18:23
i found a site thats looks nice,
i viewed the source code and copy'd and pasted it to note pad there is no encryption, it has no style sheet so it loads in my browser everything minus the images.
if i took the code and tinkered
could anything bad happen to me :(
Nick
Kev Jaques
28th May 2010, 18:28
Yea the great gods G0A'Ugle (false gods I might add ;) ) themselves will slap your page about with a wet trout and hit it out the ballpark ;)
Hmm, not really, however wouldn't you be better off learning how to construct things properly rather than copying someone else's mistakes? ;)
As a side note, it was rather humorous when MS got a slap from copying a sites code/ideas and passing it off as theirs a while ago ;)
mobyme
28th May 2010, 18:46
i found a site thats looks nice,
i viewed the source code and copy'd and pasted it to note pad there is no encryption, it has no style sheet so it loads in my browser everything minus the images.
if i took the code and tinkered
could anything bad happen to me :(
Nick
Not really, but it's just not the done thing old chap; besides which, didn't I read a post of yours the other day where you said that html was easy peasy.
Obviously not that easy peasy. :D
Seriously, sketch out your preferred layout and try to replicate it using your own html and css.
I thought you made a pretty good job for a beginner on one of the links you put up to one of your sites earlier in the month.
brownie
28th May 2010, 20:08
it has no style sheet
Is it using "inline css"?
No one codes anything from scratch, existing code is nearly always used as a basis for new code. ;)
Astaroth
28th May 2010, 20:12
You cannot encrypt HTML, its the nature of the beast.
If you directly copy someone's site then obviously you are infringing their copyright and they could, in theory, have your site taken offline until you redesigned it and sue for the breach.
As others have said though, many people are "inspired" by other people's designs which becomes even more true for users of common engines - look at 50% of wordpress sites or VBulletin and you would be hard pressed to tell them a part except for the top logo.
If you copy their content as well as their design then you will also run into problems with the great god Google for duplicate content.
This is a question that often comes up but I have yet to see a convincing answer. The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to make a case for copyright of HTMl or for that matter any programming language.
If I put together some unique code then I hold the copyright for this. However there are only a limited number of ways that code can be constructed so in practice it could be very difficult to prove an infringement.
Naughty Vend
29th May 2010, 10:06
I've never copied a website but I have looked at others code to see "how they did that" to teach myself, then used it as inspiration and totally agree with the copyright issues / code of conduct that it's just not good form to steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own.
You can get web-apps to protect code and / or to keep most at bay use a disable right and centre click 'thingy' which, I can not remember how to do any more. Still learning a decade in. :rolleyes:
Devil's Advocate
I was involved in a lengthy discussion about this in another forum a while ago. At that time I did an extensive search on the Internet and I was unable to come up with a single, solitary instance of anyone being taken to court for this as an infringement.
I would have thought that if this had happened then there would have been extensive coverage of it on the Internet. This is not the case so it would be reasonable to assume that is has not happened. That may tell us something.
seoandy
29th May 2010, 17:43
as has been mentioned about in a way (though someone said in theory its also in practice) you are breaking copyright laws at least within the UK.
not many people will care if you copy the html, it doesnt do much alone it needs styling, nicing the design (styling) is where the copyright generally is and in the php/asp code and what not. also don't copy content.
if you want to learn get some open source templates and have a play, or get some books.
BusinessIdeas
29th May 2010, 19:43
It seems to me that its ok to look at other sites' html to see how its done and to copy and past snippets of html code. I keep a file with little bits of useful html code that I use occasionally, its all pretty generic and the same snippets come up on different sites time and time again. As for copying the whole of the html; I wouldnt do that because you would be using their content copy (text) too, thus infringing their copyright.
crossdaz
29th May 2010, 19:47
There are so many free templates around these days that it really isn't necessary to go to the bother of copying another site. Even a quite popular generic template can be easily customised how you want it.
MASSEY
30th May 2010, 00:12
i think this sums it up,
http://www.smartcomputing.com/Editorial/article.asp?article=articles/2001/s1202/33s02/33s02.asp&articleid=9557&guid=
You can take the skeleton of the code but dont copy images and text,
spidersites
30th May 2010, 08:49
Dont think anyone would mind you copying some HTML. However javascript is another business alltogethor.
I invest vast amounts of time developing client side code and this is where the value in my business is. Someone copying my code is breaking copyright and could put me out of business. So dont download javascript from a website without permission.
regards
you are breaking copyright laws at least within the UK.
Do you have a reference for this where is it categorically stated that you are breaking any law?
i think this sums it up, http://www.smartcomputing.com/Editor...leid=9557&guid=
Similarly this appears to me to totally unqualified and based on opinion rather than fact.
This is probably totally wrong...
For example, you can grab JavaScript code, such as a mouseover (JavaScript instruction to change the appearance of an object when the mouse passes over it. It usually signifies a hyperlink), but you would need to replace the images with your own.
Javascript could be considered to be proprietary code and AFAIK this is copyrighted.
.
.
estwig
30th May 2010, 10:42
Stealing is a bit strong, it's not like you take something and deprive the owner of that something. Use a bit of code from a website and the code is still there.
Borrowing, much nicer way to think of it.
:)
Borrowing, much nicer way to think of it.
I am afraid that's a great philosophy for getting people into serious trouble. :eek:
Use a copyrighted image and get caught and you will be in serious trouble but you have not deprived the owner of anything. Copy a movie from a DVD and you have not deprived anyone of anything but we all know it is wrong. Basically, if someone has created something then you cannot just take it. What we would like to ascertain is if HTML markup comes into this category?
.
.
LittleOne
30th May 2010, 12:05
Curiously, why do you feel that HTML would be considered differently.
I'm just a student (well for the next 9 days until its all over that is!) but I studied internet legal and professional issues taught by (according to himself) one of the most authoritative figures on UK copyright, FOI, DPA etc law He taught us adamantly that even HTML is covered - while obviously a single tag such as <b> wouldn't be, its the combination and order. Many individuals can hold copyright over the same piece of code.... but they'd have to prove it was intentionally copied and damaging their business to have anyone even raise an eyebrow. Even though its a markup language... its really the same as any programming language. You've still got variables like sizing, naming, positioning etc.
Would be really interested to hear your views on this =)
Curiously, why do you feel that HTML would be considered differently.
I don't necessarily think that it would. I would just like to know one way or another. :|
Despite what your lecturer taught you and as I have said earlier, there does not seem to be a single case of anyone "getting done" for this. You can find as many examples as you like of copyright infringement cases for images, text, software and even code but none for HTML that I know of.
Added: Did your lecturer quote any cases?
LittleOne
30th May 2010, 15:10
I don't necessarily think that it would. I would just like to know one way or another. :|
Despite what your lecturer taught you and as I have said earlier, there does not seem to be a single case of anyone "getting done" for this. You can find as many examples as you like of copyright infringement cases for images, text, software and even code but none for HTML that I know of.
Added: Did your lecturer quote any cases?
He didn't quote any cases no, and a quick search suggests there haven't been any (in UK courts at least). I can imagine it wouldn't often get to court or being documented - might just be a polite email asking the offending material to be removed. Also, if images and colours are changed are people going to notice or care?
Though a lack of cases doesn't mean it's not protected under the copyright law - just that it hasn't been tested. Given the vastness of the internet it seem improbable that a web designer would come across someone having ripped off their code - especially if they've changed a lot of aspects.
Would be interesting to see what would happen in a test case, I see no reason for it to be viewed different to previous cases about program code.
Paul Norman
30th May 2010, 15:55
I don't know the legal rights and wrongs of this, just puzzled as to what you would gain by it?
I would rather have something original, anyway. But of course, anything in the public domain can, and will, be copied, sooner or later, if it is any good. People 'rip -off' other people's business ideas all the time.
I assume the OP would be comfortable with someone doing that to them?
MASSEY
30th May 2010, 16:12
I don't know the legal rights and wrongs of this, just puzzled as to what you would gain by it?
I would rather have something original, anyway. But of course, anything in the public domain can, and will, be copied, sooner or later, if it is any good. People 'rip -off' other people's business ideas all the time.
I assume the OP would be comfortable with someone doing that to them?
haha, its not really as bad as it sounds to be honest lets face it all code is structured in a similar way.
Why reinvent the wheel?
I have made an offer on the site in question as its linked to a tasty url, so hopefully they give me a reasonable price rather than taking their code.
I am by no means an expert , but as far as I understand things, copyright can be granted to the author of an original work, be it literary, musical or artistic.
Computer code is maths which you can neither invent nor create, you can only discover it. Therefore, the code carries no direct copyright protection.
The only protection would be on the artistic merits of the web page itself.( An original work)
Software developers originally got round this problem way back by creating hardware circuits which did the job of the software code and thus the physical object could be patented as an 'invention' which also gave protection against software copies.
Since then, things in the world of patent laws (particularly in the USA) have become beyond a farce with all companies who can afford it having teams of patent lawyers ( or patent trolls - take your pick ) trying to gain control of every type of physical action related to computers and interfaces.
