
THN Magazine Stole Our Code and Design - dualogy
http://blog.hackermonthly.com/the-hacker-news-magazine.html
======
droithomme
In my opinion, on first examination, the layouts are fairly generic in their
particular similarities, and the copy text and specifics different enough as
to possibly not be a clone but rather just a site with a similar design.

However, that changes when we see that the css file has been copied exactly.
That makes a much stronger case that they may have started with your design
and altered it just enough to seem to be different.

~~~
stiff
What is written in the first paragraph is used way too often to excuse
plagiarism. The probability that starting with a blank HTML page and working
honestly you will end up with a design that similar to somebodies else one is
very, very close to 0 even for simple pages like this one. Completely the same
menu item width, pixel by pixel the same drop shadow, same fonts, same widths
etc. There are literally at least millions of variations of a design similar
in style with various small subtle differences, there are too many tiny
decisions to be made (with many outcomes being pretty much equally good) to
make similarity that close just possible by chance and to make 3 or 4
differences plausible evidence for this work being original.

~~~
droithomme
Has the term plagiarism been used before for lifting layouts? Copying to be
sure. Look and feel though aren't copyrightable, though yes, copyright is
different from plagiarism.

As I tried to make clear, that the css file is stolen straight out, that's
clearly plagiarism/theft of that file. And even though the file lacks a
copyright notice such notices are no longer strictly required.

The layouts of course look very similar because they are both using the same
css to set everything up.

That all said, Helvetica/Arial in menu categories, Georgia as body font and
40px margins is something on a lot of sites. These are quite generic settings.
There's not a lot of leeway possible for something like margins, there's a
small finite range of reasonable settings. It's expected that many sites will
have the same ones.

It's also exceptionally common to have a logo in upper left, section
selections to the right, a bar at the top, and text with margins below it.
This is a completely standard web layout.

Even seeing everything here exactly the same but with different text, sections
_and_ css files, it would no longer be certain to be cloned, but entirely
possible to be just another person using a standard web layout with the same
settings.

How many typewritten letters have I received with 0.5" or 1" margins? A lot.
Sent a lot too. Margin settings are not intellectual property at all, neither
is font selection, especially when choosing completely standard web fonts in
the same way that is used by many sites. Even if someone did peek at their css
and "steal" their 40px setting because they like those margins, it's not theft
to do so. Stealing the entire layout by copying the css file, yeah, that's a
problem though.

~~~
stiff
Have you ever designed a web page from scratch?

Let's assume I also decided to design a site with the same core layout - a bar
on the top with the logo and the menu, content on the bottom, that's not
unusual as you point out, but already a coincidence. However, I have to decide
on the height of the top bar - is any value between 40 and 60 objectively
better than all the other ones so that everyone deciding on this kind of
design would settle on the same one? Next step, I decide on a drop shadow
below the top bar, again a reasonable coincidence. Again however, a graphic
program will typically require to specify the color, the opacity and the
radius of the shadow with thousands of combinations possible that look almost
the same aesthetically so there is no reason people would pick one over
another very often. Then you decide for the color of the highlight of the
button, again, there are hundreds of colors that give almost the same effect
visually but they "picked" _exactly_ the same one. It's the same with many
other small nuances, font size, line height, border color, link color etc.

Even if there would be just 10 rational choices in each step, with 20 steps
(both values way underestimated) that's already 10* *20 possible combinations.
If you create a design in a space of a 20 dimensions and a total of 10
trillions of possibilities having differences in say 3 of the dimensions
cannot serve as a defence. Hence almost always when people bring this argument
up a closer examination shows little signs of plain old copy-paste beyond any
reasonable doubt, just like the example with google analytics people point out
below.

~~~
droithomme
I'm not even sure what you are claiming at this point. We all agree that there
was copying in some direction with THIS particular example since the css files
are identical. And who knows, maybe they both independently copied from a
third party like a library of layouts. But I am presuming C copied from B here
and not C and B from A. Regardless, the fact it is identical is far more than
coincidence.

As far as using the same web layout as far as having header footer menu and
columns it's not even a coincidence, it's just a standard layout. It's not a
coincidence that someone else has a red car, they are very common.

I will address the issue of whether a layout that looks similar is definitely
a copy. I don't agree with that.

