No, you're not just "archiving". Besides the point that archiving itself is already in a legal grey zone, at the very least it has the defence that it presents the website unmodified, in exactly the same state for no other purpose than showing the web as it used to be. Like file-sharing websites, archive websites rely on the fact that it's an automated process and they can continue to host anything until they get a DMCA takedown. Not to mention organisations like Archive.org are literally run by librarians which gives their argument of preservation a lot more weight.
When you're stealing assets and adding your own tracking code, you're transforming the work, which is a definite no-no for copyright and trademark law. Not to mention that by intercepting traffic which was meant for a competitor you're literally interfering with their business and risk fraud charges.
No, you're using their content to gain financially, and in this instance, at their expense. And that's putting aside all the other possible counter-arguments, of which there are many.
I'm no fan of long copyrights, etc., but in this case to me it's a clear cut case.
Except for the part where he said he moved the code to another site five years ago where it has been running since and even ranks highly for some search queries? Unless I’m misreading that paragraph.
While that might mean that it's OK ethically (I'm not sure either way), that doesn't make a difference legally.
If you go and pick the lock of a random house in your city and get caught by the police, I very much doubt that the defence "I was just doing it to see if I could" is going to help you.
If you get caught while doing it you would likely be charged with attempted burglary. It's up to you to convince jury/judge that you didn't intend to steal.
If you only get caught after leaving the premises it is trespassing, since it's apparent you didn't steal. Picking a lock in order to trespass might make the sentence a bit harsher than normal.
So anyone can just come walk around inside your house without your permission, and you think it’s legal and no problem as long as they don’t take anything? I could see that being the perspective in another culture but it certainly isn’t how the US works.
> you think it’s legal and no problem as long as they don’t take anything
Not only that, they can move in!
Here in Belgium a young couple left the country to do volunteering work only to hear from friends back home that gypsies had squatted their house. Official reaction of the mayor of Ghent was "I can't do anything about it ... it's complicated"
Obviously breaking & entering is a crime but if you're "living" there, only the courts can kick you out after following all the necessary legal steps.
UK has (had) similar squatting laws but afaik those were mainly (ab)used in the 90s to throw parties in abandoned warehouses.
The UK has a lot more defences if your _home_ gets squatted. The rationale is that now we're considering two parties who both want to live somewhere, and so the legitimate owner/ occupier wins. Where squatters move into somewhere empty the court has to weigh up on the one hand property rights of the owner who left it empty but on the other the squatters desire to have a home. So these are unequal rights and the squatters may win under some circumstances.
The antidote is desirable for a community. If you don't want squatters in a building you never live in, let somebody else live there instead. Now if it comes to it (which it probably won't) any squatters will lose. Lots of places that somebody owns and might otherwise stay empty have people living in them for very little rent for this reason. If you've got a good reputation don't care where you live and don't mind potentially having to leave on very short notice when the real owner wants it back, you can get very, very cheap rent in crazy buildings because of this. People live in unused lighthouses, buildings that used to be part of defence systems, big factories, all sorts of stuff.
Not the first time either. Every now and again I get an interesting idea, test it and share it with the world. The test that was left forgotten had no commercial impact on anyone and very low traffic.
Your right he did the ethical right thing and informed the sites he’s spoofing, and informed the users he tricked. And he only ran it for a limited period to prove it was possible...
Oh no wait he did none of those things. This is not a POC, it’s just a guy running an exploit for five years who thought he did nothing wrong because “If i shouldn’t be allowed entry, they should have used a better lock!”
Yeah, copying the content is definitely copyright violation. But I meant to say that by hosting these sites, the developer could also get sued for attempting to conduct business under the trade name of another entity. And that includes, in particular, hosting that fake Google SERP.
Your statement is far too broad and lacks context. Where is this a violation and where is it considered fraud? There must be some countries where this isn't the case or at least where the article and non-commercial use of the technique are considered to be mitigating circumstances.
Also, who doesn't find it cool? You don't seem to be saying that what is described in the article isn't cool, you seem to be making a broader claim that copyright violation and fraud aren't cool.
Lets assume you find what is described in this article copyright violation and fraud, because after all, you said it is. Apparently some people on HN find what the author has done cool, judging by the comments. Ergo, some things that you, specifically, consider 'copyright violation and fraud' are in fact cool.
He copied Google's SERP page, AND copied all of his competitors websites. That's definitely copyright infringement, you'd be livid if you were a competitor, and as a user you'd be pretty annoyed.
It's still an interesting hack, so good to see it being talked about. But it is not ethical and definitely illegal in almost any jurisdiction.
I believe much of modern copyright law in Europe but especially the US is broken, but in general I don't find crime cool, nor do I find 'cool' a justification in itself to do certain things. Not all laws are sacred though.
I was merely reacting to broad nature of the claims in parent comment. There is a world beyond the US and Europe, laws are not universal truths, they are a representation of what we have come to agree upon as rules to play by. In copyright law specifically though there is often a chasm between what the people find good rules and what companies find good rules. But that is a different discussion.