5 ms·

You’re explaining this to someone who undoubtedly knows that, and is making a different point than you think (which is that it doesn’t matter). We all know wha

You’re explaining this to someone who undoubtedly knows that, and is making a different point than you think (which is that it doesn’t matter). We all know what copyright is. We all know nobody cares online, too. Those of us who remember the work when published originally also know that you’re making an argument that _why would hate you making, and that they consciously chose to avoid through how they published. I can tell how you’re arguing here that you don’t remember or didn’t know _why’s preferences, which is itself somewhat disrespectful. Stick to the respect, which is an interesting thought to consider, and spare the copyright litigation. It’s honestly tedious.

qbasic_forever 4y ago
No one other than _why can say what their intentions and desires for their works are. The exact same argument you're making is what someone who would steal _why's work and charge money to republish it would make. Imagine if someone ganked the poignant guide to ruby and it became a NYT bestseller... can they just say "oh this is what _why would have wanted, for more people to read this" and walk away with all the profits? Copyright is there for a reason, to protect the owner of a work. If _why chooses to do so they can go after anyone republishing their work for money or not.
- enneff 4y ago
  That’s totally different to republishing something for free.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > If _why chooses to do so they can go after anyone republishing their work Given that they haven’t. And haven’t for years, I imagine they’re done with the whole thing.
pessimizer 4y ago
It's not disrespectful to argue that putting something on the internet doesn't make it public domain, no matter what _why thought or thinks. If _why doesn't want it taken down, he won't ask them to take it down. That doesn't mean that conversations about whether things put the internet become publicly owned, even sparked by someone bootlegging a defunct site under the original domain name, have to hinge on what _why thinks. Or whether things put on the internet are any more publicly owned than books, television shows, or movies, which can all easily be put on the internet (and which everybody agrees is extremely problematic irt the law.) edit: also, this really reeks of weird parasocial hero worship unless you know the man and have asked him about it.
- jopperdoo 4y ago
  He discussed his preferences on copyright. It’s projecting a weird kind of parasocial hero worship to assume I meant otherwise despite my not giving you a single shred of evidence on my opinion of him. I actually detest your little edit because you’ve charged my opinion and put me on a defensive footing regarding my opinion of somebody who I honestly couldn’t care less about (sorry; wasn’t my scene). I worked very hard to avoid saying that because I know he’s loved and my opinion doesn’t matter. But you had to make me say it. I’ve not written a single line of Ruby in my life and even I know his thoughts on copyright and public domain and intellectual property, is the point. I actually hate how many people worship him like he’s Jesus because the content is more interesting than the person, which is the case for pretty much anyone creative and has nothing to do with him. (Something tells me he’d vibe on that take, too, given how he left.)
  - upupandup 4y ago
    They are also doing this to Dan Price, an alleged sexual predator and rapist. he was famous for the $70,000 / year minimum salary policy. It's bizarre to see this much idolization and moral policing online. And back to the parent's comment and others regurgitating the same circular logic: We know its not public domain on legal term but we are saying it might as well be because of the irreversible nature of making any content publicly available on the internet which more or less is identical to putting your content in public domain. I suspect a lot of this rigid thinking and hyper sensitivity to word is spectrum behavior and I am already seeing several people. This is like people arguing people who pirate should be put in prison. I wonder what type of world they live in to be this rigid and black & white thinking. Must be quite isolating

qbasic_forever 4y ago

No one other than _why can say what their intentions and desires for their works are. The exact same argument you're making is what someone who would steal _why's work and charge money to republish it would make. Imagine if someone ganked the poignant guide to ruby and it became a NYT bestseller... can they just say "oh this is what _why would have wanted, for more people to read this" and walk away with all the profits? Copyright is there for a reason, to protect the owner of a work. If _why chooses to do so they can go after anyone republishing their work for money or not.

enneff 4y ago
That’s totally different to republishing something for free.
Aeolun 4y ago
> If _why chooses to do so they can go after anyone republishing their work Given that they haven’t. And haven’t for years, I imagine they’re done with the whole thing.

pessimizer 4y ago

It's not disrespectful to argue that putting something on the internet doesn't make it public domain, no matter what _why thought or thinks. If _why doesn't want it taken down, he won't ask them to take it down. That doesn't mean that conversations about whether things put the internet become publicly owned, even sparked by someone bootlegging a defunct site under the original domain name, have to hinge on what _why thinks. Or whether things put on the internet are any more publicly owned than books, television shows, or movies, which can all easily be put on the internet (and which everybody agrees is extremely problematic irt the law.) edit: also, this really reeks of weird parasocial hero worship unless you know the man and have asked him about it.

jopperdoo 4y ago
He discussed his preferences on copyright. It’s projecting a weird kind of parasocial hero worship to assume I meant otherwise despite my not giving you a single shred of evidence on my opinion of him. I actually detest your little edit because you’ve charged my opinion and put me on a defensive footing regarding my opinion of somebody who I honestly couldn’t care less about (sorry; wasn’t my scene). I worked very hard to avoid saying that because I know he’s loved and my opinion doesn’t matter. But you had to make me say it. I’ve not written a single line of Ruby in my life and even I know his thoughts on copyright and public domain and intellectual property, is the point. I actually hate how many people worship him like he’s Jesus because the content is more interesting than the person, which is the case for pretty much anyone creative and has nothing to do with him. (Something tells me he’d vibe on that take, too, given how he left.)
- upupandup 4y ago
  They are also doing this to Dan Price, an alleged sexual predator and rapist. he was famous for the $70,000 / year minimum salary policy. It's bizarre to see this much idolization and moral policing online. And back to the parent's comment and others regurgitating the same circular logic: We know its not public domain on legal term but we are saying it might as well be because of the irreversible nature of making any content publicly available on the internet which more or less is identical to putting your content in public domain. I suspect a lot of this rigid thinking and hyper sensitivity to word is spectrum behavior and I am already seeing several people. This is like people arguing people who pirate should be put in prison. I wonder what type of world they live in to be this rigid and black & white thinking. Must be quite isolating