It's easy to take GPL software and rewrite it in another language without the license. Trivially easy. It's possible you'll even be able to do the same with just compiled bytecode soon.
Just recently there was an instance where Nous Research Hermes agent cloned some Chinese OSS. It's happening much more broadly than this, though.
This might warrant special attention unless we want to live in a world without copyright. Though that's also one additional possible outcome.
Ugly. Random. Thoughtless.
But John Koenig's work is really well done and packaged in such a consumable way. I'm sorry to hear he's the victim of copyright infringement.
Turns out the "fansite" was unaffiliated, and after playing the real game, it became clear the whole site was AI slop. It got gameplay mechanics subtly wrong, the screenshots didn't always relate to the captions, and the embed was a shoddy decompilation pulled from the game's files (easy since it was built with the Godot engine, and presumably where the site's knowledge of the game came from). It's apparently something afflicting a lot of indie devs -- somebody uses Claude or similar to rip your game and spin up a detailed site where you can play it for free. Not sure what the angle is, though, since the site says it's unofficial in the footer, links to the official Itch storefront, and doesn't insert ads or malware. Could just be an overzealous fan, but the whole thing struck me as very strange.
> it also includes the entire text of the book, from its opening 800-word foreword to a complete archive of all 311 neologisms... all penned by Koenig.
So it doesn't seem likely to me that they asked AI to make a fan site and it spat out the book; instead they asked AI to make a fan site and then copy-pasted the text of the book into it.
Perhaps a just outcome would be for Koenig to gain the rights to the page. However, Claude says unfortunately copyright law doesn't work that way.
Theft is only going to become worse. It's already so easy and it's going to become even easier. We aren't prepared for what's ahead.
So how is the bootleg site making money? The Amazon link was created with Amazon Associates, the Amazon affiliate program (you can see the affiliate link code, tag=promptdigital-20, in the Amazon URI).
This is how AI slop can be monetized: poorly gated Amazon programs like Amazon KDP, Amazon Associates, and that Meta monetization program. Anything goes, from crafty scams like this to over-the-top social media slop like shrimp Jesus.
The asymmetry between stealing and getting caught or stopped was baked in long before AI, but this will become much more prevalent because the cost of infringing has been reduced by orders of magnitude.
Relatedly, legal copying seems just as problematic: I see both software and media being munged and parroted as soon as it appears, which means innovators do not get the benefit of their innovation. I personally have halted any projects where I can't completely control access to the product, which is a huge damper on innovation.
[0] this article and a bsky post by the author of the article are the only sources I can find other than the website itself - which is definitely as chock full of AI as indicated
Let the humans use the internet however they want to, and now it's the age of AI, so let humans do whatever they want using AI.
I don't have the answers or a remediation plan for this. But could see this coming eons ago.
And the future is only going to get darker from here. May God help us!
Of course I didn't do anything with the idea, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
No-one is seriously fighting the tyranny of copyright that covers basically the whole world. Even AI companies just retreated and hid after they got what they needed, like a shy teenager with empty wallet who still craves access culture, with no real attempts to change the system.
Meta is only putting up a token fight because it has been directly sued, but we all know how this ends: they will eventually bend the knee. They accessed human culture for practical, not moral reasons.
That's clear evidence that human culture was sucked dry and is no longer needed. OpenAI won't fight to open access to Anna's Archive because they no longer can get any benefit from using it in training. They can pay reddit and such for trickle of their fresh drivel. But the usefulness of any book ever written ran out some years ago and new ones are just riffs of the old ones so not really worthy of pursuing.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards is the present and the future and human output becomes something not worth (or legal) to even cite in any interesting volume.
So let’s ask Webflow’s public relations dept. how cool are they with the fact their partner is a lier and plagiarist.
In other words: AI stole someone’s soul with its own metallic claws! Out with the devil machines.
It's ultimately a fruitless endeavor to go after because you would have to prove that you can use the said AI tool to create the exact word by word copy and that is going to be very expensive and shaky in court
I think its time that we stop extracting rent from outdated copyright laws. Once AI gets good enough you aren't going to be bothering with them anyway. All copyright law does is put money in the pockets of those that created the law and a portion of that goes to the creator.
Copyright laws are basically tax on the poor.
They deserve to also be sued too for the infringement. I don't think safe-harbor applies if they don't act on a valid notice.
qontouria, n. The feeling of having your work passed off as someone else's.
I hate this so much. Not you or your post, just that it’s becoming normal to just throw out “Claude says this” without doing any fact checking.
Claude’s also technically right but wrong where it matters. The author could easily offer to settle for control of the site instead of suing. If the author registered the copyright to the book, he doesn’t even need to prove damages to be awarded statutory damages. He potentially has a lot of leverage.
This is especially egregious in Google's case given how trigger happy they are with pulling YouTube videos with a simple claim that something is infringing. I guess unless you can lobby them at the level of the music industry, their default policy is to do nothing.
It's easy to prepare for what is ahead: Get yourself out of the filthy FOSS swamp and start charging a fair price for your work from real customers. That is something everybody benefits from and it is also dignified for everybody involved.
Good! That gives someone else the room to come in with a better, freer solution!
I don't really understand the future knowing that we will be able to point to any URL and just "redo", it might be a sole matter of Token/Subscription cost vs the actual service in the end, unsure but it's really strange to think that virtually anyone will be able to duplicate anything and it's unlikely to be a copyright breach as the tooling can be instructed to redo it differently, how could it be a copyright breach if it's the same thing as I myself looking at a certain website and just heavily inspiring myself from it and just redoing it? The fact that it's done automatically shouldn't change that.
I am allowed today to take a GPLv3 program or a commercial program, redo it and publish it as MIT, so why would it be forbidden, it's terrifying.
This story has practically nothing to do with AI. It could have been done 20 years ago, the crappy Midjouney illustrations and generative text interface merely add insult to injury.
I guess DMCA takedowns are only for the big fish fighting the good fight against car pirates.
> So let’s ask Webflow’s public relations dept. how cool are they with the fact their partner is a lier and plagiarist.
I also frown upon bullying companies like this over something they can't control.
That would be an improvement over most people I know at this point, who casually repeat verbally or repost words they got from a chatbot without so much as a quotation mark.
And without sharing the prompt or the actual response. Like sure, it's possible Claude said something so obviously wrong. Depending on your experience, you might even think it to be probable.
But then why wouldn't OP preempt any doubt and simply share the part that matters? What are we doing.
I’d like to say it makes me more cautious about topics I’m prompting that I’m not familiar with…
But I’m also worried about the young people. What if you never had to learn something from ground up?
> the best way to get correct answers on HN isn't to ask questions, but to post LLM's answers so people will eagerly fact check them to prove LLMs wrong.
(It makes some degree of sense - I shouldn't be able to use a burner identity to get Google to take down (even temporarily) a million-subscriber channel. The big problem with the DMCA is the impossibility of proving that a grey-area filer is acting in bad faith, but that's in the wheelhouse of the courts, not the platforms.)
And don't pass the blame off onto "AI" from the people who said "let's make a web site that totally steals this book we like". AI is a tool of thieves, founded upon thievery. Qontour is an agency made up of thieves who are using AI to perform their thievery.
In fact let's go down their about page (https://www.qontour.com/about) and point some fingers:
Gala Aranaga, Founder & CEO of Qontour, is a thief.
Jason Chandler, Founder & Creative Director of Qontour, is a thief.
Atif Fazil, Technical Director of Qontour, is a thief.
Pemi Ogunkeye, Webflow Developer at Qontour, is a thief.
Daniela Aranaga, Head of Content & Marketing at Qontour, is a thief.
Ahmed Qayyum, Solutions Architect at Qontour, is a thief.
Bukunmi Ogunmodede, Webflow Developer at Qontour, is a thief.
Hassaan Rasul, Senior UX Designer at Qontour, is a thief.
They used ChatGPT, a copyrightwashing tool developed in a massive act of thievery by the employees of OpenAI, all of whom are thieves. OpenAI was founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Ilya Sutskever, Greg Brockman, Trevor Blackwell, all of whom are thieves.
So it seems reasonable to infer that the submitter felt that emphasizing the AI angle would be the part worth discussing.
