HTML-Fan wrote:

-snip-
But maybe they could whitelist the forums website if there is a huge demand in embeding scratch projects on that site.

It does use iframe, that's a thing. If there would be that, sure.
Also, how is the Scratch Team going to edit the HTML code in there so it redirects to the unauthorized embedding screen?

WaterComesBack wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

-snip-
But maybe they could whitelist the forums website if there is a huge demand in embeding scratch projects on that site.

It does use iframe, that's a thing. If there would be that, sure.
Also, how is the Scratch Team going to edit the HTML code in there so it redirects to the unauthorized embedding screen?

There must be a way…

Basic88 wrote:

WaterComesBack wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

-snip-
But maybe they could whitelist the forums website if there is a huge demand in embeding scratch projects on that site.

It does use iframe, that's a thing. If there would be that, sure.
Also, how is the Scratch Team going to edit the HTML code in there so it redirects to the unauthorized embedding screen?

There must be a way…

Yeah, there must be, cuz' the Scratch Team would have to get actual permission from geometrydash.io to edit the HTML code, which probably wouldn't happen.

Basic88 wrote:

WaterComesBack wrote:

HTML-Fan wrote:

-snip-
But maybe they could whitelist the forums website if there is a huge demand in embeding scratch projects on that site.

It does use iframe, that's a thing. If there would be that, sure.
Also, how is the Scratch Team going to edit the HTML code in there so it redirects to the unauthorized embedding screen?

There must be a way…

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

It's also possible that the illegal rehosters could download and modify the Scratch source code to remove this check (which would be perfectly legal since Scratch is open source) and then download only the project from Scratch servers, while using their own modified code to play it. So really, you just can't win.

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

Ah, yes. If Cookie Clicker can do it, so can Scratch!

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

Ah, yes. If Cookie Clicker can do it, so can Scratch!

Please re-read that post because I have edited it.

Flowermanvista wrote:

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

Ah, yes. If Cookie Clicker can do it, so can Scratch!

Please re-read that post because I have edited it.

Oh. Well, the ST can try to take the site down (since it is possible not many will modify the source code).

It's still illegal, the project creator can be (possibly) taken to court.

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

Ah, yes. If Cookie Clicker can do it, so can Scratch!

Ooh, nice idea.

WaterComesBack wrote:

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's certainly possible. In the source code of the JS browser game Cookie Clicker, it does a quick check to ensure that it is running on the official domain. If it isn't, it blocks the game from loading, tells you what happened, and directs you to play the game on the official website.

Since Scratch is also a JS app, I'm sure that a similar check could be added.

Ah, yes. If Cookie Clicker can do it, so can Scratch!

Ooh, nice idea.

Uh…

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's also possible that the illegal rehosters could download and modify the Scratch source code to remove this check (which would be perfectly legal since Scratch is open source) and then download only the project from Scratch servers, while using their own modified code to play it. So really, you just can't win.

Basic88 wrote:

-snip-
Uh…

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's also possible that the illegal rehosters could download and modify the Scratch source code to remove this check (which would be perfectly legal since Scratch is open source) and then download only the project from Scratch servers, while using their own modified code to play it. So really, you just can't win.

Oop, forgot about that.
Maybe they could restrict accessing the Scratch servers by a password (that is protected in all means), then a PIN? This would stump hackers into just guessing the password.

I just remembered this , and I think it's an extremely important point in this discussion: (please read this post in full)
Embedding someone's Scratch project and putting it on your own website, even if you make money off of it, is not, in itself, illegal.
The Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 license, which all Scratch projects are licensed under, is one of the more lenient CC licenses. It does not forbid derivative works (obviously, otherwise we couldn't have remixing) and it also does not forbid commercial uses of licensed works. You are allowed to create derivatives and monetize them all you want as long as you fulfill your obligations under the license: you must attribute the original creator and you must give everyone the same rights you have.

Fulfilling these obligations would probably be rather easy: simply saying “This was originally made by $User” or something like that, and linking to the original so that others could create derivatives easily, would likely be sufficient to fulfill the obligations of the license. But I'm not a copyright lawyer, so don't quote me on that.

Flowermanvista wrote:

-snip-.

Those websites don't give credit.

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

-snip-.

Those websites don't give credit.

