• koavfOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why would you post the entirety of an article that is protected by copyright?

    • Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • koavfOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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”?

        • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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

          • koavfOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            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?

          • koavfOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s really cool that that is what you choose to do. Neat.

        • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

      • koavfOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.