The article fully embraces these weakly-connected insinuations:
"But it’s not surprising to see it coming from an agency that has leaned into generative AI so heavily. As they proudly explain, “Every page on this site was written in Claude” using an “author persona” that they call “Q.” [ADVERTISEMENT FOR CLAUDE (yes, really)] "What’s missing here is consent, which feels like the original sin of AI. As I’ve written about many times before, generative AI models are all trained on a massive corpus of human-authored works without attribution, consent, or compensation, extracting value from creators while centralizing power among a tiny handful of massive tech companies."
AI is not involved in the actual copyrighted content at all.
Naming and shaming doesn't work for such attack vectors, it's a social strategy for people that have a real identity established and are making money out of that, not for ephemeral identities of such scammers.
Now, be nice. This isn't Reddit, and I don't think the HN mods are really into "engagement"*
I tend to release a lot of stuff MIT. I don't give a shit, if anyone takes it and gets rich (which I seriously doubt will happen). It's just that I don't want people coming after me, if they misuse it.
If, however, someone rereleases my stuff with a "gift," and makes it appear that I was behind it, then that's a Bozo no-no. I think that kind of thing is going on at GitHub, right now.
*Mud-wrestling in a cesspool
The title made me think that he released a paperback that competes with the original.
> If you agree with copyright at all
The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution (which the rest of copyright makes often hard for purely financial reasons). So whoever made this silly little thing gets a pass from me.
edit to add: Google has ignored all safe harbor protections, they would lose this protection and be held liable for all damages. This seems like a pretty solid win for the author here if they're telling the truth.
It's just that people have taken different routes historically.
They will also face a much harder task when explaining their case to a judge. The contributors to the open-source chess engine Stockfish needed a lot of time and energy to convince a German court that it was illegal for the commercial engine Houdini to copy their algorithms.
What is your basis for this belief?
Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book?
> The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution [...] So whoever made this silly little thing gets a pass from me.
Did you read the part about the fake site appearing higher in search results for the author's own name?
Eg https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/06/16/congress/me...
Yes, I am. Copyright is legalized plunder of anyone who does not pay a protection fee for a "license" to not be plundered. Going after torrenters and people trying to regain functionality on their thermostats and 3D printers is legalized plunder.
I'm sorry, what? What exactly do you think is happening here?
If I give away my secret sauce recipe, I have no right to complain if somebody puts it in a bottle and sells it. Either you keep it to yourself or you don't.
Businesses will not keep building if they don't have users, so why would they?
I think you are criminally underrating what goes in a business other than just product or tech. It is extremely hard to write or create a company that makes actual revenue, code/product is maybe 20% of it. Maybe you can say okay so AI will do the remaining 80% of it as well since its so smart. And it might but its even more of a long shot imo.
Dang asked me not to do it.
Now, when I boldly state wrong stuff (a not-infrequent occurrence), it's because I really am wrong.
ChatGPT on my personal plan does it too. Just yesterday I asked it to give some places fitting a specific criteria. The first was that they were within a 2 hour drive of my city. 75% of the locations it gave me were more than 2x that distance. It kept doing this across multiple difference searches. I tried high and pro with no difference.
But it's the outside of the boot that lets you bend it. (yeah, I'm watching a World Cup match as I type this)
Governments have presented us with a third option, intellectual property, which allows a creator to release their intellectual contributions publicly while preventing someone else from reproducing it. Violating the terms of an open source license are generally considered intellectual property violations and allow the creator to seek damages.
They are the monopolists and we are the paypigs! NEVER SUBSCRIBE!
There are people that believe that using a morally compromised instrument to do a moral end is always bad.
"AI is bad because it's trained on stolen work therefore we must never use AI, even if our ends are good" is such a belief that many people seem to have, and there seems to be some likelihood that the original poster might be such a person.
Therefore it seems to me reasonable to believe that a person who maybe believes that you must never use AI because it is trained on stolen work, could also believe that you must never use the DMCA because it is based on bad and corrupted law.
I myself do not exactly believe these things, although I consider they may have some arguments for them, albeit not arguments likely to persuade me in all instances, nonetheless I do not find any difficulty in believing someone could hold both opinions at the same time and I think, in fact, it is a reasonably consistent pair of opinions, especially given the apparent ability of people to believe all sorts of inconsistent things day to day.
