3 ms·
The thing is Wikipedia is out there for anyone to link to, without paying a dime, and there are no legal requirements for compensation. Now, you and others may
by drivingmenuts 9y ago
The thing is Wikipedia is out there for anyone to link to, without paying a dime, and there are no legal requirements for compensation.
Now, you and others may think they have some ethical responsibility (I'm not sure I agree with that) but if YouTube had to parse all the ethical requirements their users thought they had to abide by, they'd never get anything done.
B2B interactions are never bound by the same ethical constraints that human-to-human interactions are. Corporations are not people - they can be bound by laws but not arbitrary social conventions.
Near as I can tell, Wikipedia is SOL unless YouTube wants to help them out. YT is certainly not obligated to.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Corporations are not people - they can be bound by laws but not arbitrary social conventions. Corporations are bound by social conventions for the same reason natural persons are: if they sufficiently violate them, people impose consequences on the corporation by actively avoiding interactions beneficial to the corporation.
- belorn 9y agoThis is not about linking. Anyone can link to Wikipedia articles without paying a dime. There is a very significant difference between linking to an article like what HN does, and copying new articles and publish them which HN does not.
- rickycook 9y agobecause if it’s legal, it’s morally acceptable right? i guess the patent trolls are in the right then.