
YC and 500 Startups company Curebit caught stealing from 37 Signals - bhuga
http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/28/cant-look-away/
======
VonLipwig
What scares me most is how many people here seem to think it is OK or 'not
that bad'.

I don't know a designer who hasn't or doesn't draw inspiration from other
websites. However, that process goes something like this...

1) Look at website. || 2) Assess what is good about the design || 3) Mock up
own version.

What a decent person doesn't do is rip the existing site. HTML + all. Tweak it
slightly then publish it.

What Curebit did is indefensible. This is something some 2-bit web designer
fob's off to a client paying $200 for a website... the fact Curebit is a start
up is not a defense. It is frankly scary that a company can get $1M+ in
funding and not realise they cannot just rip other peoples work...

~~~
Peaker
In what way is the world a better place when you have to reimplement the
design from scratch - as opposed to a world where anyone can copy a design
(assuming some credit is given)?

Sounds like the latter world will free up a lot of resources for more useful
creative work.

~~~
potatolicious
Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right
to control your own creations?

It's one thing to voluntarily release something into the public domain (or
enable its direct re-use via licenses like Creative Commons).

It's another thing to say that all work should be public property, usable as
long as credit is given. Or are you suggesting that everything belongs to the
People, comrade?

Even disregarding the profit motive for a second here - if I created a
successful web page, should, say, the Westboro Baptist Church be free to take
my web page and use it to support their (IMO vile) efforts, so long as they
gave credit?

~~~
baddox
True, it is another thing, but I'll say it: all work (obviously, in this
context of digital "intellectual property") should be public. I left
"property" off the end of the sentence for the same reason I put "intellectual
property" in quotes: I don't believe that property rights make sense when
applied to abstract, non-scarce things like ideas and digital works.

This really isn't about controlling the fruits of your labor, because creative
works are really only valuable if they're distributed. If you want to design a
website and keep it secret on your local machine, then by all means property
rights protect it (i.e. it's illegal to steal your laptop). But if you
distribute it on a global network where people freely trade bits, I don't
believe you should have the right to control which bits people can copy and
which bits they can't.

Both choices (keeping the website secret or publishing it) constitute your
legal rights to the fruits of your labor. But once someone gets the bits onto
their computer with your consent (by visiting your public website), I don't
believe you should have the right to control what they can do with those bits.

If you like, I believe you have the right to perform any obfuscation you want
to with your digital works, or find ways of providing scarce (non-copyable)
value. DRM and software as a service are examples of these, respectively.

~~~
mkr-hn
You can't eat bits. When everything else is non-scarce, you can reasonably
argue that everything should be freely available. Until then, the right to
control licensing is the simplest and most fair way for a creative
professional to convert their effort into scarce resources.

~~~
jaekwon
To have no rules is the simplest and most fair way for a creative professional
to convert their effort into scarce attention, which leads to scarce
resources.

If you do not do anything new and worthy of my attention tomorrow, I do not
want you to have my bread.

~~~
mkr-hn
People should have control over their creations long enough to make it worth
the effort. I might as well go do something more profitable if I can't make a
living from my own creations in the way that's most efficient (licensing).
Encouraging creation is the point of copyright. We shouldn't throw the whole
system out just because a few rogue organizations are abusing it.

~~~
jaekwon
The reward of creation for me is the act of creation itself and the giving of
my creation to others to build upon. It is an interaction, not a transaction.

I prefer not to consume your copyrighted work. The nature of copyright is such
that it becomes abusive. If you are the creative type whose bread depends on
your ability to restrict others from copying or modifying your work, you
inevitably become abusive.

I encourage the kind of positive creation that breaks out of or transcends
such a system.

~~~
mkr-hn
You still haven't made a case for your position. "The system will be abused,
so we need to get rid of the system" is not a sound argument. Why do you think
we should toss the system and not adjust it to help protect the public from
abuses? Copyright worked fine for centuries before the RIAA and MPAA showed
up. Its protections gave creators incentive to create in a world where money
is exchanged for scarce resources.

~~~
jaekwon
Where is your case? Your "creators" aren't helping the very real scarcity
problem that you refer to. My case is based on simple mathematics. By adopting
a radically simple and natural law, (that information should not be regulated
at the federal//global level) we as a society free ourselves from the burden
of having to manage the artificial scarcity of "intellectual property", and we
gain additional man-power to focus on real problems.

Let me paint a picture for you. A bunch of people on earth need bread, and
there isn't enough to go around to satisfy all the demand for bread. In order
to feed the "creators" the people made up some notion of "intellectual
property" so that these "creators" can be guaranteed their daily bread. Since
it costs next to nothing in today's technological world to copy information,
the "creators" have devised a legal system and an army of lawyers whose job it
is to interpret the written law such that the "creators" are paid their due in
accordance to "intellectual property" law. The people spend a significant
portion of their time either (1) recreating works that already had been
created (to abide by these laws), (2) paying lawyers to sue other
"infringers", (3) devising new methods of DRM or anti-DRM hacking measures or
(4) lobbying the lawmakers to change the law in their favor, all the while (5)
complicating the system even further, and (6) leaving the real problem of
natural scarcity (bread) unsolved because the "intellectual property" required
to innovate in bread-making is locked away and controlled by the existing
bread making industry.

This society is diseased with the obsessive dwelling upon past memories, and
it is adversely affecting its ability to tackle current and future problems. I
don't know what copyright was like before the RIAA and MPAA, but I do know
that the nature of copyright per se has changed relative to the advancement of
technology. Whether or not the old laws used to be Ok does not matter because
the environment is completely different.

Your argument holds some ground against Communism, where ALL property is
considered common. The mathematics of human motivation, human needs, and
natural resource limitations do not appear to add up. But when it comes to
resources of information, I dare to think that sharing as much as possible is
better and more efficient overall, even considering game theoretic dynamics in
our capitalistic system.

I understand the beauty of the system of capitalism where those who create are
rewarded by their toil and the virtue of voluntary transactions, but
"intellectual property" goes against free trade by creating an artificial
scarcity where the consumer is barred from certain voluntary transactions for
the sake of "protection". As far as I can tell these IP laws only serve to
protect existing established IP right holders, who are but a tiny portion
compared to the magnitude of potential creators if only everybody else had the
freedom to improve upon existing works unencumbered by patents or copyright.

I don't believe that ALL information should be shared. I believe in the right
to privacy (for individuals and organizations) as long as you can reasonably
keep the information secret to yourself. But when it comes to information that
is easily copyable by virtue of technology, I believe it should be allowed to
be copied freely. That is, Bradley Manning may have committed a crime by
transferring information outside the bounds of the military complex, but once
the information is leaked, it is anybody's data. The military has the right to
secure its information borders, but it doesn't get to change the nature of the
internet to censor sensitive information. Likewise, I believe consumers have
the right to distribute files however they want regardless of what the content
"creator" wishes.

I should also mention that my "common sense" often rejects what I said above,
but after some deliberation it becomes clear that my sense are misleading when
it comes to judging a system that is so different from the one that I am
already used to. I did initially balk at what Curebit did to 37Signal's design
code, but would in fact choose to live in a world where what Curebit did was
acceptable, and it would not hinder me from innovating in any way.

