DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
77% Positive
Analyzed from 5119 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#stealing#copying#copy#someone#own#more#something#steal#https#same

Discussion (145 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
I recently discovered that the author of gzip still retains that 90's feel on his home page: http://gailly.net/
::looks at bootstrap hero styling::
Oh, right.
Don’t actually know what the product is and why it might be valuable to me.
Sure is pretty though.
I vehemently disagree that this happens. What you see is the end result, and thinking and struggling through for each element is not present. It is like copying the Mona Lisa and claiming the relationship with the sitting model and her smell and feel and complaints about cramped neck is all in the copied painting.
(Please do not change the cursor, specially the size. There is a reason I changed it.)
With Software in particular, I often encounter designs that copy a pattern from another popular piece of software, but without critically thinking about what the pattern is for or if it's even appropriate for their system, or even worse, assuming that because it exists and is popular that it must be good, when in fact it's terrible.
If recreating someone else's creation truly learned us, I believe the world would be a tremendously better place.
I used to run a lunch study group where we took some old crusty load bearing software, read the documentation thoroughly, and then dissected it, reading source and comments and trying to distill what it achieved well separate from what it achieved in spite of itself.
We learned a lot.
The very definition of "cargo cult" in a software context.
Yes and the reason is not subtle...
We'll see much more of that now: people defending theft and then arguing that if you change the position of one comma in the entirety of Harry Potter, then it's an acceptable new product.
It's crystal clear why: LLMs are very good at copying / stealing / tweaking.
What's not clear though is how are licenses, including the open-source ones, respected here?
I'm not just talking about copying a website pixel-for-pixel: I'm talking about things like re-implementing a compiler, supposedly from scratch, when we all know it's not at all a clean room implementation.
Expect a wave of "theft is good" from the same people who are pushing 24/7 "buy commercial AI models subscriptions" content (which I have btw so no need to sell me more of them).
> We bet that vibecoding would allow us to move faster
"Theft is good"
History rhymes, indeed. Almost two centuries ago, Balzac wrote:
> A man spends ten years of his life searching for an industrial secret, a machine, some kind of discovery, he takes out a patent, he believes he is master of his thing, he is followed by a competitor who, if he has not foreseen everything, perfects his invention with a screw, and thus takes it out of his hands. [Illusions perdues, 1843]
It's unusual seeing the process stated so bluntly, but for something as cookie-cutter as a company homepage this has been how web designers have done things for decades. Or, at the very least, it's how the craft is learned.
I think the Mintlify designers viewed dozens if not hundreds of examples, then thought very carefully about exactly what they needed to express for their page and how best to express it. Then they built their page step by step, sweating over every detail.
Then Kibu came along, lifted the entire thing, changed "3%" of it and called it their own.
What Kibu did is gross.
Directly copying is tacky and immoral - it's also not effective. You should be thinking about how to position _your product_ not how someone else positioned their product.
If you haven’t done it, it is an extraordinary way to see how the greats work.
It also tends to improve your own writing skills - at least as long as you are copying from your betters.
This seems like the web design version of this.
What really struck me was the fact every single segment down to the level of phrases had a well-delimited function with respect to the rest of the story. A well told story is like a perfect tiling. No gaps that couldn't possibly be closed, no overlap, every tile well-delimited and composing nicely with its neighbors, and more importantly, a way to decompose well aligned tiles (summaries) into well-aligned subtiles (elaborations): if these conditions are met, you'll be able to write a story that conserves something at every scale, i.e. coherence, and hopefully the interest of the reader!
In any case, why is it "a bit tough to say this"? You thought your ability to learn was irreproducible?
On the other hand, you can embrace all this and still let others weep about humanity a little.
Microwave oven keypad controls are a terrible example: I've had some terrible troubles attempting to use ones that force you to set power level - half the time start isn't even obvious...
I bought one with a timer knob and a power knob that is mostly usable (but still poorly designed in some ways). Usable enough that I bought the same model for my parents. I would like the power level to be a slider not a digital knob, even though the knob is an improvement over a keypad.
Hard agree. I had to laugh at that sentence. I realized it wasn't really a fair analogy but also just kind of going off the copywriting example above. It's interesting how helpful this kind of thing is for different disciplines.
