Okay. It’s still a copyright owned by someone and it’s not freely licensed to just post wherever. I can’t control who assigned whatever copyright to others.
Subscribing to the Atlantic won’t put any money in Simon Garfield’s pocket, but freely sharing his article will provide promotion for his book about the history of Comic Sans. Why do you think it’s okay to deny Simon Garfield some potential book sales?
It’s not a blank wall: if you want to read it, you can do so legitimately. There’s no reason to rehost someone else’s work. How would you feel if you worked hard on something and someone just decided “I can copy it and paste it wherever I want”?
I’d feel fine, I don’t write for the purpose of making money, I write because it makes me happy. When I get paid for writing I get paid no matter the amount of clicks I get. All my art is released under Creative Commons or whatever the fuck it’s called. Why should I be anything other than happy that some internet hobbyists decided to share my work? You’re acting like this person is being robbed of something
I also release everything creative I’ve ever done to the public: that’s my choice. The author of the piece didn’t make that choice. Why is it wrong to respect that?
I’m an artist and I fucking love it when people spread my work around without paying me. It honestly makes me feel great. I want people to enjoy what I’ve done.
They’re not posting that article in full because they’re making money from it or taking credit for it. They’re posting it because I can’t read the article you submitted. I can’t comment on your post that you didn’t even bother summarising without buying a subscription to The Atlantic and Lemmy isn’t a website for Atlantic subscribers.
When I moderated subreddits and people posted full articles, nobody batted an eye on a corporate website full of neoliberals because even they understood it’s a basic public service. If that post is supposed to be anything more than a headline, people need to be able to read it to engage with it. And that’s reddit. This is specifically a project that rebels against that corporate control and you’re that devoted to someone else’s profits. Presumably not your own unless you work for The Atlantic, but for someone else’s business that had almost $100m in revenue last year.
Why else would you make your own post unreadable in your own subcommunity unless 𝔢𝔫𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔠𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔯𝔲𝔩𝔢𝔰 filled some hole inside of you? What else would this possibly achieve on a website where almost all other paywalled article posts have a comment helpfully allowing people to read it? The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.
If we’re talking about a movie, should someone just pirate the movie and post it so that we can all talk about it without having to get a ticket to see it?
“The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.”
I did. I would remove any comment that’s just name-calling. How is that constructive? That won’t lead to any meaningful discussion. If you see someone else just calling you a name and doing nothing else, let me know and I’ll delete that, too.
Removed by mod
Why would you post the entirety of an article that is protected by copyright?
why would you contribute to making the Internet a worse place by enforcing copyright?
you basically posted a blank wall for people to stare at. meanwhile the user you are upset with contributed what you should have in the first place.
I just read the whole article in the Modlog. Oops!
Why do you think it’s okay to take someone else’s work and just copy and paste it wherever?
easy question, the answer is “because information should be free and readily available for all who seek it”.
Tell it to the author of the article. It’s his choice to make.
Did Simon Garfield communicate that to you? Do you have any emails or messages you can show us?
I doubt he cares because only his employers benefit from having the article paywalled.
Okay. It’s still a copyright owned by someone and it’s not freely licensed to just post wherever. I can’t control who assigned whatever copyright to others.
Who cares?
I’m really not.
Subscribing to the Atlantic won’t put any money in Simon Garfield’s pocket, but freely sharing his article will provide promotion for his book about the history of Comic Sans. Why do you think it’s okay to deny Simon Garfield some potential book sales?
I posted the article…
You posted a link to a paywall, unless you’re admitting to
COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.It’s not a blank wall: if you want to read it, you can do so legitimately. There’s no reason to rehost someone else’s work. How would you feel if you worked hard on something and someone just decided “I can copy it and paste it wherever I want”?
I’d feel fine, I don’t write for the purpose of making money, I write because it makes me happy. When I get paid for writing I get paid no matter the amount of clicks I get. All my art is released under Creative Commons or whatever the fuck it’s called. Why should I be anything other than happy that some internet hobbyists decided to share my work? You’re acting like this person is being robbed of something
I also release everything creative I’ve ever done to the public: that’s my choice. The author of the piece didn’t make that choice. Why is it wrong to respect that?
I’m an artist and I fucking love it when people spread my work around without paying me. It honestly makes me feel great. I want people to enjoy what I’ve done.
It’s really cool that that is what you choose to do. Neat.
Moderating must be such a pathological thing for you.
How so?
They’re not posting that article in full because they’re making money from it or taking credit for it. They’re posting it because I can’t read the article you submitted. I can’t comment on your post that you didn’t even bother summarising without buying a subscription to The Atlantic and Lemmy isn’t a website for Atlantic subscribers.
When I moderated subreddits and people posted full articles, nobody batted an eye on a corporate website full of neoliberals because even they understood it’s a basic public service. If that post is supposed to be anything more than a headline, people need to be able to read it to engage with it. And that’s reddit. This is specifically a project that rebels against that corporate control and you’re that devoted to someone else’s profits. Presumably not your own unless you work for The Atlantic, but for someone else’s business that had almost $100m in revenue last year.
Why else would you make your own post unreadable in your own subcommunity unless 𝔢𝔫𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔠𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔯𝔲𝔩𝔢𝔰 filled some hole inside of you? What else would this possibly achieve on a website where almost all other paywalled article posts have a comment helpfully allowing people to read it? The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.
Why can’t you read the article?
If we’re talking about a movie, should someone just pirate the movie and post it so that we can all talk about it without having to get a ticket to see it?
“The alternative to it being pathological for you is that you’re stupid.”
There’s no reason to be rude.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Then we agree to disagree.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Agreed it should be, but that’s the author’s choice to make, not everyone else’s.
?
I doubt the author has any say in the paywalling
Probably not.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lmao you removed my comment calling you a dork for caring about copyright
I did. I would remove any comment that’s just name-calling. How is that constructive? That won’t lead to any meaningful discussion. If you see someone else just calling you a name and doing nothing else, let me know and I’ll delete that, too.
Removed by mod
Me seeing this comment removed
Removed by mod
You’re kidding, correct? You think it’s a Stalinist society now? Wow.
Nah, I’m good. You have a nice day.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod