6 ms·

Thanks!

by apazzolini 8y ago

Thanks!

robotresearcher 8y ago
HN loves IP except when it doesn't.
- brianpan 8y ago
  Because....everything I write on Facebook belongs to Facebook?
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    It belongs to Carmack, it's like copying the entire text of a blog post from someone else's blog and then hosting it on your own blog.
    - untog 8y ago
      Like when Google puts it in the cache, or when archive.org crawls it, or when I add it to my Pocket reading list?
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        You can request that the internet archive stop hosting your copyrighted materials... http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#20 http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#20 Arguing that copyright laws don't exist because you can find examples of people ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they exist.
- bonsai80 8y ago
  Alternative: https://web.archive.org/web/20180514170531/https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825593223&id=100006735798590 https://web.archive.org/web/20180514170531/https://m.faceboo...
  - jakear 8y ago
    This doesn’t really change anything. How is archive.org reposting it different from ycombinator.com doing the same?
- jakear 8y ago
  I do think an ethical debate exists. To me the question is whether John published this purely to get his word out, or if he did it as an agent of Facebook to increase traffic and thereby ad revenue to Facebook. I believe it is the former, in which case I haven’t done anything wrong. But that could just be my moral compass baising towards anything I do.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    That's not how copyright works. Unless you have his permission, you really don't have any right to repost his blog post in it's entirety. If you were engaging it criticism or some other kind of fair use, that would be fine, but you can't just assume that the copyright owner is ok with how you're using their copyright unless you asked them or they gave everyone permission.
    - et-al 8y ago
      We're having some copyright discussion about reposting John Carmack's "blog" post on HACKER News. Look, for all you that care that Mr. Carmack might mind; send him a link to the post and if he wants to DMCA it, or ask Dang or Scott to take it down, he can. I'm personally thankful I don't have to click a link to a tracking-ridden, third-party site that may or may not have the content originally linked two weeks later.
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        The "Hacker" in HN is not "someone who breaks the law with a computer" but "someone who does clever things." I'm not the copyright holder, I don't really care in the grand scheme of things. I'm just posting factual information about copyright. If you want to dispute that information, that's fine.
        SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        I'm noticing this more and more just lately. Besides, knowing how to copy and paste doesn't really make one a _hacker_ no matter which way you slice it.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  As Stallman says, there is no such thing as „intellectual property”, at least not in law. There is copyright, patents, trademarks, etc., but „intellectual property” is an abstract invention.
  - delecti 8y ago
    "Intellectual property" is just an umbrella term that rightly recognizes the similarities between copyright/patent/trademark. There may be no legal definition for the term, but nobody's confused about what it means.
    - craigsmansion 8y ago
      > rightly recognizes the similarities between copyright/patent/trademark. Can you elaborate on those similarities? Stallman, in his essay[1], states some important differences. He makes a coherent argument. So what similarities here are "rightly" recognised? I'm not saying you're wrong, but "nobody's confused" is not really a complete counter-argument. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html , viz, "These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others."
      - delecti 8y ago
        I think the term "IP" is meant to highlight the one big similarity they share. We recognize that this thing, which is more of an idea than an object, belongs to an entity (person/company/government/whatever), and that entity has control over some of the finer details of how that thing is used. That's even pretty readily apparent in the term itself: "intellectual property", property that is more of a thought than a thing. Maybe it's a bit euphemistic, and to someone with Stallman's beliefs, the propagation of the term probably seems more than a bit dystopian, but it's still a useful umbrella.
- echlebek 8y ago
  I think it's probably fine. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353
- loco5niner 8y ago
  John Carmack doesn't seem to mind: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353

Thanks!

robotresearcher 8y ago

HN loves IP except when it doesn't.

brianpan 8y ago
Because....everything I write on Facebook belongs to Facebook?
- chickenfries 8y ago
  It belongs to Carmack, it's like copying the entire text of a blog post from someone else's blog and then hosting it on your own blog.
  - untog 8y ago
    Like when Google puts it in the cache, or when archive.org crawls it, or when I add it to my Pocket reading list?
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      You can request that the internet archive stop hosting your copyrighted materials... http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#20 http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#20 Arguing that copyright laws don't exist because you can find examples of people ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they exist.
bonsai80 8y ago
Alternative: https://web.archive.org/web/20180514170531/https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825593223&id=100006735798590 https://web.archive.org/web/20180514170531/https://m.faceboo...
- jakear 8y ago
  This doesn’t really change anything. How is archive.org reposting it different from ycombinator.com doing the same?
jakear 8y ago
I do think an ethical debate exists. To me the question is whether John published this purely to get his word out, or if he did it as an agent of Facebook to increase traffic and thereby ad revenue to Facebook. I believe it is the former, in which case I haven’t done anything wrong. But that could just be my moral compass baising towards anything I do.
- chickenfries 8y ago
  That's not how copyright works. Unless you have his permission, you really don't have any right to repost his blog post in it's entirety. If you were engaging it criticism or some other kind of fair use, that would be fine, but you can't just assume that the copyright owner is ok with how you're using their copyright unless you asked them or they gave everyone permission.
  - et-al 8y ago
    We're having some copyright discussion about reposting John Carmack's "blog" post on HACKER News. Look, for all you that care that Mr. Carmack might mind; send him a link to the post and if he wants to DMCA it, or ask Dang or Scott to take it down, he can. I'm personally thankful I don't have to click a link to a tracking-ridden, third-party site that may or may not have the content originally linked two weeks later.
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      The "Hacker" in HN is not "someone who breaks the law with a computer" but "someone who does clever things." I'm not the copyright holder, I don't really care in the grand scheme of things. I'm just posting factual information about copyright. If you want to dispute that information, that's fine.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        I'm noticing this more and more just lately. Besides, knowing how to copy and paste doesn't really make one a _hacker_ no matter which way you slice it.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
As Stallman says, there is no such thing as „intellectual property”, at least not in law. There is copyright, patents, trademarks, etc., but „intellectual property” is an abstract invention.
- delecti 8y ago
  "Intellectual property" is just an umbrella term that rightly recognizes the similarities between copyright/patent/trademark. There may be no legal definition for the term, but nobody's confused about what it means.
  - craigsmansion 8y ago
    > rightly recognizes the similarities between copyright/patent/trademark. Can you elaborate on those similarities? Stallman, in his essay[1], states some important differences. He makes a coherent argument. So what similarities here are "rightly" recognised? I'm not saying you're wrong, but "nobody's confused" is not really a complete counter-argument. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html , viz, "These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others."
    - delecti 8y ago
      I think the term "IP" is meant to highlight the one big similarity they share. We recognize that this thing, which is more of an idea than an object, belongs to an entity (person/company/government/whatever), and that entity has control over some of the finer details of how that thing is used. That's even pretty readily apparent in the term itself: "intellectual property", property that is more of a thought than a thing. Maybe it's a bit euphemistic, and to someone with Stallman's beliefs, the propagation of the term probably seems more than a bit dystopian, but it's still a useful umbrella.
echlebek 8y ago
I think it's probably fine. https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353
loco5niner 8y ago
John Carmack doesn't seem to mind: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/996148026258276353