Is using "0px 2px 5px #CCC;" as drop shadow settings proof of copying as you
are claiming? Absolutely not. It is not some obscure color, it's GRAY. _Gray
drop shadows are very common._ The assertion that the other settings are too
particular or unique among billions of possibilities is completely absurd. You
really think this is the only site with this drop shadow setting? I will bet
you $500,000 it is not. Warning: I already checked. That is not surprising at
all. 0px for horizontal offset is not just common but required for shadows
coming from an above light source. 2px vertical offset is common as well. 5x
blurring is common as well. The entire combination is common and obvious as
well. But let's say some random site has 3px vertical offset instead. It's
going to look quite similar to one with 2px. Is it a copy or not then? Can't
tell from just that, it's irrelevant in fact. Two sites that look similar on
the web, using generic common layouts, are not necessarily copies of each
other. Even if they use a lot of the same colors and drop shadow settings and
margins, especially when we are not talking about #CCC and not a color like
#12dca9. It is also not uncommon to have white background behind text and a
single pixel grey border. That is on thousands of sites. As is the light grey
background. Google finds "background: #F9F9F9" on over 500,000 pages, many
predating the existence of HM's domain name registration. Did they steal
background: #F9F9F9 from others? Probably. I mean, why #f9 and not #f8. #F9 is
a bit of an odd choice. HNM at least used blue for their masthead background.
HM uses: #F60. Where have we seen that exact shade of orange before? Hint: it
was "stolen" by HM from the top of this page you are looking at. This leads to
another problem. Hacker is a common term. Hacker News is reasonably generic,
but it is known as being this site. When I see a site that says "Hacker
Monthly, the print magazine of Hacker News" and uses the exact same
recognizable color scheme as Hacker News, I definitely assume that it is run
by the same company. Only if I scroll down to the bottom do I see a "not
affiliated" disclaimer. This is quite confusing given that it claims to be
"the print magazine OF Hacker News". That is obvious confusion in the public,
and the name, claim to be "of Hacker News", and exact color scheme match is a
clear trademark violation.

~~~
stiff
There are lots of pages that use this particular drop shadow but there are
also lots of other possible and very popular variants of this particular
setting. I am not arguing any of the settings by itself is likely to be
unique, I am arguing that once you have 30 or 50 decisions like that to make,
each even with just a few reasonable possibile solutions, it is very highly
unlikely two persons will chose the same _combination_ of solutions in the
majority of the decisions, even if the CSS to achieve the effect would be
different, just because there are so many possibilities. And many decisions
are much more arbitrary than the examples shown so far, like choosing the way
you present the past issues of your magazine.

If we are sitting next to each other and are told to write down a random 50
character long string built from digits from 1 to 5 and we would end up having
the same digits on 30 positions, with long subsequences being the same (= many
decisions regarding closely related design parameters being the same), would
you be more willing to attribute it to chance or to one of us copying from
another?

~~~
droithomme
The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the
case here.

What exactly are you arguing for? My original post makes that point that this
is definitely a violation since there IS exact copying of the CSS file. And
yes, the copied Google analytics id makes it 100% sure.

We are then arguing not about exact copying of text but about very similar
layouts. I am saying very similar layouts are not proof of copying. You are
saying they are. OK. That's your position, I have mine. The arguments you have
used are weak and rather than concede any of them when their flaws are pointed
out you just start making new claims. Therefore this could go on forever and
never be resolved. So let's end it, all right?

I do understand you are fascinated with this particular case. Let's talk about
that.

I've never seen anyone file a CSS file with the copyright office, therefore
it's unlikely this CSS file is filed. That means that, while their copying is
illegal and a copyright violation, any lawsuit would result only in _actual
damages_ and not statutory damages, per US copyright law. (We'll assume this
case gets filed in the US as claims with parties in two different countries
are nearly impossible for small concerns to prosecute.) There are no actual
damages though, so it's a pointless waste of money to pursue a case.

So what to do? Name and shame, what they are doing here. That's the best
approach since they are 100% certain there was copying going on, and any
reasonable jury would see that, therefore there is no risk of a defamation
claim, they are stating facts.

