4 ms·

I also agree with you, though I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. IMO I agree any website should be able to

I also agree with you, though I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. IMO I agree any website should be able to opt out (or in) of Facebook if they like (i seriously doubt they would), and then everyone can run their own website.

actuator 6y ago
> I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. I think this is a slippery slope on copyright enforcement, we have seen it getting ridiculous on YouTube. What if someone shares a screenshot of the article? and if we do this, are we not allowed to write dialogue exchange from movies in social media posts as well?
- aplummer 6y ago
  I think you raise the kind of grey area legislation would be good to look at (fair use), not what we are looking at now. I guess from my brief thinking is once your bot visits the site to scrape it (and uses resources from the vendor) it’s a bit different to a screenshot.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    There is a trivial way to avoid being scraped by a search engine robots.txt For facebook most of the time when it creates a screenshot to show next to the title in a share results in 1 or possibly many views driving revenue for the linked site for a small increase in bandwidth. For example their site gets pulled once and read a dozen times.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  What if someone shares a screenshot of the article? Probably no different than someone photocopying a newspaper article in a library. One of the colleges I went to had pretty strict rules about that posted right above the copy machine.
himinlomax 6y ago
> though I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. Can you copyright 10 words? What about 5? 1?
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Can you copyright 10 words? What about 5? 1? What did your research turn up?
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    This interesting entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      I prefer this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(fallacy)
madeofpalk 6y ago
The websites are explicitly giving that data to Facebook or others by annotating their HTML with the OG meta tags.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  This is only a legitimate criticism if Facebook and the other didn't show a web page if it didn't have OG tags. The publishers adding OG tags is a coping mechanism, not an invitation. And there are a lot of other ways that OG metadata gets used besides social media.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce a work in order to inspire the creation of works. It is not a moral right to control others communications. The reasons it is nonsense to own exclusive right to a title -It hamstrings communication about the work including both criticism and the ordinary business of civilization where we communicate things that we have learned with one another. The title is the only proper referent. -It never stands in for the work itself unless the work is itself so trivial as to be not worth protection. For example [insert name] died that is all. There is no reason to suppose one ought to be able to opt in or out of being shared on Facebook than one could opt in or out of being shared in an email or in a coffee shop. Can you imagine going into starbucks and seeing a list of authors whose works were licensed to be discussed there. A lot of people confuse there being a handle somewhere with the right to grasp it. Facebook being at a central point in many people's communication could pay the parties being discussed, so could your email provider, or your cellphone carrier. Any of the above could allow parties to censor your communications at the behest of others like you suggested. The fact that copyright is so adaptable as to readily be twisted into such ridiculous ideas is a good argument for throwing the whole thing in the trash.

actuator 6y ago

> I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. I think this is a slippery slope on copyright enforcement, we have seen it getting ridiculous on YouTube. What if someone shares a screenshot of the article? and if we do this, are we not allowed to write dialogue exchange from movies in social media posts as well?

aplummer 6y ago
I think you raise the kind of grey area legislation would be good to look at (fair use), not what we are looking at now. I guess from my brief thinking is once your bot visits the site to scrape it (and uses resources from the vendor) it’s a bit different to a screenshot.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  There is a trivial way to avoid being scraped by a search engine robots.txt For facebook most of the time when it creates a screenshot to show next to the title in a share results in 1 or possibly many views driving revenue for the linked site for a small increase in bandwidth. For example their site gets pulled once and read a dozen times.
reaperducer 6y ago
What if someone shares a screenshot of the article? Probably no different than someone photocopying a newspaper article in a library. One of the colleges I went to had pretty strict rules about that posted right above the copy machine.

himinlomax 6y ago

> though I wonder about the copyright to the headline and blurb content when other people share. Can you copyright 10 words? What about 5? 1?

reaperducer 6y ago
Can you copyright 10 words? What about 5? 1? What did your research turn up?
- himinlomax 6y ago
  This interesting entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    I prefer this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(fallacy)

madeofpalk 6y ago

The websites are explicitly giving that data to Facebook or others by annotating their HTML with the OG meta tags.

reaperducer 6y ago
This is only a legitimate criticism if Facebook and the other didn't show a web page if it didn't have OG tags. The publishers adding OG tags is a coping mechanism, not an invitation. And there are a lot of other ways that OG metadata gets used besides social media.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce a work in order to inspire the creation of works. It is not a moral right to control others communications. The reasons it is nonsense to own exclusive right to a title -It hamstrings communication about the work including both criticism and the ordinary business of civilization where we communicate things that we have learned with one another. The title is the only proper referent. -It never stands in for the work itself unless the work is itself so trivial as to be not worth protection. For example [insert name] died that is all. There is no reason to suppose one ought to be able to opt in or out of being shared on Facebook than one could opt in or out of being shared in an email or in a coffee shop. Can you imagine going into starbucks and seeing a list of authors whose works were licensed to be discussed there. A lot of people confuse there being a handle somewhere with the right to grasp it. Facebook being at a central point in many people's communication could pay the parties being discussed, so could your email provider, or your cellphone carrier. Any of the above could allow parties to censor your communications at the behest of others like you suggested. The fact that copyright is so adaptable as to readily be twisted into such ridiculous ideas is a good argument for throwing the whole thing in the trash.