~~~
mkr-hn
You seem to be talking about lawyers, not creators. I send a simple email if
someone is using my creations in an unreasonable way, and a DMCA request if
it's serious. I don't use DRM on most of my ebooks since I'm fine with fair
use, and I don't agree with the RIAA/MPAA's idea of "piracy."

I get that sharing creative works is like a tax. I pay it back to the society
that made it possible so others have the same chance, and I'm fine with that.
I don't support the infinite copyright extensions companies like Disney push
for.

But handing my creations out to people for free won't solve poverty. As I
said, you can't eat bits. It'll just force me to go do something I enjoy less,
and keep me from having as much time to create.

~~~
jaekwon
What follows is my 2 cents, all my unsolicited yet thought-out opinion &
advice tailored for you. I hope it makes a positive impact.

I see what you're doing. I don't know how successful you are, but it has to be
suboptimal. You're publishing books in such a way that you mistakenly believe
is optimized for monetary gain -- reusing content, publishing many small books
for cheap etc.

Your last book is about how to gain blog viewers, yet you're not doing the
right things in order to achieve real success. Market research is the old way.
What you need to do today is say something new, talk-worthy, & something that
really worked for you.

Make your webpage more navigable, polish your books and give them away for
free (and have a paid donation option), market your books effectively, read
what Cory Doctorow has to say about publishing success at craphound.com. I
would love to read about future experiments with giving polished content away
for free.

That you even used a DMCA takedown request tells me that what you write is not
interesting. The DMCA is not really there to protect your works, friend. It
exists to serve established publishers. You're not one of "them", and you're
not going to become one of "them", because "they" don't want you. But no doubt
you can be a wildly successful publisher on your own if you do the right
things, but first you need to think outside the box.

ps I appreciate this thread we've been building up. I didn't know that you are
a publisher yourself. I give you "legal" permission to use my words here on HN
for your benefit as long as you give me attribution.

------
jasonlotito
I thought we'd already concluded that copyright infringement is not stealing.
Neither is linking. Fair use is fine. And that ideas can't be stolen.

So, is Curebit wrong because 37Signals is one of us?

I'm not suggesting what Curebit did is right. But I doubt any HN user of any
length of time can ignore the similarities with other copyright cases where
the community here is opposed to the "37Signals" side.

I'll have to remember this thread next time someone suggest that copyright
infringement is okay because copyright infringers have been shown to buy more
copyrighted material, or that it helps advertise, or some other argument.

~~~
betageek
Agreed, it also seems a massive over reaction to what is, after all, a very
small startup committing a victimless crime. Naming and shaming should be
enough without dragging them through the streets of the web for a public
stoning.

~~~
gizmo
They are (a) copying other people's work, (b) passing it off as their own, (c)
doing so for profit, and (d) unable to see why this is wrong.

This isn't a gray area at all.

~~~
jasonlotito
An honest question (and thank you for not using the term stealing!=)), but you
listed 4 reasons. Just curious about where it crosses the line for you. If
someone does A, is it still a grey area? Is it because of B? C? D?

Personally, I see it as A. B, C, and D merely exasperate the situation, but
without A, B, C, and D aren't an issue.

Of course, the follow up is if it's because of B, C, and D that it isn't in a
grey area?

~~~
eropple
You don't think hotlinking images and CSS is _stealing_ bandwidth?

~~~
vacri
I'm sure all those 300-byte images have the 37signals servers at melting
point.

I don't think this is the horse you want to ride.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'll take that pony ride.

Someone who's happy to steal from someone else just because that person is
richer than them and they're only stealing little things still, IMO, lacks
morally. With proviso's which aren't I don't think pertinent to this current
situation (eg immediate life-preservation).

Your argument is basically the shoplifter's manifesto - the store is rich, I
only took some of their stuff, it's barely a drop compared to their profits,
etc..

~~~
vacri
No, my argument is that of all the things wrong with this situation, stealing
300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant. That's what I
meant by this is not the horse - there are far better horses to ride in this
race.

It's nice of you to tell me what my argument is, but you have it utterly
wrong.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _nice of you to tell me what my argument is_

How you've reiterated it here appears to match my interpretation of what you
said. So perhaps you can say what your argument actually is - FWIW my comment
had several upvotes so it doesn't appear to be just me being a dullard.

> _stealing 300-byte bandwidth is so far down the list it's unimportant_

So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from
Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'?

~~~
vacri
_So you're saying this is nothing like the argument 'stealing a snickers from
Walmart is such a small amount, it's not important'?_

Will you stop trying to paint me as only talking about one issue? That's where
you get my argument utterly wrong.

It's akin to saying "Mao Zedong's China was bad because the dog-catchers
weren't licensed properly".

Like it or not, the legal system regularly drops small, less important charges
when bigger ones are present. The murderer who exceeding the speed limit
trying to escape from police doesn't get a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean
that speeding tickets themselves are unimportant or never get pursued.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
We're discussing this issue which you raised. It's fallacious to consider that
one is only concerned with a single facet of a situation because that is all
that is being addressed. Others have addressed the other points in the thread.

So, going back to my initial comment
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3523870>) you're saying that it's wrong
of me to characterize your argument this way because I've failed to mention
that it's a corrupt tycoon that is shoplifting. Because they've also committed
greater crimes we have to ignore the shoplifting?

Or to recapitulate you'd nab a shoplifter but only if they'd not done
something worse as well?