Is this sufficient? I say no. Who is the person who lazily copied the CSS file
rather than be a pro and write his own? His name should be disclosed publicly
and he should forever be blacklisted from the industry. That's the way to do
it. Who is their layout guy that checked in this file? They need to state his
name and particulars so everyone knows to avoid him. His career needs to be
over, permanently. That's how to stop the widespread thievery going on. If The
Hacker News Magazine will not disclose the name of the person who did this and
fire him immediately, The Hacker News Magazine should be boycotted, along with
all its affiliates because such behavior can not be tolerated in our industry
of creative professionals. _If_ THNM agrees to fire him and disclose his name,
_and_ redoes their layout to be original work, _then_ their inevitable CEO
apology could be considered sincere. Without firing and disclosure though, any
apology would just be an admission they are only sorry they got caught
stealing, and such apology could not be considered sincere.

~~~
stiff
_The random character situation is a false comparison since that is not the
case here._

It is a useful model of the situation, you have 50 (lets say) decisions to
make (border color, margin height, number of images per row, ...), each with 5
(lets say) equally likely outcomes (#666 is quite as good and popular as
#777,#888,#555,#444; 1.0em like 1.5 em,0.5em,2.0em,2.5em; ...). All I'm saying
is that you cannot explain that many visual and conceptual solutions being the
same with chance alone, since that is an event with very low probability if
you honestly perform each decision by yourself.

------
timjahn
I have an average high speed Internet connection and the 4 images you have on
this post take forever to load the first time.

Turns out you're loading giant images (with original dimensions in the
neighborhood of 1421x1352 and a filesize of 2mb) into an <img> with dimensions
in the neighborhood of 570x542.

If you only need an image of size 570x542, please resize your images for the
web and use those resized images in your post, rather than 2mb originals. This
will help people load your page much faster and have a more pleasant
experience reading your post.

Thanks. :)

~~~
bearwithclaws
Fixed :)

~~~
timjahn
Thanks!

------
roguecoder
They also appear to have failed to change the Google Analytic account number:
" var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-160215-2']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); "

Normally I'm pretty pro-code-reuse, but that is just lazy-sauce.

~~~
jgrahamc
This very thing happened when I was working at $LAST_COMPANY. Another company
took our entire site design, fiddled with it a bit and published their site.
The didn't change the Google Analytics and we found a new competitor because
they showed up in our Google Analytics reports.

------
benatkin
Hmm, so someone ripped of your site, and just enough of it is different, that
it's probably best to just shrug it off and keep working on your site.

But wait, there is a comment in the CSS that clearly shows that they ripped it
off! This changes everything!

Actually, no, it doesn't. This is a distraction. When something weird/awkward
like this happens it's probably best to leave it out of the conversation. It
would be different if rather than a comment it had been some non-trivial code
that directly added functionality to the site, or improved the look and feel.
But this is debugging material.

BTW I like Hacker Monthly but I don't currently use it, because I'm already
fairly comfortable with how I consume articles here. Keep up the good work,
though!

~~~
daeken
Ripping off a site's look and feel is not generally illegal, it's just scummy.
However, that (irrelevant) comment in the CSS shows that it is at least
somewhat a derivative work, which _is_ often illegal.

~~~
roguecoder
I think it's only scummy if it sets out to confuse users as to which site they
are on. Changing both the font and the color scheme would seem to make that
less likely.

Otherwise, emulating decent look-and-feel is often a good thing: it is how we
come to better designs and users with predictable expectations.

~~~
LeonB
it's not an emulation -- it has hasn't been re-implemented. When you compare
the CSS you see it is a complete copy.

------
Smudge
Plenty of sites have generic layouts that are clearly "inspired" by other
sites. But blatantly re-purposing an entire site's code goes too far. You are
right to call them out.

Will this fiasco harm your business? Probably not. If anything, enjoy the
extra boost in traffic and sales.

------
waterlesscloud
Weird. The most common refrain here about copyright violations is that it
isn't theft since nothing has been taken from you and you don't have any less
than you did before.

Does that only apply to content creators outside this community?

~~~
mikeash
Here we go again!

This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine, but
plagiarism to be not-fine. There is nothing inconsistent in this position and,
while you don't have to agree with it, it's an entirely reasonable opinion to
hold.

In other words, if you redistribute stuff without permission, it's generally
not that heinous, but if you take credit for it too, you'll get severe looks
of disapproval.

~~~
tzs
> This community almost universally finds copyright infringement to be fine,
> but plagiarism to be not-fine.

What about software? I can't think of any example, for instance, where this
community reacted to a story of a GPL violation by almost universally saying
it is fine.