I agree, I don't see anything about that.

WaterComesBack wrote:

Basic88 wrote:

-snip-
Uh…

Flowermanvista wrote:

It's also possible that the illegal rehosters could download and modify the Scratch source code to remove this check (which would be perfectly legal since Scratch is open source) and then download only the project from Scratch servers, while using their own modified code to play it. So really, you just can't win.

Oop, forgot about that.
Maybe they could restrict accessing the Scratch servers by a password (that is protected in all means), then a PIN? This would stump hackers into just guessing the password.

But…it's open source. Downloading Scratch's source code is not illegal and it does not involve hacking or any illegal activity. It's right here. You are not only free to download, study, modify, and create derivatives of Scratch, but you are encouraged to do so. That's the magic of the open source/free software/FOSS/FLOSS/whatever the term of the week is movement.

And this whole topic has me thinking: wouldn't applying technological restrictions to who can and can't use Scratch for whatever purposes violate the open-source philosophy of Scratch? Whatever technological measures are implemented are bound to be imperfect - just look at literally any attempt to implement DRM ever. There are always cases with DRM schemes where legitimate customers are locked out of using their product just because of some random technical failure or the system just not working as it should, and whatever technical restrictions would be placed on Scratch would most likely suffer from the same sort of issue.

Yes, rehosting projects without crediting the original creator sucks. Yes, it's illegal. But is it even worth the effort of technological restrictions and continuous enforcement to stop a few hacks from making some money off of projects that nobody ever expected to be paid for in the first place? I get the sentiment, and I think that the cause is a good one, with well meaning people behind it, but I don't believe that the effort would be worth it.

Flowermanvista wrote:

-mega snip-

Here is how the system works:
-Website emails Scratch asking for permission
- The email sender will get this message:

By embedding a project crated by the scratch.mit.edu website, you agree to give credit to the Scratch Foundation. Failure to do so is illegal Under the Creative Commons.

-Agree = whitelisted
-Disagree = blacklisted
Whoops, I made a typo

Basic88 wrote:

Flowermanvista wrote:

-mega snip-

Here is how the system works:
-Website emails Scratch asking for permission
- The email sender will get this message:

By embedding a project crated by the scratch.mit.edu website, you agree to give credit to the Scratch Foundation. Failure to do so is illegal Under the Creative Commons.

-Agree = whitelisted
-Disagree = blacklisted
Whoops, I made a typo

Wouldn't hackers just say yes on purpose then go on to do some bad stuff?

WaterComesBack wrote:

Wouldn't hackers just say yes on purpose then go on to do some bad stuff?

Would the hackers go to jail for violating the CC? Yes.

Basic88 wrote:

WaterComesBack wrote:

Wouldn't hackers just say yes on purpose then go on to do some bad stuff?

Would the hackers go to jail for violating the CC? Yes.

You know, I really appreciate your childlike innocence and sense of idealism. It warms my heart to see someone with that, seeing how jaded and cynical I've become in not a lot of years on this planet. But I'm about to give you the inner scoop about how copyright infringement works:

The world is not just and it is not fair. You can't simply arrest “hackers” (they're not hackers, btw, they're just copyright infringers) for violating copyright law. The kind of people who violate copyright law on a regular basis generally anonymize themselves and provide no paper trail as to where you could find them (which is usually in another country that has looser laws about that sort of thing). This makes them literally impossible to prosecute, and there's not a thing that can be done about it.

Maybe the best you could do is report them to the web host that is hosting the site - but if it's a really seedy one, or a dedicated server set up by the infringing party, will they even take it down? In such a situation, there's no guarantee that they would. And chances are that they would put it right back up, with a new domain, on a different web host or server (or perhaps even the same web host, if they're good enough about lying about who they are). There's a reason why a number of notorious piracy sites have gone down a number of times and always come back up eventually. Where there's a will, there's a way.

This is the reason why I said it would take so much effort to solve this issue. Digital copyright infringement like this is an exeedingly tough nut to crack, and I'm not sure if the Scratch legal time has the time and resources to fight illegal reuse of user-generated content all day long. I'm glad to see that you care about this issue, and I think your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, I just don't think combating it would really be all that feasible.

EDIT: broke one paragraph into two, text has not been changed.