Got to say I still don't follow the reasoning and still consider image
hotlinking to be bad; and that, for a company, it indicates some sort of
corruption.

~~~
vacri
"this issue which you raised"!? What the hell are you on? eropple was the one
that raised bandwidth stealing, not me.

 _Or to recapitulate you'd nab a shoplifter but only if they'd not done
something worse as well?_

The legal system already does this - if someone sets fire to the shop but
takes a Snickers on the way out, no-one really cares about the shoplifting.
The legal system doesn't prosecute it, and the media doesn't report "the
arsonist and shoplifter was in court today". People reading glossy magazines
don't gossip "oo, that arsonist - did you know he also took a candy bar? the
nerve!".

Anyway, absolutely _nowhere_ have I said that hotlinking is okay. If that's
what you think I've said, then you have _grossly_ misunderstood me.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You keep saying that I've misunderstood that you didn't say anything that your
words are implying but still failing to say what you did mean. This doesn't
exactly help get your point across.

"I'm sure all those 300-byte images have the 37signals servers at melting
point."

If that's not about stealing bandwidth then what is it? It's clearly
sarcastic, by ordinary reading the point of the sarcasm is to downplay the
idea that taking a small image from 37signals server is wrong; the
justification in the sentence is that it won't cause a large harm to the
37signals server.

So, go on, what are you saying here?

FWIW arresting people for minor offences has long been a technique of law
enforcement personnel when gathering evidence on more major crimes.

The "arsonist" that also stole a candy bar gives you an insight in to the
psychology. They're not a person, for example, only driven by an overbearing
desire to see things burn; they're also a thief besides. This moves to suggest
the character of the person is to disregard other's property. You can make a
claim of temporary insanity (or in the current case that there is no copyright
infringement in using 37signals site as inspiration) but then you also have to
address the question of the theft (or in this case the hotlinking).

I said:

"Your argument is basically the shoplifter's manifesto - the store is rich, I
only took some of their stuff, it's barely a drop compared to their profits,
etc.."

Which is almost exactly what you've said here. The arson [copyright
infringement] is almost entirely orthogonal to the theft [hotlinking]. The
actions have very little co-dependency except in the moral decrepitude of the
perpetrator.

------
dctoedt
From a copyright-law perspective, it's not a slam-dunk that Curebit infringed
any _protectable_ aspect of the 37Signals design, as opposed to "stock"
elements.[1] _West Side Story_ has a lot in common with _Romeo and Juliet_ ,
but the latter itself has a lot in common with a long line of still-earlier
romantic tragedies.[2]

Some of the reactions here are fascinating. As a group, HNers prize the
freedom to copy from others and the ethic of helping others --- but for some,
it seems to be "I get to copy from others, but no one else is allowed to copy
from me."

EDIT 1: That said, from a purely-practical perspective it's usually better and
cheaper to steer clear of controversy (depending on how you think the PR
scales will tip). Curebit might have been better off had it not copied what it
did, not least because this controversy is sucking up management time that
could probably be put to better use.

EDIT 2: Plus, stealing someone else's bandwidth by linking directly to their
copies of images, etc., without permission does cross the line, if that's what
Curebit did.

EDIT 3: Even copying HTML and CSS might not constitute copyright infringement
if there are only a limited number of ways to express the same idea(s). This
is even more the case if there's an optimal way to code a given set of ideas.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet>

~~~
luckyisgood
West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet share the same _idea_, not the same image
file.

~~~
kingsidharth
And they don't copy paste dialogues. Paramount to using images from
highrise.com (not even bothered to download and host them).

------
chrisacky
Is this really such a big deal? We are all only where we are today based on
building on the improvements of others.

This isn't exactly like Zynga copying other small studios games, it's just a
bit of design rip off, which incidentally, I'm not a designer, but if I see
something that I think looks good on another site, I'm happy to copy the css
styles for it. I've often thought if I'm just kidding myself, and what I'm
doing should be considered totally wrong, but ultimately, it's just some
styles. I've still coded everything myself.

While linking directly to assets you are using for your site, is clearly
ridicuslously stupid, I don't think we should call the lynch mob out on them
just yet. (Thoughts?)

~~~
citricsquid
For me personally I found his attitude towards the entire thing the real
problem. He asked if crediting the original creators was enough, he then hid
behind all manner of silly startup buzzwords ("a/b testing", "ghetto test",
"lean startup") and didn't seem to understand it was wrong. His tweets after
the fact were worrying too, especially when others uncovered that they had
other products that took designs from elsewhere.

Shit happens and hopefully this doesn't damage curebits business long term,
but Allan really needs to understand what he did wrong, he seems to think the
problem was he didn't credit and it's perfectly okay to take someone elses
work, pass it off as your own and then hide behind silly phrases. No matter
what your business is or how old you are stealing is wrong.

~~~
reledi
Allan did have some silly responses. Either he was panicking and couldn't
think clearly (he does have a lot on the line) or he genuinely doesn't
understand what the problem is. On the other hand, I think David is
overreacting and trying to get as much attention as possible -- seems a bit
childish.

If I was in David's shoes, I'd be shocked to see how much they directly copied
and simply ask them to take it down, and possibly notify their investors. I'd
also be proud that they used my design.

~~~
alexwolfe
Allan has founded four companies. This isn't his first ball game and I'm sure
he knows better.

------
dave_sullivan
This is clearly an egregious case of design theft, particularly considering
the fact that they're actually linking to assets off the Highrise site. But at
the risk of opening myself up to an absolute shit hurricane, I'm curious where
my site would fall on the Highrise design theft scale:
<http://www.powerplayforsalesforce.com>.

Personally I think it's fine, but it's also obvious that I read 37signals'
post a while back re: their a/b testing and thought to myself: Hey, that's a
great idea! Instead of doing a long form like everyone else, let's blow up a
picture of a guy (me) on the left, put a video in the middle, and put some
bullet points to the right with a signup button on bottom. Short and to the
point, and incidentally, a technique that's been in use by print advertising
since the beginning of print advertising.

So where exactly is the line? (and I'm asking because I'm truly curious if
I've crossed it) 3 bullet points about your product is nothing new. The
smiling guy you can relate to with a testimonial isn't new. Some screenshots
or a product video above the fold isn't new. But I certainly wouldn't give
myself a ton of credit for originality in landing page design. I guess I could
put the guy on the right and bullet points to the left. I could move the
signup bottom. I could have more content in my footer. How do you take the
general concept and produce something that doesn't look like something of a
rip off?

Personally, I have a lot of respect for what 37Signals has achieved over the
years. So while I certainly want to learn from their mistakes and successes, I
certainly don't want to be accused of being a scumbag design thief. Any
thoughts?

~~~
ams6110
_a technique that's been in use by print advertising since the beginning of
print advertising_

Making a web page look like a print ad is not a concept that I think 37signals
would make any claim of ownership on, even if they were the first to do it
(which I doubt, but don't know). I do know that people have been putting
random stock photos of reasonable attractive people on web pages for a long
time, for no apparent reason other than it must make the page seem more
"friendly" to the average user.

By the way have your shirt pressed for your next photo. Just a suggestion.

~~~
dave_sullivan
I think the big difference, and what I think works well, is most sites I've
seen do the stock photo thing as an accent (microphone girls anyone?) and it
rarely works well imo. What I liked about 37 signals version is putting
someone approachable and friendly--someone from their target market in
particular--front and center and blown up. Again, often used in print, but
first I'd seen it done well on web.

And that's good, sounds like no points for originality, photoshop doctoring,
or ironing shirts, but at least I'm not a total scumbag design thief. I can
sleep at night :-)

------
MichaelApproved
I saw this play out yesterday in the comments and kept thiking "why won't
someone stop him from posting?!" It was getting bigger and bigger the more he
opened his mouth.

I learned an important lesson a few years ago: sometimes you can't make
something better, and trying to make it better only makes it worse.

Stop, regroup with others and get a proper plan together.

~~~
inovica
I fully agree. Sometimes saying nothing is better. I don't mean forever, but
think about it, sleep on it, but don't just 'react'.