~~~
tikhonj
The fact that the GPL uses copyright law is just an implementation detail. In
practice, it really turns copyright on itself. In general, when somebody
infringes on a normal copyright, they are making some work more accessible.
When somebody breaks the GPL, they are making some work _less_ accessible,
because all the GPL does is ensure that anyone can practically and legally
modify and redistribute the software in question. If we imagine a copyright
spectrum where the default copyright is _x_ and public domain is 0, then the
GPL is _-x_.

So opposing copyright in general but supporting the GPL is actually an
entirely consistent and rational position.

------
Killswitch
Funny enough I just read this article and thread and moved on... While
googling for some stuff, I ran across this site:
<http://nerdinthebasement.com/> Looks exactly like BOTH yours and the
offending site, just a color change... I don't think there's anything special
about the design that would warrant calling wolf, other than the fact of the
CSS comment showing he did actually rip the design...

What I'm saying? I don't know. Designs are designs, nothing revolutionary
about this one... Shrug it off, and move on.

~~~
ericd
You need to actively fight against unethical behavior if you want to help
prevent it from becoming the norm, and that's everyone's responsibility.

------
xorbyte
It would appear that THN has been previously called out for plagiarism by
Attrition.org back in January:

<http://attrition.org/errata/plagiarism/thehackernews/>

CSS and HTML aren't the only things 'Mohit Kumar' copies, it would appear.

------
ghshephard
If you believe you have a case, and it's worth your time (and money) take $300
and go have a lawyer draft a letter tell them to cease and desist.

IANAL (see above) but if it's a 100% clear cut case of IP theft, and you have
some ownership of the IP that's been stolen, I think you can even file a DMCA
takedown request to whoever is hosting their material.

~~~
wissler
I don't understand this instant knee-jerk reaction to call the lawyers out and
bandy about the idea of a lawsuit. Public shame is powerful, and is often much
more efficient than the legal system at solving the actual problem.

~~~
lotharbot
The combination of public shame and a very basic legal request is often much
more powerful than either in isolation.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Never play an ace when a two will do.

------
danvideo
In spite of its problems, I'd consider subscribing to The Hacker News Magazine
if this article makes it into the next issue of the magazine.

------
franze
well, the internet is as the biggest unofficial open source project ever, just
because you can do view-source on ever website there is. copying parts (even
big parts) of a site you like is not only common practice, but also great for
innovation. just imagine how the web would look like if tim berners-lee would
have chosen a flash like technology for the web? (my guess: we would not have
the internet, we would live in the microsoftnet (as they are great in getting
market share in closed source economies))

yes, they could have worked a little harder to give their site a little bit
more "originality", but other than that, it is the internet way.

i have cloned (parts of) hundreds of websites, any my websites (and parts of
it) were cloned even more often, even before github.

be flattered, move on (with your great magazine).

~~~
oliwarner
You don't seem to see the distinction between being able to see the source and
being legally able to reuse that source.

Copyright still applies.

~~~
franze
i see a distinction, but a too strict interpretation of copyright is bad for
the web and innovation. i'm glad there (still) is a view-source option in
every browser, and i'm glad people still use it.

view-source is how i started into webdevelopement in the nineties (remember,
there was no github), and i'm glad people still use it (i do).

~~~
nitrogen
I agree that View Source is good, and stumbling on that option is how I
started to learn HTML as well. What people are saying here is that View
Source->Copy->Paste->Profit is bad. View Source->Learn->Reinvent->Profit is
fine.

------
SeanLuke
This is a straightforward copyright violation. Why is it an issue requiring
public shaming? Issue a DMCA takedown notice of the entire site to the site
owners and also to <http://www.directi.com/> which appears to be hosting the
site (via orderbox-dns.com) I think. Then watch the sparks fly.

~~~
shepbook
Please don't listen to this person's call to use something like the DMCA.
You've done the right thing, calling them out. Honestly, Hacker News based
magazines (like Hacker Monthly, which I subscribe to and enjoy) cater to a
very niche market that, I suspect, will hold far greater respect for pointing
out their obvious stealing of your design/layout/whatever than you pursuing a
legal recourse of action.

I, for one, applaud Hacker Monthly's response and actions. Had they pointed
out their sending a DMCA takedown notice, I would have lost respect for them.
You're doing the right thing. Stay the course! We're behind you all the way.

------
danvideo
The "@override <http://hm.local> is still there.

Sheesh, it takes someone quite clever to copy code comments linking back to
the original code.

ed: phrasing corrected

~~~
Bill_Dimm
I found someone that copied one of our websites because they copied it so
exactly that they included the corporate logo in the footer, which had a link
back to our corporate website. I noticed the odd referrer URL in a click
through to our corporate site.