No, but OTOH I'd be a little bit surprised and confused if someone who designed microwave oven controls wrote a self-important blog post about how skillfully they copied another's design.
https://raley.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/Engl10/Pierre-Mena...
Edit: Which you might know well enough. Just wanted to add some more context.
... not investigating your field is a massive low effort failure mode. You don't have to know your field, but you have to investigate it, appreciate it, draw upon it... even, or perhaps especially, if you're standing in opposition to it.
(This is also why "first principles" twits like Elon are so annoying...)
To "steal" effectively (in the Steve Jobs sense) means to pull details into your own work that are invisible to the naked eye. E.g., I'm going to "steal" the concept for DuckDB's new quack protocol as inspiration for handling a similar issue in my own embedded DB. It will exist as its own implementation/code, but the central idea or "aha" is what's "stolen."
It's sort of like the whole idea of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" but I've always thought, "why would you want your enemies close?" Would that involve deception? Do the enemies start off as friends until they become close and then there's a switch to loving the devil?
I saw a t-shirt once: "they can steal your style but not your originality." Gemini agreed. https://share.gemini.google/gA5aqbmA9AwO Gemini would know all about that. Gemini isn't the only one - the "creative fields" can be anything but. Checkout my page '2X' for ex_samples : https://future-secured.com/39599
Result: https://shawwn.github.io/pg/
If you think it’s easy, it’s not. The closer you want it to be pixel perfect, the exponentially harder it is to get right.
https://www.paulgraham.com/copy.html
I’m very proud of it. I had to dig through decades-old viaweb templates to figure out which one he used.
You have no idea. Try to redo what I did if you think it’s easy. No looking at my solutions either.
"You slopped it" should be bannable. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the author is wrong, it does nothing to further the conversation, and it’s a criticism that can be leveled at literally any project that isn’t concealing the fact that they’ve used AI when everyone uses AI now except for artisan work.
Go on, I dare you to try to redo what I did. You won’t even know where to start, since I had to buy a book from the 2000s on Viaweb and implement templates based on the contents. Now kindly leave me alone.
Today most things are complex, and they don’t last very long. I wanted to pick apart something that’s lasted since the birth of the internet. Viaweb was, after all, the first web application.
If you think it’s easy, or even possible without investing months, I invite you to try.
As we reduce 20, somehow that legitimacy erodes and at 1 it's "disrespectful". Where along that line was it wrong?
The "problem" we perceive is not stealing, it's stealing from only 1 place.
Likewise, taking elements from many influences and combining them involves a lot of creative choices about which pieces to take from which influence while copying one thing exactly involves no creative choices and is just reusing someone else's effort. It's the difference between baking someone a cake or getting one from the store.
There is a lot of great work out there and if you are unwilling to be derivative in anyway, you'll intentionally avoid using and finding great things that others have discovered.
Stealing is stealing unless you're really good at it.
When a child is learning language, they're not making up new sounds. They're just copying. When a musician learns jazz, they first write down the solos exactly as they are played, before improvising. When a scientist understands a proof, they work through it step-by-step, following the same steps as the person who first thought of it. Copying something isn't the same as thinking. It is thinking.
The people who move fastest aren't the ones who are trying to be the most original. They're the ones who've studied the old masters so well that their new ideas seem natural, not forced. They have copied so much that they can finally trust their instincts to break the pattern.
In this sense, stealing is the mental work of becoming, not just copying, but creating.
I would say that there is a big difference between stealing without acknowledgement, and stealing with acknowledgement and actively learning through reverse engineering.
Stealing in this context might be tad harsh.
Given that interpretation, taking someone else's website and changing 3% of it feels more like copying than stealing, even more so when you see the side by side comparison image and it looks completely the same. I love to take inspiration from all over the place, but I like to think I transform it more into my own vision than the author here. I think making a direct copy of something can sometimes be a good learning exercise in the right context, but I would follow it up with your own novel work that maybe uses some concepts you learned from that copying exercise.
As an aside: the current Mintlify marketing site, not the one copied in the article, reads to me as heavily inspired by Stripe's marketing website. Not as direct a copy as the article here though.
But that ain't stealing. That is copying. And then twisting it per your desires. Real stealing steals just one or two elements.