Somewhere down the line it became possible to obtain a patent for the bl**din' obvious, which is where we are today.
Like I said, I'm no expert.
Therefore, the code carries no direct copyright protection.
I think that has yet to be decided.
dots and spots Jeff
30th May 2010, 16:56
Going off on a bit of a tangent, a year or so ago I did an OU course on web development.
During the course, one of the things we discussed was why the web was written in HTML - other languages, most of which I never knew existed, had been available at the dawn of the www.
One of the major factors that led to the ascendancy of HTML was that other usesrs could easily see the source code of a page, work out how it worked, teach themselves the language and adapt pages to their own need.
So, whilst it doesn't answer the original question of the OP, HTML flourished because people were able to nick & adapt other peoples code.
From the IPO site: (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-literary.htm)
"Software, that is computer programs, and games for games consoles are protected on the same basis as literary works. Conversion of a program into or between computer languages and codes corresponds to adapting a work. Storing any work in a computer amounts to copying the work. In addition, running a computer program or displaying work on a video display unit (VDU) will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner."
This suggests that code is copyright.
Some points:
Stealing copyrighted work is an offence whether or not a prosecution has ever been brought. These are separate matters. (Nobody has been prosecuted for treason in the UK since 1945 but it is still a crime.)
Copyright is not 'granted'. It automatically rests with the creator of the work.
I think the maths/discover analogy is misleading: there are only a finite combination of words in English. Do writers only discover appealing ones?
At a tangent: using code lifted from the internet is part and parcel of the breakdown of copyright enforcement brought about by new technology. At the level of copying a bit of html no one gives a damn, (just as hackers don't give a damn about Macs, and the media didn't give a damn about gay Lib Dem MPs until they became famous.)
MASSEY
30th May 2010, 17:38
gay Lib Dem MPs until they became famous.)
He broke the law, he should be sacked,
The info you have given would make you think it is protected, but does html class as software, i dont think it does, we appear to have a loop hole in the system.
stugster
30th May 2010, 17:58
but does html class as software, i dont think it does, we appear to have a loop hole in the system.
Nope... No loopholes, just loopy.
soft·ware [sawft-wair, soft-]
–noun
1.
Computers. the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them. Compare hardware (def. 5).
2.
anything that is not hardware but is used with hardware, esp. audiovisual materials, as film, tapes, records, etc.: a studio fully equipped but lacking software.
HTML is a programming language (program) that directs the computer how to render a visual page. HTML is not hardware. Hence, it must be software.
Intellectual property applies.
He broke the law, he should be sacked,
I agree that he should not hold office. But how do you sack someone who has resigned?
Still, an interesting attitude to the consequences of breaking the law from someone who started a thread called "stealing html code".:)
Communications_Guy
30th May 2010, 18:34
I use firebug Firefox addon to do this all the time as I have no idea how to do half the stuff I manage to do.
I just click on inspect element. Check out the HTML and CSS then copy it over and configure it for my own sites.
However I would never rip a whole site that belonged to someone else.
MASSEY
30th May 2010, 20:27
I agree that he should not hold office. But how do you sack someone who has resigned?
Thats what i meant, it was right for him to go. At least he had the decency to turn down his severance pay.
Some say stealing, i like to think of it as inspiration.
DotNetWebs
30th May 2010, 21:56
...From the IPO site: (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-literary.htm)
"Software, that is computer programs, and games for games consoles are protected on the same basis as literary works. Conversion of a program into or between computer languages and codes corresponds to adapting a work. Storing any work in a computer amounts to copying the work. In addition, running a computer program or displaying work on a video display unit (VDU) will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner."
This suggests that code is copyright...
Nope... No loopholes, just loopy.
HTML is a programming language (program) that directs the computer how to render a visual page. HTML is not hardware. Hence, it must be software.
Intellectual property applies.
HTML is a not Programming Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language) it's a Markup Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language).
Regards
Dotty
HTML is a not Programming Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language) it's a Markup Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_language).
Regards
Dotty
Sorry, what are you saying here? The IPO site refers to a "computer language". Does the relevant Act, (and modifying instruments), specify the difference between programming and markup languages? I'd be surprised if the drafters were either that knowledgeable or diligent in 1986/7 when the 1988 Act was drafted.
Never know tho', live in hope..:)
Faevilangel
30th May 2010, 22:09
I wouldn't expect anyone that copies html code to be sued as the amount of code available in html is limited, so there are always going to be code that are similar.
The output of the code would be enforced though, as a design is a unique appearance.
I wouldn't mind someone copying my html code as long as they change the output with css.
If I recall there are only so many musical notes.