Last week, a MetaFilter member posted a link to what appeared to be a new website for The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, John Koenig’s decade-long project to make a “dictionary of made-up words for emotions that we all feel but don’t have the words to express.”
The polished site includes everything you’d expect from a publisher’s promotional book site: an author biography, press mentions, and links to buy the book on Amazon.
Strangely, it also includes the entire text of the book, from its opening 800-word foreword to a complete archive of all 311 neologisms, with their accompanying definitions, etymology, and short essays, all penned by Koenig.
The book’s original photo-collage illustrations made by Koenig and several other artists are conspicuously missing. Instead, each word has an AI-generated image made with DALL-E 2, riddled with the errors and artifacts typical of that model.

“it’s half-past IŊΨ-o-clock”
A banner at the top of the homepage encourages visitors to “Generate your own words using AI – give your sorrows a voice!” The Submit A Sorrow feature lets you describe a feeling, and then uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 to generate the new word, etymology, and definition, which go into a gallery of “User-Generated Sorrows” with AI generated art.
MetaFilter members were immediately suspicious, and so was I. My wife Ami and I made a card game in 2022, Lost for Words, partly inspired by Koenig’s project. We own a copy of the book, and I’d followed it online for years. The embrace of AI seemed out of character.
Then I noticed the new site was a different domain than the original Tumblr homepage entirely:
The original: dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com
The reboot: thedictionaryofobscuresorrows.com
What’s going on here?
John Koenig launched The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows on Tumblr in 2009, expanding it to a series of popular video essays in 2013.
If you know any word from the project, it’s probably “sonder,” which spread far beyond its origin, making its way into common parlance and eventually to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster.
sonder
n. the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.
Other words coined by Koenig have found a life outside his project. You may have encountered “anemoia” (a feeling of nostalgia for a time or place you’ve never known), “vellichor” (the strange wistfulness of used bookstores), or maybe “monachopsis” (the subtle but persistent feeling of being out of place).
But “sonder” is the breakaway success. I’d wager most people who have heard the word have no idea it was coined by a guy on Tumblr in 2012.
There’s an R&B band named Sonder, a failed Airbnb rival, and countless businesses ranging from consultancies and VC firms to coffeehouses and dispensaries. There’s a bar named Sonder two miles from me right now.

Photo from the official Instagram announcing the book’s release
That success landed Koenig a book deal with Simon & Schuster, and the book became a New York Times bestseller on its release in November 2021.
Two years later, around August 2023, the new Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows website launched, but curiously, with no reference to it from the official Tumblr page or social media.
The mission of Koenig’s project, in his own words, is to “shine a light on the fundamental strangeness of being a human being.”
So it felt strange that he would now be encouraging people to generate new words and definitions with LLMs, a contentious technology that has been trained on so much human writing, but can’t know what it’s like to be human.
I reached out to John Koenig directly to ask if he was involved with the website. He emailed back an hour later:
Yeah man, I had nothing to do with it. Don’t know what to think or do about that, as the site is pretty slick. Nicer than my own, really.
It wasn’t hard to find who was responsible since they list themselves in the “Site Credits” in the footer of every page: Qontour (formerly Prompt Digital), a web design and marketing agency based in San Francisco.
The only hint that the site isn’t authorized is this page in their portfolio, where they talk about how “Qontour built the interactive digital platform – designing the site in Webflow, generating an AI-powered image library, and launching a feature that lets visitors submit their own sorrows and add new definitions to the dictionary.”
On that page, they refer to themselves as “fans” of the book: “The site gives fans (like us) one place to find everything – videos, reviews, interviews, and purchase links – instead of searching across a dozen platforms.”
The problem, of course, is that being a fan doesn’t give them the right to repurpose any of the material for their site.
In the footer of Qontour’s unauthorized site, they added a copyright notice acknowledging that they don’t own any of the rights to the material on the site, while also licensing all the user-submitted words into the public domain with a CC Zero license.
Dictionary Content © John Koenig – All rights reserved.
User-Generated Content open licensed – CC Zero.
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. Qontour did not have the right to publish the entirety of Koenig’s book to showcase their web design skills.
They also submitted their site to Webflow’s directory to advertise their design business. “This endeavor showcased our expertise in website design, AI-generated content, and extensive content integration.”