~~~
MichaelApproved
Yes, but it's also good to respond to comments, to a certain extent. I like
when founders come on HN and answer questions, solve problems and speak
frankly. But there's a point when you're having a PR nightmare that you need
to stop trying to fix things _yourself_.

My suggestion would be to acknowledge the issue, let people know you will
address it shortly but you need time to talk with your partners so you could
get a proper response together.

Perhaps some version of _"we're going to get to the bottom of this."_ Sure, it
could be deemed a short term cop-out but it's better than sticking your foot
in your over and over.

I'm curious how public relations experts recommend people handle a situation
like this.

------
ryanwaggoner
One thing I see coming up over and over in these comments is that people get
upset that this is called "stealing". The logic goes that stealing deprives
the original owner, and since 37signals hasn't been deprived of the code and
images that were copied (the hosting is a separate issue), this doesn't
constitute theft.

While that _may_ be a good argument that file-sharing is not "stealing"
(though may still be unethical), I'm not sure it's an accurate assessment in
the arena of design.

Part of the purpose of design is branding and establishing a unique visual
identity in the marketplace. By copying these designs, curebit hasn't deprived
37signals of the actual code and images, but they _have_ deprived them of some
degree of unique visual identity. And to that extent, isn't this stealing?

~~~
richardw
But Javascript that has been hand-coded to offer uniqueness in identity and
function, is largely considered fair game. Front-end specialists use view-
source as a learning technique.

I think many of these arguments lean in the direction of the interests of the
person making the statement. For example, I have been impacted by file-sharing
sites so I feel nothing but satisfaction when they're taken down. I'd imagine
the forums where movie creatives spend their time are generally filled with
high-conviction arguments about 'downloading=stealing'. The startup industry
hit the roof when a few colour combinations and png's are taken, but feels
nothing for old-media industries whose bedrock is being eroded.

There's a lot of 'grey' in there, no obvious answers. Personally I don't
torrent, but I have friends that do. I'll view-source but make it hard to
steal my own source. Unique visual identity? Same as anything else - better
have a lawyer advise you before you upload it for the world to see, and enough
firepower to protect it.

------
darksaga
Wow, talk about lazy. I'm ok with taking the layout, changing the images and
using the same basic styles. At least change some of the fonts. I mean, How
many sans serif fonts are out there that would've worked? Thousands.

They lost me when they started copying the HTML VERBATIM. Apparently they
don't have capable developers either. The layout in question is not that
complicated, and I'm struck on why they decided to do what they did. Even in
A/B testing you could've mocked this thing up in a few hours and had it ready
to go.

Inexcusable.

~~~
shareme
Its called Too Much Money with Angles with too little time chasing wanabes

------
derwildemomo
I'm sorry, but am I the only one wondering about the ... tone of dhh's
response? I mean, "fucking scumbags", is he like 14? He has every right to be
upset, but the choice of words are in no way helpful. just saying..

~~~
jsavimbi
Are you offended by the tone? What would you call a person who steals your
ideas (no value), steals your work ($$$), steals your bandwidth (~$), passes
it all off as their own and then brags about raising money, a venture which
was probably aided in no small from the theft? And when caught redhanded,
further insults you by offering you credit for your work?

What would you call that person? I call those people scumbags.

~~~
jasonlotito
They didn't steal anything. I thought we've discussed this enough already,
what with RIAA/MPAA's attempts to redefine copyright infringement as thievery.
Hell, they didn't even steal bandwidth. Linking is not theft. It might be
something else, but it's not stealing.

That, more than anything, pisses me off about this. That somehow the RIAA is
wrong when it calls people infringing it's copyright thieves, but when it's
one of our own getting hurt, we hang the culprits out to dry.

Call them scumbags. Get all indignant and tweet about it to your followers and
whine to the 'interwebz.' But at least have the courtesy to be truthful and
accurate. Otherwise, your just a scummy.

~~~
jsavimbi
My apologies, I did not realize that they either received permission from or
licensed design, code and image hosting from 37signals.

Or maybe I just choose to ignore your pathetic misdirection and call things as
I see them, which couldn't be more obvious to the eye. Because that's what a
retraction of the work and the (forced) composition of a public apology are
all about.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Or maybe I just choose to ignore your pathetic misdirection and call things
> as I see them,

I'm sorry. Maybe you could point to me where 37Signals no longer has what was
stolen?

I also applaud your open commitment in support of redefining copyright
infringement as thievery. Let me know how that works out for you.

Finally, you should avoid baseless insults. It makes you appear stupid and
detracts from what you are attempting to say. Throwing around insults like you
do hurts the quality of HN. Maybe that's what you want, but I'd prefer to keep
things accurate and intelligent.

~~~
jsavimbi
Ok, I'm the stupid one. Please point out where I insulted you do I can give
you credit and retract my claims.

~~~
jsavimbi
Unfortunately, according to the Curebit apology blog, they do in fact admit to
stealing, or as they word it: ripping off. Imagine that.

Case closed. No need for lawyering, they know what they did and they know it's
wrong.

~~~
jasonlotito
It doesn't making it stealing. Poor word choice is poor word choice.

> No need for lawyering.

No, there is every need to be accurate. Maybe you aren't aware of how long the
fight has been going on, but the use of the term pirate and stealing isn't a
new thing. Allowing it's use frames the argument in a light that isn't
accurate.

Words have power.

Don't agree with me? A criminal like you would.

------
jakejake
This is an honest question, I'd be curious to hear how you might differentiate
this from music and movie sharing? I hope that people won't just down-vote me
without responding. I am truly curious because I myself have mixed feelings
about all of these issues as both a content creator as well as a consumer.
It's hard for me to understand why certain types of art must be free for all,
but others are defended vigorously.

I've seen this happen several times before where someone uses photos, design
or article text without permission, gets busted and winds up on the tech
forums. The tech community generally tends to get pretty noisy about how
despicable they find it.

It strikes me as interesting because one of the piracy arguments is that it's
not stealing because the original author didn't lose anything. In this case
(well aside from the hot-linking bandwidth) the original authors didn't lose
anything.

If all intellectual property should be free, shouldn't this be perfectly fine
to use art and graphics and such as well? Why is it ok for 37signals to have
any claim of ownership over these things when musicians who do so are
criticized for not understanding.

Is the difference the way the material is being used? It because curbit is
using this in a corporate setting? People who are in favor of file sharing,
does that not apply to design and software? Does it only apply to individual,
personal use? What about sites who host music and have banner ads, are they
ok? What if I use a song in my YouTube video, is that the same thing? How
about some photos for a YouTube slide show?

Thanks for any thoughts!

~~~
stevenp
There's a difference between downloading music (albeit illegally) and taking
someone else's work and trying to pass it off as your own. When I download a
Duran Duran album, I don't post it on my website and claim that I made the
album and attempt to sell it as my own (as much as I wish I was Simon LeBon).

This isn't an issue of piracy -- it's an issue of plagiarism, which is quite
different in my opinion.