Massey, lots of people take an interest in other websites and view source and practice with it.
I also tape songs off the radio. This doesn't allow me to republish them as my own.
MASSEY
30th May 2010, 22:23
If I recall there are only so many musical notes.
Massey, lots of people take an interest in other websites and view source and practice with it.
I also tape songs off the radio. This doesn't allow me to republish them as my own.
Interesting analogy ;)
We still have not got a solid answer to weather it is legal or not.....
DotNetWebs
30th May 2010, 22:40
Sorry, what are you saying here? The IPO site refers to a "computer language". Does the relevant Act, (and modifying instruments), specify the difference between programming and markup languages? I'd be surprised if the drafters were either that knowledgeable or diligent in 1986/7 when the 1988 Act was drafted.
Never know tho', live in hope..:)
I am no lawyer but I can't imagine it would be hard to prove the difference.
In a nutshell:
A programming language solves problems - e.g "what's the best velocity and trajectory to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in my spaceship?"
A markup language describes a layout - e.g "how shall I format my spaceship manual?".
Using the 'book' analogy can you imagine copywriting the following?
"My Manual will consist of:
An introduction
12 Chapters of 7 paragraphs each
Each Chapter will have a bold heading and an image on the first page.
etc. etc."
IMO the HTML itself would be very difficult to assert copyright over as many other similar instances are likely to independently arise elsewhere.
The program however would be much easier to assert as it would contain an algorithm consisting of many steps, procedures and variables that would be far less likely independently arise elsewhere.
Regards
Dotty
Good points, but perhaps forgetting one thing:
The law is an ass.
:)
stugster
31st May 2010, 07:25
I agree, the terminologies used to describe it as a programming language were possibly bad... however, there is certainly no argument that HTML is software, and as such, IP applies.
I think there certainly is an argument that HTML code is not software. That has yet to be decided.
As far as this law goes...
Storing any work in a computer amounts to copying the work
As soon as I visit a website I download and store what is on that website on my PC. By the letter of the law I am copying that work and that makes me an infringer. I think that is why that law is never applied. It needs to be rewritten and we are no closer to an answer to the original question.
stugster
31st May 2010, 12:41
bdw,
I agree. Storing it is one thing... uploading the code and using it as the basis as your own website is a bit different though.
matth
31st May 2010, 12:49
I wouldn't fancy being a judge residing over a copyright case for HTML.
Your honour, I used this format:
<head>
head stuff
</head>
<body>
<h1>Stuff</h1>
<p>More Stuff</h1>
</body>
So anyone that's used it has copied me.
I agree, that if you rip images, designs and all then it would be considered breach of copyright, and those should be prosecuted fully. However, if you're only using snippets of code, I suspect it would be very difficult to prove to any real degree and would cost a fortune to bring to court.
A very very grey area IMO, and not one that's likely to be resolved any time soon.
estwig
31st May 2010, 19:35
Everything is free on the internet, or why would it be there??
That's a bit naive is it not?
stugster
31st May 2010, 20:44
I think... just think, it might have been a joke.
crossdaz
31st May 2010, 20:53
That's a bit naive is it not?
Might not be - lots of smart people are beginning to think the same?
MASSEY
31st May 2010, 22:47
[removed by mod - deleted comment]
I like that answer the best of all to be honest
BusinessIdeas
31st May 2010, 22:50
Now Come On! - nothing wrong with girls!
The idea that a language can be of itself copyrighted is patently ridiculous - excuse pun - The only thing that could be copyrighted, if anything, would be the content/copy. it is exremely unlikely that a bunch of standard html codes could be found illegal or immoral to use.
[removed by mod - deleted comment]
Apart from the ethics involved that is a dangerously rash statement to make that could get a lot of people into serious trouble. When it comes to image copyright clearly you are very naive about what happens nowadays. I cannot believe that anyone in a business forum could openly encourage people to break the law because make no mistake about it, that is what you are doing.
What is even worse is that two people actually thanked you for that post.
stugster
1st June 2010, 08:24
What is even worse is that two people actually thanked you for that post.
3 :D
....
brownie
1st June 2010, 08:34
3 :D
....
4 :D
....
KM-Tiger
1st June 2010, 08:40
4 :D
....
Sorry Brownie, but that infringed Stugster's copyright.
Did you really think you could get away with just changing the '3' to a '4'?
brownie
1st June 2010, 08:41
Sue me :D
....
OldWelshGuy
1st June 2010, 08:44
[removed by mod - quoting deleted comment]
Keith I am assuming that this is just you having a sarcastic poke at the fact that while you don't like it or do it, as you say, you ain't Sony or EMi (or Getty), so there isn't a lot you can do about it.
