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.
Not even cares about reposting articles and has subreddits dedicated to piracy, you’re being more reactionary about defending corporations than the corporate site full of ads.
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?
But it does violate a copyright to post the article, which you claimed to have done. So which did you do, post the article (and commit a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION) or post a link to a paywall?
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?
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?
No and no.
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?
Me.
https://nedroidcomics.tumblr.com/post/41879001445/the-internet
Not even
cares about reposting articles and has subreddits dedicated to piracy, you’re being more reactionary about defending corporations than the corporate site full of ads.
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 does not violate a copyright to provide a link.
But it does violate a copyright to post the article, which you claimed to have done. So which did you do, post the article (and commit a
COPYRIGHT VIOLATION) or post a link to a paywall?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?