Below the button to “Hire Qontour,” a small link to “Copyright Info” misrepresents their work:
The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows by Qontour is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. All Rights Reserved. In other words, it’s someone else’s work so you can’t copy it or edit it for any reason, but you can share it with others.
Needless to say, you can’t relicense content you don’t own.
Complicating their claims of it being a fan tribute, Qontour also used their own Amazon affiliate code throughout the site, created under their previous name Prompt Digital, giving them a cut of all book sales.
Those commissions may have been meaningful over the last few years, since the unofficial site is now the top search result for virtually every query related to the book, including the book’s title, the words coined in the book, and even John Koenig’s name. In every Google search I’ve tried, the unofficial site ranks higher than the official site, the publisher’s site, or Wikipedia.
This is made worse by the rapid shift from traditional web search to conversational AI search, which is easy to manipulate, hides sources, and collapses context into simple answers.
ChatGPT and Gemini both link to the bootleg as the official website, and both claim that John Koenig is the one that created it.

Gemini (left) and ChatGPT (right)
This creates legitimate confusion over its authorship, and arguably, damages the reputation of the project and book with its enthusiastic embrace of AI. The person who originally posted the site to MetaFilter thought it was the official site, and the commenters in the thread then, reasonably, questioned whether the book itself was written by AI.
I asked Koenig if his publisher was planning to issue a cease-and-desist takedown to the site, but didn’t receive a response.
After emailing him, I realized that Simon & Schuster did make moves last year to limit its reach. They filed two DMCA takedowns (1, 2) with Google last July, asking them to remove two pages from the bootleg site from their results. It had no effect.
It’s one thing for a fan to share or remix copyrighted material out of love for the source material, with no commercial motive. (“No copyright intended!”) It’s another for a marketing agency to take an entire living author’s book, replace its art with AI slop, add an AI word generator, monetize the traffic, promote it in their portfolio, and then outrank the official site everywhere.
This is a more flagrant form of plagiarism than you typically see these days, where human-authored works are laundered with an AI model into something that’s different enough from its sources to avoid legal issues.
But it’s not surprising to see it coming from an agency that has leaned into generative AI so heavily. As they proudly explain, “Every page on this site was written in Claude” using an “author persona” that they call “Q.”

What’s missing here is consent, which feels like the original sin of AI. As I’ve written about many times before, generative AI models are all trained on a massive corpus of human-authored works without attribution, consent, or compensation, extracting value from creators while centralizing power among a tiny handful of massive tech companies.
On a much smaller scale, Qontour could have reached out to John Koenig for permission to republish his work, collaborating with him on a new, improved website for the book. He might have asked them to limit it to just the words published on his Tumblr, asked for them not to build AI features, or maybe just said no to the whole thing, which would be his right.
What happened to The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows may have been more brazen, but it isn’t an isolated case.
It’s part of a broad trend happening across the web, where people are using AI to repackage, optimize, and replace the authoritative sources it was trained on for profit.
Nearly every day, I get emailed a newly-launched, obviously-vibecoded website filled with AI-generated content that was designed to siphon attention away from human creators: bloggers, authors, journalists, artists, musicians, and anyone else who slowly, painstakingly makes things for a living. I’m not even sure anymore that the emails I’m receiving are sent by a human.
The feeling of seeing something you love ingested and repurposed by a machine designed to replace the person who made it seems like a uniquely modern sorrow.
Maybe there should be a word for it.
You can purchase John Koenig’s The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows at Powell’s Books, directly from his publisher, or your local indie bookstore. If you have to use Amazon, you can buy it using the author’s own affiliate code so he gets the largest cut of the sale.

Photo via John Koenig
No they aren't. They're statistical token generators. They do not understand concepts such as "distance from a given location or coordinate point". If you're lucky you might ask it something likely to appear nearly verbatim in its training data, like "Chinese restaurants in Midtown Manhattan", and get back a reasonably accurate list, but it does not understand what a "Chinese restaurant" is, or what "Midtown Manhattan" is, or that one relates to the other in any way other than both appearing statistically associated with another set of tokens when they appear near each other.
Also reasoners that can’t recall facts is not how people are using them. No one is asking “from first principles derive this equation”.
Can you decide, whether you are OK with unfit comparisons or not, instead of trying to have it both ways?