------
crisnoble
Check out both sites side by side:
[http://th.isandth.at/#leftTarget=http%3A//hackermonthly.com/...](http://th.isandth.at/#leftTarget=http%3A//hackermonthly.com/issues.html&rightTarget=http%3A//magazine.thehackernews.com/issues.html)
(not great on mobile devices)

------
voidpointer
I am not familiar with hackermonthly but they seem to "reprint" material that
was popular on HN. Is all that content actually correctly licensed to be used
in that way? Just wondering how those logistics are working... contacting all
the individual authors, working out the terms &c.

~~~
bearwithclaws
I've blogged about our workflow: <http://blog.hackermonthly.com/making-hacker-
monthly.html>

~~~
voidpointer
Cool, thanks!

------
thraveboy
The irony that HM is simply repurposing of HN content is not lost on many.

~~~
SkyMarshal
You must be new here. That's the whole point. So that regulars who don't have
time to read HN every day can get a curated weekly list of the best content we
may have missed.

PS - the difference is attribution.

------
SudarshanP
I guess the whole fiasco has given more visibility to
"thehackermonthly.com"... Some people say "All news is good news".

~~~
pbhjpbhj
'There's no such thing as bad publicity'

I thought it was from a UK celebrity publicist but it seems not:
[http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-
as...](http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as-bad-
publicity.html)

------
scoot
Oh, so _now_ copying is theft?

~~~
reitzensteinm
The HN readership does not hold one consistent set of opinions, so pointing
out the irrationality of the behavior of the group would seem to be a waste of
time.

------
chrismealy
Boo hoo. It's just bootstrap anyway.

------
vineet
The link title needs to change, i.e. remove the 'how' from it (this is not on
the linked post).

------
brutuscat
Actually at first sight yours looks a lot like Blogger's Dynamic Views
[http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/dynamic-views-
seve...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/dynamic-views-seven-new-
ways-to-share.html)

------
Apocryphon
The biggest issue I have with THN is the title. "The Hacker News." Sounds all
sorts of derivative.

------
hristov
Does Hacker Monthly obtain the rights to republish all the articles in their
magazine? They probably do not need permission from Y-combinator, but they
certainly need permission from the original article authors/owners. If they
are not getting permission, it seems that they are stealing too.

~~~
bearwithclaws
We do. Every single one of them.

~~~
martinkallstrom
Every single one? Including the author of the css for your website?

Edit: Yes, as per your reply below, this comment stemmed from an eruption of
confusion on my part. It (the confusion) is now contained and slumbering
happily in the depths of my brain. I extend my sincere apologies.

~~~
bearwithclaws
Wait, there must be some confusion. I am the author of the css of my website.

------
dudurocha
I think the biggest problem is not the stole per si. But the biggest problem
is that a company trying to make a similar service ripped the competition
design.

It's so sad that someone inside the hacker culture has to go through things
like these. Why stole a code?

------
ktizo
I sort of understand how this happens in industries that have few IT or media
skills, but to be that stupid when running a hacker magazine site is far
beyond simple lazyness or plagiarism and is striding boldly into the boggy
marshland territories of true incompetence while wearing nothing but lead
stilettos and a hat saying 'Bite Me' and sporting a cologne made of alligator
pheromones.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
"striding boldly into the boggy marshland territories of true incompetence" is
now my favourite expression.

Thanks for that.

~~~
ktizo
You are welcome. You can have it if you like. I found it in a dank crevice
next to a bewildered field-mouse, whilst searching forlornly for my missing
marbles.

------
sparknlaunch
Sites look similar, but how different is this from using the same Hacker News
orange colour scheme and aggregating stories directly from Hacker News?

 _"Hacker Monthly is a print magazine version of Hacker News — a social news
website wildly popular among programmers and startup founders. The submission
guidelines state that content can be “anything that gratifies one’s
intellectual curiosity.” Every month, we select from the top voted articles on
Hacker News and print them in magazine format._ "

------
franzus
Why not opensource your code? Less drama, more profit for the community.

------
J3L2404
"The owner wanted the student to pay for the smells he was enjoying. The
student was stealing his smells!" - pg

------
dashcancel
Doesn't really describe "how" it happened.

