4 ms·

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 i

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.
- paganel 8y ago
  > site that may or may not have the content originally linked two weeks later. I have a handful of web personal projects which I built and maintain just for fun (no ads on them), pretty light on the incoming traffic, to put it nicely, but a couple of days ago one of them received a spike in traffic originating from Facebook. But looking at the referral got me into a black hole, i.e. the infamous l.php FB page which doesn’t tell me anything about which page linked to my website, in other words totally opposed to the original idea behind the www. Like I said, I maintain those projects just for fun and I was really looking forward to having a conversation about said project that got linked to with whomever decided to follow said link, but because you can’t peak at all behind FB’s wall that meant that that idea was dead from the very start.

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.
paganel 8y ago
> site that may or may not have the content originally linked two weeks later. I have a handful of web personal projects which I built and maintain just for fun (no ads on them), pretty light on the incoming traffic, to put it nicely, but a couple of days ago one of them received a spike in traffic originating from Facebook. But looking at the referral got me into a black hole, i.e. the infamous l.php FB page which doesn’t tell me anything about which page linked to my website, in other words totally opposed to the original idea behind the www. Like I said, I maintain those projects just for fun and I was really looking forward to having a conversation about said project that got linked to with whomever decided to follow said link, but because you can’t peak at all behind FB’s wall that meant that that idea was dead from the very start.