~~~
shad0wfax
Maybe its more fundamental? - People do it if they know they aren't going to
be exposed (like downloading illegally) and they won't if there was a way to
expose them (say via facebook/blog)? Just a theory.

I still believe downloading illegally is wrong, but thats my opinion.

------
viscanti
Curebit shouldn't have used assets off the 37Signals site, but I don't think
this is a huge deal. If you write an article talking about how to do a/b tests
(like 37Signals did), and talk about how great your results were from adding
people instead of text to the landing page, then you have to expect that some
people will use that information to influence their design decisions.

The whole point of technical blogging is to help other people solve a problem
the author has already solved. In this case, it was how to improve conversions
on landing pages. If you put that content out there, don't be surprised when
people use that content to help them solve a problem. You loose the right to
whine and complain about someone using that information as soon as you blog
about it. In return, you get more credibility (people treat you as a thought
leader) and more page views.

------
sachingulaya
A lot of people here are only referring to them ripping off 37signals' design.
They ripped more than that.

<http://yfrog.com/oejp7cp> Curebit vs. Kinoma

Sharebooster's logo is stolen directly from LaunchBit:
<http://yfrog.com/odx67yoj>

No one can defend the theft of a logo.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
To be fair, perhaps both of those companies used purchased themes or artwork
from something like themeforest as a starting point.

But this definitely looks bad, particularly in light of the 37signals dustup.

EDIT: Looks that way for the rocket ship at least:
[http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5418738/stock-vector-
retr...](http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5418738/stock-vector-retro-rocket-
ship)

~~~
hippo33
Hey -- yeah, I'm one of the co-founders of LaunchBit, and it's true that on a
startup budget, we bought the image from iStockphoto.

~~~
waitwhat
You should be aware that the iStockPhoto (and BigStockPhoto) license
specifically excludes using their content in logos.

------
yangez
At what point does inspiration become imitation? Clearly Curebit stepped over
the line in this case, but it's undeniable that lots of startups draw design
inspiration from other companies.

But at what point does this become unacceptable? For example, if Curebit
merely used the same design, except hosting the assets on their own server,
would that be okay? What if they just copied the layout but used their own
styles, images, and fonts? Or if they just copied the button?

~~~
mikeleeorg
I'm sure that line is subjective, though one could argue linking to assets
from someone else's servers is akin to theft (stealing bandwidth and money).

But I think the bigger story here is how Curebit handled their reaction to
DHH. This could have all been avoided if Allan replied with a more humble
stance.

Personally, I think DHH's initial reaction was on the strong side. If Allan
had realized that, he wouldn't have tried to rationalize their actions. I
suspect if he humbly apologized, then stayed quiet, he could have saved
himself a lot of heartache.

And if was really troubled by DHH's reaction, he could have just emailed him
privately. Getting into a pissing match in a public forum can sometimes
backfire (even if you think that negative press can be good press).

~~~
SoftwareMaven
When you are clearly in the wrong, a pissing match will never end well for
you. Apologize sincerely, fix it, maybe offer some form of remediation, and
let it blow over. You will never be able to make yourself look better if you
try to make excuses or attack the grieved party.

~~~
davemc500hats
agreed. sage advice.

------
benjlang
From David Mcclure

"have spoken to Curebit founder Allan Grant, he has taken down the pages with
Highrise assets. he's also now drafting a public response. needless to say, he
is re-thinking recent behavior.

although i'm sure DHH will not forget the transgression, but hope he may allow
them opportunity to show they can learn from their mistakes & change."

~~~
getsat
Seems to be an endemic problem:
<https://twitter.com/#!/dhh/status/163343265729490945>

------
schrototo
I'm astounded how many people here are defending this... Leaving all other
aspects aside, why should I trust a company that doesn't even have enough
pride to spend 5 minutes whipping up their own fucking button images?

And that they have over a million dollars in funding just makes this even more
sad...

------
drostan
Seems to be some logical inconsistencies in the startup community over what is
and is not ok to copy. Usually, like anything, it comes back to whatever is
self-serving to the person doing the talking. Investors speak out against
patents on methods of doing business because their well-funded current or
future portfolio companies could "build on" the ideas and use the cash lead to
make a ton of money. Digital media distribution platforms want online content
to be freely distributed off of or outside of the publishers' sites that paid
for the content to be produced. This is all still pretty new and the rules of
law and of decency are still being determined (and, in the case of the latter,
are different for each individual). I think the more productive outcome of
this line-crossing is this exact discussion to help shape those rules.

~~~
jsavimbi
> Seems to be some logical inconsistencies in the startup community over what
> is and is not ok to copy.

Let's not pretend that we're dealing with a couple of noobs here, people.

If it weren't for the cumulative years of technology-related experience of
everyone involved, a case could be made for excusing a blatant misstep with an
admonishment, but for outright copy/paste theft? Allan Grant knew better and
decided to steal anyway.

------
JonnieCache
It's a bit like stealing another standup's jokes, or biting another rapper's
lyrics. Not illegal, probably not immoral, but it will certainly make you look
like a dick.

------
jtchang
This happens more often than you think. Curebit just happened to get caught
because the developer probably just copied and pasted the original HTML. And
the fact that they copied from a ridiculously high profile site.

~~~
loschorts
I remember when Leaky (YC S11) launched, its design was quite obviously taken
from Square, but they put the notice: "All design credit goes to Square. We
based our design on their home page until we can hire a designer of our own."
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/08/yc-backed-leaky-is-
hipmunk-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/08/yc-backed-leaky-is-hipmunk-for-
car-insurance)

------
gioele
Legal, not ethical question: in US, is it a copyright infringement to hot-link
an image that resides on another server and belongs to another site?

Let me explain better: the file at `<http://example.com/background.jpeg`> is a
wonderful image and indeed it is used on `<http://example.com/index.html`>. I
run another site, example.net. I have my own `<http://example.net/index.html`>
page and I decide to add a `<img src="<http://example.com/background.jpeg>
alt="A wonderful landscape">` to it. Is this an infringement?

If it is, why? Because it has been "contextualised" in another site? Please
note that I did not copy the file, nor I distributed it, I just made a
reference to it. You did use it, you did download it, your browser on your
computer did all the composition.

If hot-linking an is an infringement, then also distributing a bittorrent file
is, the mechanism is very similar, just with one more level of indirection.
And it is common option (mine as well) that the distribution of a bittorrent
file does not constitute any kind of infringement by itself.

Do you know how US copyright law deals with this?

~~~
walexander
I believe this is still contested in some respects, but there has already been
one case which decide it was _not_ copyright infringement:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc).

"The court held that Google's framing and hyperlinking as part of an image
search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use
was highly transformative"

------
kristenlee
They even copied the pricing page verbatim, I have personally incorporated
some 37signals design elements in my own websites but nothing to this extent.
37signals is a bit hypocritical in my opinion because they brag about their
design practices and then whine when someone copies it, either you're an open
company sharing your inner-workings with the world or you're not, they can't
have it both ways.

<http://www.curebit.com/pricing>

~~~
getsat
Wow, they even copied a lot of the CSS ids/class names.

