You're viewing a single thread.
I'm going to edit this tomorrow to make him happy instead of sad. "fuck yeah, mars rules! I'm never going back to smelly earth!" etc.
I could have sworn there was an xkcdsw exactly like that, but there doesn't seem to be. Some of them are a bit happier though
E.g. http://xkcdsw.com/3968 , http://xkcdsw.com/2485 , and others if you click "browse by source" at the bottom and search for "spirit"
Uh what exactly is supposed to be on that site? It's a dogecoin scam site, not something related to xkcd.
Weird - I'm seeing that now too. But I wasn't at the time that I copy and pasted the links, and you can see from the other replies around 8 hours ago that other people were also seeing a site hosting edited versions of xkcd comics. I guess it has suddenly changed, after years of being up, in the few hours after I posted it? I have no idea what happened there.
I can't believe it, missed it by a few hours.
How the fuck does this even happen - was the site hacked?
Super late, but I figured it out because it happened again in a more recent comment. Lemmy seems to automatically change the links to https instead of http, even when http was explicitly included in the url. Somehow, xkcdsw is a completely different site on https than on http. If you copy the link into an external browser and remove the s, the link works as intended. I can only assume this is a behavior of the lemmy app(s), which is why it didn't affect some users. Were you using jerboa?
Wow that entire site is full of plagiarism
Plagiarism, by definition, is taking the work of someone else without attribution. If you've provided attribution, it cannot ever be plagiarism.
Note that this is not the same as copyright infringement. If I upload the complete 3rd season of Knight Rider to YouTube, that's copyright infringement, no matter what. But if I were to do it and say "created by Glen Larson for NBC" in the description of every video, it would not also be plagiarism.
The above site cannot be plagiarism because every single one points back to a specific XKCD comic or comics that it used as its source. It could be copyright infringement, although I suspect it would probably qualify for a fair use defence due to being parody.
It could be copyright infringement, although I suspect it would probably qualify for a fair use defence due to being parody.
To add: xkcd comics are CC BY-NC 2.5 licensed, adapting the source material is explicitly allowed. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/
I guess my definitions were a bit loose, but isn't it extremely in poor taste to emulate the exact formatting of the website? An unsuspecting user might genuinely believe they were at the original XKCD site.
The formatting of the website looks completely different to me. The buttons don’t look similar, they’re not in the same place. It has its clear logo which basically tells you it’s not Randall Monroe’s site: "Making XKCD Slightly Worse".
The only thing that’s similar is the art style of the comic itself. Which like…yeah? That’s the point.
I think you're being very generous, but we can agree to disagree
Welcome to the internet!
There are edits like that out there already.
Speak for yourself, I'm not getting milked like a goat.