That comparison is quite the stretch imo, this feels more like copying homework. And if we are honest about what is being sold here: normalization of stealing other peoples work with AI and pretending you are a smarter, better person for it.
Others have said it, but I'm not a fan of the cookie cutter approach. Build on UX patterns that work, but try new things too. It'll be hard to let your brand infuse the design when you're doing a line for line reproduction.
(Joking, mostly) but we did see this with Wordpress, Bootstrap, etc. the masses converge on simple web experiences because it’s pretty easy to get something that “just works”.
Otherwise you get the divinely inspired result of nvidia's PRNG implementation.
Still hurts to be the one being stolen from though.
If you're being a great artist who steals you may perfectly reproduce something, but in such a different and novel context that it feels fresh, or taking something verbatim and then modifying it with your work, vs say taking an series of ideas from a work and then not really changing or moving from what they were originally expressing
An example of this is from Offworld Trading Company[0], which literally started by copying the market from Age of Empires[1] and then iterated on it as well as the auction mechanics from MULE[2], I vaguely recall them talking about this in their GDC talk[3], though I could be misremembering that(it's a good talk though)
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if anyone who was stolen from in those cases feels hurt by it
Compare that to stealing, where the parties stolen from were really quite angry at what was stolen, Triple Town vs Yeti Town[4], which very much looked like a lazy clone
-[0]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/271240/Offworld_Trading_C...
-[1]: https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Market_(Age_of_Empires_...
-[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E.
-[3]: Offworld Trading Company: An RTS Without Guns : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2C4z_apu2I
-[4]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/spry-fox-and-the-clone-wars
Good artists see an idea and use it. Great artists see an idea and _make it their own_.
If you can't put the effort into the face of your product, how can I trust you to put effort into the product itself? Shitty behavior, with a shitty justification self-affirmation blogpost.
I was a few months into my first job out of college, and I was feeling… empty"
no wonder... i d be feeling empty too if copying was my job
Look into Yellowism: one signature and its 100% yours.
In GURPS, stealing is two skills: filch and pickpocket.
Consensus differs on whether both, or just one, is morally objectionable. Conflating them is problematic.
In my own case as a designer of desktop apps, my Swipe File was not just digital screen shots of parts of apps that I admired, but I physically printed them out as well so I could spread them on a desk, floor, and walls when brainstorming.
That word "Swipe" also inspired the name of a design store catering to creative professionals in my home town, Toronto:
https://www.swipe.com/about
But the intention to blatantly copy and then pass off as your own, that is just bereft of creativity.
This is what we've come to as a society? Completely given up on creativity and skill for literally while talking up the joys of stealing.
Copyright and it's huge industry of lawyers = an enforcer caste of the American empire.
I just struggle to care about people complaining about 'ideas being stolen'. Make it, or don't, it really doesn't bother me.
And can I just say, thank you for writing something you can read in five minutes. Incredibly grateful for someone who respects the reader by not dropping 3,000 words on them - easy though it may be.
The "I'll be original and get directly rewarded" vision is indeed naive.
However, sometimes you get to a point in which you design original ideas precisely so they will be stolen, and making that work for you is part of the design.
Plagiarists also steal.
Copying creates trends, where everything looks and feels the same. Stealing an idea and creating something of your own, AKA remixing, is a much more valuable skill.
> stealing: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
I admire Ben for being so direct. I wonder why we fetishize, herbicide and normalize theft, even deception today. When did this become normal, and why draw the line at digital creation and not just allow theft of physical objects, too? (I mean I get the arguments about copying someones digital creation doesn't really mean you took what they had from them, you just made a copy, though this doesn't logically apply to if I also physically stole someones product and made a copy since copyright/patent protection likely applies)
For example if you felt your body and your mind was your property, if someone else copied your mind and was now profiting off of that without your consent, would you not feel that harmful to you?
Daoban might not ever enter western lexicon the same way tsunami or kowtow has, but stealing is just the wrong word to use.
I’m very curious what “herbicide” was an auto-complete for here…
That said, we all take influence from the work of others who we admire. If you're going to steal, take the parts you like best from 10 different projects, improve every single one, and recombine them in a new way. That's how artists "steal".
It reminds me of this old country song: