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.
You mentioned fascists and implied that I should moderate more like they do on their message boards. There's no need for a Godwin's Law hyperbole comment. Honestly.
I didn't mean Stormfront, the website for racists, that's just a Hexbear joke name we call Reddit, because it's also a website for racists. More lenient on copyright than you, though.
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?
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.
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.
Outperforming reddit for bootlicking is definitely some kinda statement...
Please stop posting no-value comments and noise.
Okay, this has nothing to do with fascism.
Edit: Are you asking me to be more like Stormfront? You think that is a winning strategy? Odd move.
I agree, it has nothing to do with fascism. Kind of a non sequitur though, because I never mentioned fascism.
You mentioned fascists and implied that I should moderate more like they do on their message boards. There's no need for a Godwin's Law hyperbole comment. Honestly.
I didn't mean Stormfront, the website for racists, that's just a Hexbear joke name we call Reddit, because it's also a website for racists. More lenient on copyright than you, though.
That's a pretty hilarious joke. Anyway, I don't have more to add to this, so you have a nice day.
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?I linked to an article, as I've already stated. If you don't want to pay attention, I don't know why you're here.
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.