> 37signals is a bit hypocritical

There's a difference between leveraging the lessons learned/data gathered from
a particular design and copying the design itself nearly verbatim. A big one.

------
jvandenbroeck
OMG, that's really really stupid. (1) It's incredible stupid to just copy
sites, (2) it's retarded to keep references to files hosted on other servers
and (3) it's incredible retarded to tweet to dhh "chill dude", imo a huge lack
of respect & social feeling.

YC has to look out, a few more of these stupid incidents and the YC brand will
lose it's golden shine.. if you 're a 16 yo. kid you can make this "mistake",
if your a YC company with $ 1.5 m in funding you can't imo.

------
yobbobandana
Please do not conflate stealing with copying.

When something is stolen, the original owner no longer has posession of the
stolen object. If the story were about money or physical property, "stealing"
would be appropriate. It is not.

The word "copying" is quite adequate. In this case, direct copying is
obviously poor behaviour. It betrays a lack of capability on the part of the
copyer. This story would have had the same emotional impact, had it used the
correct term.

Using the word "stealing" mires the story in the intricacies of digital
copyright debate, which is not what this is about. It is about a startup not
doing its own work, and thus demonstrating inability.

~~~
tzs
You are confusing everyday English with court pleadings. Here are some
illustrative examples to show the difference.

1\. You come home from work, and find that while you were gone someone came
into your garage and stole your motorcycle.

It would be quite normal to exclaim "I've been robbed!". Yet you in fact have
been burgled, not robbed. Nevertheless in common English usage people use
"robbed" in a more expansive sense than it is use in law. If writing a police
report, or an indictment, one must make the distinction, but not in regular
conversation.

2\. You are in a bar, in a tuxedo, obviously trying to drink yourself into
oblivion. I ask you what is wrong. You tell me "my best friend stole my
fiancé...on our wedding day!".

Technically, he did not steal her, as she is not property. He perhaps
committed tortious interference with contract, or maybe alienation of
affection. However, if you are not writing the pleadings for a lawsuit, it is
in fact perfectly acceptable to say the bastard stole your fiancé.

3\. You are the quarterback for your high school football team. The big game
is coming up with your most hated rival high school. Your sister starts dating
the quarterback of their time. While he is at your house visiting your system,
he sneaks into your room, where you have your team's confidential playbook. He
quickly uses his cell phone camera to take photos of each page.

This would generally be described as him stealing your plays, even though it
is not legally stealing (and probably isn't even legally a crime).

The use of terms like stealing, theft, robbery, and so on to describe
situations where they do not literally apply in the legal sense goes back a
long way. E.g., from Shakespeare: "Who steals my purse, steals trash, but he
that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and
makes me poor indeed." Note that he is using both filching (a synonym for
stealing) and robbery to describe damaging a reputation.

Copyright law's mechanism is to create a property interest in the right to
make and distribute copies of a given work. Exercising someone else's property
interests without there permission is acceptably called "theft" in ordinary
English.

------
mindcrime
_We’re willing to file this story under “lean startup wankery,” folks._

WTF? How does "lean startup" factor into this? That seems like an odd little
digression there at the end of the article.

~~~
waitwhat
"No matter how many corners you cut and no matter how small your team is, you
still have to spend time and money on development and design."

The implication is that a slightly less lean startup would have had more
design resources and wouldn't have done something so stupid.

~~~
mindcrime
OK, I guess I can see why somebody might have written that, especially after
reading the other HN thread (which I had skipped before) and seeing the stuff
about ghetto testing, etc.

BUT... I still believe that "lean principles" and "doing stupid things" are
orthogonal ideas. Nothing about embracing lean mandates (or even suggests)
doing something this lame-brained. I think it was a bit of an unreasonable jab
at lean startup advocates, by the author of this piece.

------
kevinpet
I don't see anything wrong with the following scenario:

\- Hey, what should we do for this page? \- What do you think of this
37signals page? \- Yeah, that'd be great, throw up something like that, we'll
polish it later.

 _However_ , that's not really the scenario here. There's a big difference
between ripping off a style and layout (which is only declasse if people
notice its a ripoff) and taking the actual code.

------
phzbOx
Yeah, it's really a tricky subject. What if:

a) The images weren't linked directly to 7signal. b) The html was * slightly*
modified, but enough to show that it wasn't the _same_. 3) A little bit of
tweaking here and there to make it * slightly* visually different.

By the way, I'm more playing the devil advocate as, even if this was actually
_legal_ , that'd still be an unrespectful move. It's hard something to draw a
line between inspiration and stealing. I.e. When you are a beginner, you keep
taking stuff here and there. As you become better, you start to use _pattern_
that you've learned. As you become even better, you know that everything you
do is based on _something, somewhere_ and can even point to where you've learn
it / been inspired by. Only when you really master a subject can you really
create something.. and then, it's not a full creation.. it might be only small
details.. which will then inspire others.

------
AznHisoka
In a month, everyone will forget this, and Curebit will be well on its way to
success. Disagree? Just look at the AirBnb stories (Craigslist spamming AND
the user getting her house wrecked). Move on.. nothing to see here, just drama
and egos.

------
zerostar07
Is the tweet war in the article real? Sounds way over the top for what is
simply a landing page. I suppose they didn't make millions out of it. Kind of
makes you sympathize with curebit (but a good opportunity to get to know
them).

PS. the Rocket logo thing dhh is referring to is a stock image, i 've even
used it myself! [http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5418738/stock-vector-
retr...](http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-5418738/stock-vector-retro-rocket-
ship)

PS 2: Is dhh always so irritable?

PS 3: Reminds of the oatmeal vs funnyjunk situation, but much less civil
<http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2>

------
vasco
What I get from this situation is that the people over at 37 Signals are
unfortunately, large kids, from the tweets present in the article. I see
companies copying other companies' work all the time and although that's
morally wrong, I also don't see how some lines of html are going to be the a
relevant part of a company. (and if they are... bad news)

What I don't see everyday is this kind of immature responses from the copied
companies. Usually they just brush it off, because they know that in the end
of the day, they are the better company. I say this without any other
knowledge of the situation apart from the article though.

~~~
veyron
It's one thing to complain that another company built a design largely
influenced by yours. And that's a legitimate complaint, although the most you
can do is say "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

This is wholesale ripping off (in particular, indicated by the direct linking
to 37signals site assets). I would be pissed off too if I found that my
bandwidth was being used to serve another company's site. Especially if the
site was for a competitor. This is more than just design copying

~~~
vasco
I still don't see how any of this validates such an immature response from the
copied company. Don't they have a PR guy or something to shut them up before
they say things they might regret?

