4 ms·

While I think the web is probably a better place with reocities than without it, slapping ads on this content feels a tad bit slimy to me. I'm curious to hear y

by arst 16y ago

While I think the web is probably a better place with reocities than without it, slapping ads on this content feels a tad bit slimy to me. I'm curious to hear your take on the ethical and legal implications of it.

jacquesm 16y ago
The ads are actually a boost for a HN'er. And let's suppose for a second that they were not (as they have not been in the past), reocities has cost a fairly large amount of money to date (instead of made money, as you suggest), not a single person that has asked me to remove the content has ever commented on the presence of the ads, and neither has anybody that has found their stuff again because I backed it up. On the contrary, the reactions have been almost 100% positive with a very few exceptions.
- arst 16y ago
  (instead of made money, as you suggest) I apologize if that's how you read my post; I certainly didn't intend to suggest that or to belittle the amount of work and money that you've put into this project.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    If you put up half of the money that went in to it sight unseen then we'll call it even , deal ? ;)
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  This is from the Google stable of morals - if people don't know you're profiting from their copyright then it's OK. Presumably you have no legal right to redistribute any of the Geocities stuff? The fact you spent time and money on it is neither here nor there, that's not a moral|legal argument. Presumably there have been some exceptions (you intimate that), what sort of percentage does that amount to? If you calculate that as a true reflection of the whole population then how many people's copyright do you suppose you've infringed, knowingly, against their wishes? If someone takes your published material and slaps ads on it and republishes without your knowledge is that all good with you? (I'm guessing you may say yes here!). It's not just about economics, it's probably as much about moral rights. People believe that their Geocities content died and was buried. Of course they are pretty minor "offences" (or at least appears so) across a large population - akin to being a spammer or somesuch. Actually scratch that this is simply like copying others blog posts on a massive scale.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > Actually scratch that this is simply like copying others blog posts on a massive scale. No, this is saving those blog posts from extinction.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      I copied my content from Geocities to another provider and then on to my own site (eventually). I'm sure I'm not alone. Very little of that content is still live anywhere but there is a little I think. Also, why do you get to be the arbiter of whether others content can be allowed to disappear or not? If I own the copyright then it's within my rights to have all copies destroyed, for example, you secretly (as you've not notified copyright holders AFAICT) keeping a copy is infringing my moral right to control that work.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Not to toot my own horn here, but let me just give you one sample of the kind of email I get about this project, I'll leave you to judge the rest of them by this single one (it just happens to be the last one and more in this vein would be excessive and embarrassing): -- I don't know who you are, but I just want say you are an angel. I thought I had laid the very first website I ever built on geocities to rest, and words cannot describe my utter and complete surprise to find it resurrected on reocities. You say this project is a labor of love -- and that is exactly how I felt about my own website. It was, for at least 10 years of my life, the best expression of who I was, and it means so much to be able to relive that era again. You are truly doing a public service by preserving early relics of Internet culture. I can only imagine that generations from now, when people are digging into the history of the web, they will be fascinated by what you've saved. Thank you SO MUCH for doing what you do! webmistress reocities.com/avcorner2000 -- I'm not going to argue morality here with you any further, you apparently have a bee up your bonnet about this, but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished, there is no reason why this would be an exception. greetings
        pbhjpbhj 16y ago
- steve19 16y ago
  As a former Geocities user, I am very pleased he has placed ads on the site. Hopefully the ad revenue will cover the hosting costs indefinitely. If he makes a small profit, great! Hopefully that will encourage archivists of the future.
brianobush 16y ago
It is digital archeology. The content was as good as gone, just someone dug it up and put a big banner ad over it and selling lemonade on the side.
philwelch 16y ago
The AwesomenessReminder banner ads are perfect, though. Completely fit the style and the era.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Yes, I put them up there as a joke initially because Zachary came up with his animated gifs but then I thought oh, what the heck and left them up. I'm sure he's not making much money of them - if any - but it looked like a perfect fit. His new site looks much better actually: http://www.awesomenessreminders.com/ http://www.awesomenessreminders.com/
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >I'm sure he's not making much money of[f] them - if any - but it looked like a perfect fit. I think you're being disingenuous here. You've argued that you have a right to the content and to put your ads on it so why bother trying to spin that action as a minor benefit. If it's no benefit then save yourself and everyone else the bandwidth and remove the adframe. If it is a benefit then keep it and stand by your conviction that that is justified. PS: for your mate, the .logo {padding-left: } looks to be about 7px too much so it doesn't align with "Bring happiness [...]" strapline and the body text. I'm using FF3.6.11 on Kubuntu.