~~~
zsherman
That's your only reaction?

~~~
klapinat0r
I'm actually a bit surprised by the reactions here. Since when is css
copyrighted? Where are the numerous lawsuits against Pinterest "clones" for
having a grid layout etc.?

Sure, it's a shame, but css, like html and javascript, is not a protected
source. It's run client-side. Would you rather just receive a image/png from
websites?

EDIT: I know someone who've experienced something very similar (with css
prefixes obviously referring to his site rather than the microsoft.cn clone).

~~~
wtetzner
Just because you can read the source doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted.

~~~
klapinat0r
Right, but it doesn't mean it's copyrighted either.

~~~
mistercow
Yes, it does. In the US, all copyrightable creative works (which includes CSS
files) are copyrighted by default as soon as they are created. The system is
opt-out, not opt-in.

~~~
klapinat0r
Exactly. In the US.

~~~
mistercow
Hmm, you do have a point. It seems that Malaysian and Indian law are what we
need to know here, since that's where the two parties are based.

~~~
asto
Indian copyright law is the same. Copyrightable works are copyrighted by
default.

------
emitstop
Uh, so what? It's an incredibly basic design. It's not as if it's some blatant
ripoff of an extravagantly designed theme.

They changed the logos and such (so it's not as if they are pretending to BE
you), and made the colours their own. I'm not quite sure what you're mad
about?

I would disagree with the concept of ownership of any kind of design work.
Especially in the case of code considering how one-dimensional CSS is, there's
really only one or two ways to build a site like this anyway.

~~~
zhoutong
There are lots of free and premium themes to build a "basic site" like this,
and anyone can get a license to use the design legally. Why steal from someone
who isn't willing to license?

CSS is open source by default, but this doesn't mean there's no copyright.

~~~
inetsee
CSS is not open source by default. The default is that copyright exists on any
creative work from its moment of creation.

~~~
TillE
There's open source and there's Open Source. It's always been a fuzzy term,
hence the move towards Free Software.

In the strictest, most literal sense, yes, the source is publicly available
and readable by default.

~~~
Danieru
No, it is not a fuzzy term.

Open source means it is licensed under an open source license. Even Microsoft
is not trying to steal the term, opting for 'shared source' instead.

------
papaver
Get over it. This happens everyday a thousand times over. Provide a better
service that keeps users from going elsewhere. Keep innovating to keep the
competition one step behind.

Heard of Pinspire? The Samwer brothers have used the copy game over and over
again to get mad rich.

It's not worth your time getting upset. Look at it as a form of flattery and
move on. Your time is better spent on making your site better than bitching
and/or attempting to get them to stop.

~~~
nsoldiac
A case of "some guy stole my mySpace color scheme!" it's worthy of a 'get over
it', not this. You're copying ideas and possibly code from a working business
to use in your own business and gaining from it without acknowledgement or
permission (this last part is key). Public shame IS a proper deterrent, posts
like this is the way to go.

~~~
franzus
> copying ideas

oh no! call the thought police!

------
oliwarner
Why are you on here complaining about it? Do something. Hire a lawyer and get
it fixed. If you think it's as clear-cut as you make it sound, skip the lawyer
and take direct action.

Moaning to a bunch of grumpy programmers is only going to get you advice like
that.

~~~
natrius
Public shaming, especially among the community involved, is often quite
effective.

~~~
oliwarner
More effective than spending 30 minutes to take the site down with a DMCA?
This is exactly what they're supposed to be used for.

I don't see how giving them a whole load of PR, links and stern looks is going
to fix anything given that they're unscrupulous enough to copy swathes of
design and code.

------
joering2
So what?? I don't care!! both of you bringing value that I like. So I don't
care how your sites been designed, and sure you have being
taking/stealing/inspiring from others, so its not like you are innocent, as
none of us is.

So they went a short way and copied (not stole [1]) your code. So what?
Please, steal from me! If you can take my ideas and make them better, I still
can go back and see what I haven't seen before and learn from you, execute
better next time. World is not a sum zero game where all ideas has been done
and we just wait to die. We constantly progress! There will be new ideas to
pursue.

And besides, what you gonna do now? You already cried and waste people's time
on reading and commenting on it. Are you gonna sue them? Take a legal action?
Burn your or your investors' money? What do you expect in return? Apology?? If
there were go one step further and use search and replace on html and css and
replace variable's names and classes, etc, would that satisfy you??

[1] arguably, nothing has been stolen from you, as of this moment, visiting
hackermonthly.com I still can see the code and design being healthy and all
OK.