~~~
psykotic
Why would they regret what they said? We should all be glad they called them
out in such a public and unequivocal fashion. It means that scumbags might
think twice next time before ripping off other people's work verbatim. Your
response would have been more apropos if DHH's allegations had turned out
premature, but the reality is that the extent of their plagiarism went much
further than initially assumed.

Calling them out in no uncertain terms was a community service. Let's not
quibble over vocabulary.

~~~
vasco
Well this is very subjective, and I can understand your views, but I just
don't think it is professional to be impolite in this manner. Being right
should not give you the right to be rude! I can see where you're coming from
though.

------
langsamer
Why this this story on the front-page of HN? This provides very little quality
content and discussion. This just seems to be propaganda. Yes, Curebit was in
the wrong, admit it, move on. I'm sure there are more interesting things in
the world of technology and startups than this. To quote PG: "I think HN's
initial population of smart, mostly apolitical nerds has been diluted by the
arrival of a lot of new users who are not as smart, and are thus more excited
by shallow controversies."

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3105036>

------
joelrunyon
_honest question_

The direct-linking is obviously a stupid move, but if the design was the same
(minus the linking), would there be the same reaction?

As a non-designer, if I saw 37 Signals page and told my designer, I want it to
be like that, but with our info, I would expect it to look like that. (I'd
also expect that they'd mock it up themselves).

I can understand the uproar about the linking - that's a jerk move. But
copying the overall design inspiration doesn't seem like a big deal to me
though. Am I misunderstanding something?

------
_rs
My two cents: everyone is making this a big deal, and it isn't. 37signals is
respected, and they do great work. For a startup trying to get funding, a few
images and a layout goes a long way, especially if it's just a small team of
devs with zero design experience, etc. Sure they shouldn't have copied, but
_sure I shouldn't have googled the answer to that coding problem I just spend
2 hours slamming my head against the desk over_.

~~~
neotorama
They are not a 'normal' startup. With 1.2M, they can hire designer from Asia
which probably cheaper rate compare to the state. Looking at the founder
respond on twitter, He clearly have no idea about design and how web works.

------
pnmahoney
I don't think anyone has a final answer, but really _how close_ do designs
have to be so as to lack integrity?

(assuming that they hadn't straight up lifted the CSS, images, button etc...
which they did, which is clearly wrong.)

Ex: DHH says <http://elance.com> is inspiration, not theft. Ok.

Ex 2: A more difficult edge is <http://coursekit.com> I instantly recalled
their design after seeing this scandal, although I'd initially taken note of
it for its effectiveness. Their similarity to basecamp is on the front page
only, and no assets stolen. (full disclosure: competitor, vaguely, for a
hackathon-started education product I'm working on.)

Like, we can think up a MILLION edge cases. That's not the point. I'm really,
really curious to hear what you guys think the difference IS.

and please, please, PLEASE don't respond to this with vitriol on other side.
if you think there are problems happening here in the way we treat design, and
how ppl react, just DON'T add to it in that way. reposted here b/c my q was
downvote buried.

------
visegrip
Epic fail on all parties. Y combinator encourages 10 finger theft for not
doing it's part in due diligence. Maybe it's because Y-combinator supports
SOPA and want's to lead by example. 37 signal clearly shows supports for SOPA
by making a big F deal about this publicly. Than you have Curebit clearly
taking investors for a ride. Clearly a Breach of contract!

~~~
envex
Just because you don't want people stealing your work doesn't mean you support
SOPA...

------
msacca
I guess this isn't an uncommon occurrence. I was checking our analytics this
morning when I noticed we've been getting some strange traffic regarding
"Laptop Repair In Cochin." Well I dug around and found a site that copied and
pasted our codebase outright, HTML / JS & CSS - then tweaked a couple CSS
variables.

I built the Wordpress theme from scratch about a year and a half ago and never
released it for sale. This laptop repair site doesn't appear to be using
Wordpress. Our site was featured on several design galleries at the time (it's
in desperate need of an upgrade now, we just don't have the time) which, I'm
sure, is how they found it to rip-off.

Check it out: Our Site: <http://www.tinyfactory.co> Their Site:
<http://www.laptoprepairkerala.com>

I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - and a great reminder
that it's time to upgrade our site ;)

------
rbanffy
It's fascinating to see the abundance of doublethink. Somehow, copyright
violation is not theft when it's a song and, suddenly it appears to be worse
than murder when it's code.

What Curebit did was reprehensible, amateurish and plain stupid. Most
definitely not OK, but aren't we overreacting a bit?

Are they selling the copied code? Did they refuse to take it down? Did they
fail to apologize?

BTW, in the same way we strongly suggest RIAA and MPAA affiliates they should
look for business models that are viable in an age when copying and sharing
music and movies is easy, shouldn't we encourage internet companies to seek
business models compatible with the fact copying code is easy too? Let's
forget for a second it's still wrong to use someone else's code without the
right to do so, but how much does it hurt when someone copies some clever
script from a public website? Last time I checked, 37 Signals had a very
viable business model.

~~~
felipemnoa
I think you are mixing two things. The outcry seems to be from one business
copying another business. It would be like one songwriter copying the work of
another songwriter. You are then comparing this to a regular person
copyrighting the work of a songwriter/singer for their own consumption.