by arst 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

The ads are actually a boost for a HN'er. And let's suppose for a second that they were not (as they have not been in the past), reocities has cost a fairly large amount of money to date (instead of made money, as you suggest), not a single person that has asked me to remove the content has ever commented on the presence of the ads, and neither has anybody that has found their stuff again because I backed it up. On the contrary, the reactions have been almost 100% positive with a very few exceptions.

arst 16y ago
(instead of made money, as you suggest) I apologize if that's how you read my post; I certainly didn't intend to suggest that or to belittle the amount of work and money that you've put into this project.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  If you put up half of the money that went in to it sight unseen then we'll call it even , deal ? ;)
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
This is from the Google stable of morals - if people don't know you're profiting from their copyright then it's OK. Presumably you have no legal right to redistribute any of the Geocities stuff? The fact you spent time and money on it is neither here nor there, that's not a moral|legal argument. Presumably there have been some exceptions (you intimate that), what sort of percentage does that amount to? If you calculate that as a true reflection of the whole population then how many people's copyright do you suppose you've infringed, knowingly, against their wishes? If someone takes your published material and slaps ads on it and republishes without your knowledge is that all good with you? (I'm guessing you may say yes here!). It's not just about economics, it's probably as much about moral rights. People believe that their Geocities content died and was buried. Of course they are pretty minor "offences" (or at least appears so) across a large population - akin to being a spammer or somesuch. Actually scratch that this is simply like copying others blog posts on a massive scale.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Actually scratch that this is simply like copying others blog posts on a massive scale. No, this is saving those blog posts from extinction.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I copied my content from Geocities to another provider and then on to my own site (eventually). I'm sure I'm not alone. Very little of that content is still live anywhere but there is a little I think. Also, why do you get to be the arbiter of whether others content can be allowed to disappear or not? If I own the copyright then it's within my rights to have all copies destroyed, for example, you secretly (as you've not notified copyright holders AFAICT) keeping a copy is infringing my moral right to control that work.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Not to toot my own horn here, but let me just give you one sample of the kind of email I get about this project, I'll leave you to judge the rest of them by this single one (it just happens to be the last one and more in this vein would be excessive and embarrassing): -- I don't know who you are, but I just want say you are an angel. I thought I had laid the very first website I ever built on geocities to rest, and words cannot describe my utter and complete surprise to find it resurrected on reocities. You say this project is a labor of love -- and that is exactly how I felt about my own website. It was, for at least 10 years of my life, the best expression of who I was, and it means so much to be able to relive that era again. You are truly doing a public service by preserving early relics of Internet culture. I can only imagine that generations from now, when people are digging into the history of the web, they will be fascinated by what you've saved. Thank you SO MUCH for doing what you do! webmistress reocities.com/avcorner2000 -- I'm not going to argue morality here with you any further, you apparently have a bee up your bonnet about this, but as they say, no good deed goes unpunished, there is no reason why this would be an exception. greetings
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
steve19 16y ago
As a former Geocities user, I am very pleased he has placed ads on the site. Hopefully the ad revenue will cover the hosting costs indefinitely. If he makes a small profit, great! Hopefully that will encourage archivists of the future.

brianobush 16y ago

It is digital archeology. The content was as good as gone, just someone dug it up and put a big banner ad over it and selling lemonade on the side.

philwelch 16y ago

The AwesomenessReminder banner ads are perfect, though. Completely fit the style and the era.

jacquesm 16y ago
Yes, I put them up there as a joke initially because Zachary came up with his animated gifs but then I thought oh, what the heck and left them up. I'm sure he's not making much money of them - if any - but it looked like a perfect fit. His new site looks much better actually: http://www.awesomenessreminders.com/ http://www.awesomenessreminders.com/
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >I'm sure he's not making much money of[f] them - if any - but it looked like a perfect fit. I think you're being disingenuous here. You've argued that you have a right to the content and to put your ads on it so why bother trying to spin that action as a minor benefit. If it's no benefit then save yourself and everyone else the bandwidth and remove the adframe. If it is a benefit then keep it and stand by your conviction that that is justified. PS: for your mate, the .logo {padding-left: } looks to be about 7px too much so it doesn't align with "Bring happiness [...]" strapline and the body text. I'm using FF3.6.11 on Kubuntu.