Sadly IP theft goes on constantly, but there is a growing business in IP track trace and monetisation companies (As many who have been pinged by Getty and Corbis will testify to)
estwig
1st June 2010, 09:26
Keith I am assuming that this is just you having a sarcastic poke at the fact that while you don't like it or do it, as you say, you ain't Sony or EMi (or Getty), so there isn't a lot you can do about it.
Sadly IP theft goes on constantly, but there is a growing business in IP track trace and monetisation companies (As many who have been pinged by Getty and Corbis will testify to)
None of this gives you the right to remove my comments does it??????
I'm more than a little annoyed about this, my comments did not break any forum rules and could have been part of a healthy debate, enlightening people to the fact their content might get stolen.
No, you have decided it's not to be.
estwig
1st June 2010, 11:51
I don't wanna fall out with anyone, but I would like a reason why my post was removed??
OldWelshGuy
1st June 2010, 12:02
None of this gives you the right to remove my comments does it??????
I'm more than a little annoyed about this, my comments did not break any forum rules and could have been part of a healthy debate, enlightening people to the fact their content might get stolen.
No, you have decided it's not to be.
Not guilty Keith, I actually quoted your post in order to keep it in context, an Admin has removed it.
Right or wrong, no rules were broken by the post were they? And there is a large community that thinks along those lines, heard of PirateBay anyone?
The post was and is relevant to a debate on copying from the web.
Stifling debate is a very strange thing to do, and then refusing to say why it has been censored or stifled is even weirder.
So, come on Sift admin, give us the why you unilaterally pulled it?
BTW OWG: which is it? Admin or another mod? The first edit showed mod.
estwig
1st June 2010, 12:18
I've told who moderated it, I will look for an explanation, I'm sure it's all just a silly mistake.
OldWelshGuy
1st June 2010, 12:24
Right or wrong, no rules were broken by the post were they? And there is a large community that thinks along those lines, heard of PirateBay anyone?
The post was and is relevant to a debate on copying from the web.
Stifling debate is a very strange thing to do, and then refusing to say why it has been censored or stifled is even weirder.
So, come on Sift admin, give us the why you unilaterally pulled it?
BTW OWG: which is it? Admin or another mod? The first edit showed mod.
Two points highlighted above:-
1. " it did not break any rules", is pure opinion, and not fact. It is believed that the post condoned and encouraged people to use other peoples Intellectual property, which is illegal, so that being the case the post would have broken rules wouldn't it?
2. I initially stated 'mod' as I assumed it was another mod. On looking at the moderating history, I could see it was a sift admin, so altered the post accordingly.
There is no scopnspiracy here, it is a simple difference of interpretation of content.
I thought the post was stating one thing, Sift Admin took a different view. :)
Stupid idea. Google will see that the other site is older and spank your page harder than an eastern European prostitute.
HOWEVER
You COULD make use of the rel=canonical tag (which now works between domains) to point towards the original.
No real point.
Just make some unique content you lazy shmo.
Also, you may be infringing copywrite/someones intellectual property.
estwig
1st June 2010, 12:33
Thank you to OWG for answering and taking the time to send me a couple of PM's.
It was never my intention to encourage anyone to break the law, my intention was to 'stir up' a debate. The idea that comments made on a forum may encourage someone to break the law, is very naive.
We wait with baited breath for the 'official line'!!
There is no scopnspiracy here, it is a simple difference of interpretation of content.
You're no fun. Conspiracies, whilst total borax most of the time, are fun.
SLDHosting
1st June 2010, 13:48
i found a site thats looks nice,
i viewed the source code and copy'd and pasted it to note pad there is no encryption, it has no style sheet so it loads in my browser everything minus the images.
if i took the code and tinkered
could anything bad happen to me :(
Nick
Yes, a DMCA take down notice would be filed against you, doing this type of tactics is very bad for your brand and business, If you want a website why not get one made for you ?
Alot of sites use unique coding these days so they,ll easily know which piece of coding you have stole from them aswell.
Regards
estwig
1st June 2010, 14:31
Decidedly quiet from admin!
MASSEY
1st June 2010, 18:38
Decidedly quiet from admin!
I dont think i have an answerable question on my hands here,
im also confused as to why your post was removed.
estwig
1st June 2010, 18:40
im also confused as to why your post was removed.
You and me both mate, I've not got a response. Gonna look for an answer tomorrow.
brownie
1st June 2010, 21:41
im also confused as to why your post was removed.
Because he's a trouble maker...............give him an infraction. ;)