Although they are similar they are not the same thing. Just wanted to point
that out. I won't go into an argument about which is wrong though since that
is not the intention of my comment.

~~~
rbanffy
I just want people to stop using "theft" when "copyright violation" and
"unauthorized usage of resources" (which is closer to theft than copyright
infringement, BTW) are the right expressions to describe something. For the
pure copying of substantial parts of code from one site to the other, it's not
that much different from one musician sampling another one's work. Our HTML,
JavaScript and CSS are all out there exposed and readable. I fully expect to
find parts of it copied all over the web. It's a fact of life. I don't always
like it, but I know better than wasting my time with it.

I don't think Curebit has any right to use 37 Signals' work, far from it, but
I also think this outcry is a bit of an overreaction to mindboggingly idiotic
deeds made even worse by a poorly conducted response.

Once, a friend of mine caught a competitor using their CSSs and images
(directly off my friend's servers) on their own site. One morning, the
competitor woke up to find their site completely disfigured in randomly clever
ways for every IP that wasn't their office's. It was very enjoyable to
observe.

------
protomyth
If 37 Signals wanted to point out how it is not a costless transgression, they
could send and invoice for the data transfer of the image at Amazon rates.
More work than value.

I am just struck by the fact that they thought no one would notice. It just
seems like one of those judgement things that could be a red flag for future
direction.

------
earnubs
Now I've heard of Curebit.

------
blantonl
This issue boils down to something plain and simple.

If you come across something on the Web that visually makes since for your
business, you open up your favorite editor and begin to code to match what you
see. Source graphics that are similar in nature to reflect your objective and
the design's objective.

For CSS and JS, examine what has already been accomplished and add your flavor
and tweaks that make your brand what it is.

But if you copy CSS and HTML directly from another site and link to their
images? For an up and coming funded startup? You are just greedy and lazy, or
someone on the team got lazy.

------
kkt262
Saw this blatant copy earlier today when the news first broke. You'd think
that if they really wanted to copy something they'd do a little bit better of
hiding it, but the copy is just bad.

Shame on Curebit.

------
aymeric
This kind of thing happens often and I think it is ok as long it hurts no one
and is temporary.

If you are testing 10 variations, getting "inspiration" is faster than come up
with your own design and doesn't hurt 37Signals during the short length of the
test.

Why did people get so angry so fast?

The only people who got really hurt in this story are Curebit, not 37 Signals.

------
keeptrying
I think dhh just threw a lot of traffic at Curebit. Would be good to find out
how many more users Curebit got today.

------
mhartl
N.B. It's "37signals", not "37 Signals". Impressively, the original
VentureBeat headline actually gets this right.

------
nfriedly
I definitely feel that Curebit was in the wrong here, but the “fucking
scumbags” comment cost DHH most of the respect I had for him. If he's willing
to say something like that in public and on the record about someone he's
never met, then I don't think I'd ever want to spend any time working with
him.

------
evanlong
Sorry curebit. you are on the HN homepage so I CSRF hunt:
<http://evanlong.github.com/security/web/csrf/curebit.html>

You pass in authenticity tokens but don't even bother to check them on the
backend.

------
rglover
This is wrong, certainly, but the easy fix is to either disable the assets or
move them to a new URL. All that's left is a slap on the wrist from the
community and a lesson learned for any startup considering design
appropriation.

------
xentronium
Two amazing things:

* Non-issue being treated like it's a world-wide catastrophe of some sort

* Total inability of a startup founder to say "Okay, we fucked up" and do a proper mea culpa before it becomes a PR clusterfuck

------
nirvana
This incident strikes me as a glaring example of how broken web design is.

A simple page like that should be easier and faster to create from scratch
using a WYSIWYG tool, and then publish to a web platform that support it....
than copying the source and then editing it in a text editor.

I know in the past such WYSIWYG tools were too rigid and thus we have a
generation of designers that work in text.... but it just seems so archaic to
me.

Like building images with text, rather than using photoshop.

I write code on the backend, that lives on servers, I don't write HTML for a
living, so maybe I'm missing some necessary requirement that forces people to
work in text editors.... but a straightforward page like that should be much
faster to create by dragging a button element onto it, even a generic one and
picking the image, and then putting text boxes in there and setting their
style, etc, should take maybe 2 minutes if the assets are already created. Not
being able to do so seems like such a time sync.

I remember once not too long ago tweaking a landing page, by going back and
changing absolute pixel offsets 2-3 pixels at a time in text. I've done this
with iOS code as well. Change the text, compile, run, how does it look? ok,
need to go farther, back into the editor, bump it up 2 more pixels. etc.

FWIW, if anyone knows of visual tools from startups or open source that are
trying to solve this problem, I'd be keen to hear about them. (I'm building a
web platform, and rather than create my own design tool would rather support
existing ones with my platform.)

The closest I'm aware of is Cappucino which supports using Apple's Interface
Builder to layout UI for Webapps, and then export the IB files to the
Cappucino format. Sproutcore had Greenhouse which looked even better, but
seems to have been abandoned.

A better tool would mean easier AB testing, maybe even ABC testing... faster
development and more iterative design. I see no reason that such a tool
couldn't be made, or would have to necessarily impose restrictions that
limited its functionality... and I think that boosting web designer
productivity would be hugely valuable. On the other hand, I can't imagine why
nobody has tackled this.

PS-- on the mac there's Flux, which sorta does this, but it doesn't integrate
with a common web framework like rails, etc. I mean, you can, but it seems
more suited to static pages. <http://theescapers.com/flux/>

~~~
matt1
I've been slowly building a high fidelity WYSIWYG web design tool called Lean
Designs that might interest you: <http://www.leandesigns.com>

It's hard to get folks to switch over to a less-than-complete web design tool
(and building an unconstrained editor that generates quality HTML is a
challenge), but I think it will get there eventually. I'd love to hear your
feedback on the current product or advice on how to proceed long term.

~~~
revorad
Thank you for making this. It's one of those things which I have been tempted
to make for a long time.

You might want to look into the editors of Optimizely and VWO. Even though
they are A/B testing tools, I've used them just for thinking through quick
design changes. From looking at the code they generate, it looked like they
are just altering the CSS using jquery (often just assigning absolute
positions to elements). So maybe you are already doing something better than
that.

Have you looked into working on a small subset of web design? For example,
make your editor work really well for Woothemes or sites built on Twitter
Bootstrap. It will give you constraints to make at least one kind of popular
design format really easy to edit and also possibly an easier way to get users
because people recognise those brands.

I don't want to pivot your pivot, but positioning your product primarily for
editing existing web pages, rather than creating news ones from scratch might
be a good idea.

------
slig
No such thing as bad PR. Let's how well those guys will be doing in the
future.

~~~
corin_
Anyone who says there's no such thing as bad PR has never worked in PR.

Yes, seemingly bad PR can cause unexpected good things, and bad PR can
sometimes be turned into a good thing when handled skillfully (even then, not
always). The idea that all PR is good PR is just naive.

If Allan Grant hadn't dug himself deeper into his hole, but instead come back
with modesty, apologies and flattery to DHH at the very least (perhaps
something outside the box as well, "Hey @DHH, to show we're sorry we'll donate
$10k to a charity of your choice"?) then the bad PR would have got their name
out there and their response might have prevented people from thinking badly
of them, and even made people like them. But even then, there's never a
guarantee that any response can turn bad PR to good.

------
aresant
When 37Signals wrote a blog post showing this design style outrageously
improved conversions they must have expected that lots of folks would copycat.

Is DHH as pissed off at Elance for the blatant copy?

<https://www.elance.com/>

There's a difference between eLance's "inspiration" and actually referencing
hosted images & code that CureBit did, but it's not a night and day
difference.

Murky territory with us all copying eachother's moments of brilliance, but I
don't think curebit deserves the full bodyslam, "scumbag" treatment.

~~~
veyron
Copying the design doesn't necessarily deserve "scumbag" treatment. Some
brusque words, sure, but certainly not the escalation of DHH.

What Curebit did DEFINITELY qualifies as scumbag. There's some unknown
tangible cost for 37signals (in the form of bandwidth, hosting assets for a
competitor's site). There are small claims court cases considering similar
situations nearly every day.

~~~
slig
What about their logo? <https://twitter.com/#!/dhh/status/163298220322209792>

~~~
aresant
Ouch. I hadn't seen that one as part of the story. The whole looks worse that
the preliminary part mentioned in this story OP.

