5 ms·

It’s always funny how many tech people on here totally devalue others work and think it should be given away for free. Obviously they don’t want their stories

It’s always funny how many tech people on here totally devalue others work and think it should be given away for free. Obviously they don’t want their stories archived just like most tech employers don’t want their code archived.

gmerc 3y ago
code is not an end product. a story is.
- presentation 3y ago
  And therefore stories need not be compensated?
  - gmerc 3y ago
    Who said that?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Makes no sense. Are building plans an architect produces an end product? There are multiple end products as the lifecycle is very long.
fifteen1506 3y ago
Did you actually read the article? Unlike its paper counterparts, online papers are subject to article edition or outright article deletion. That's what at stake. Remember Orwell's 1984's newspaper article edition on the whims of the party's current views?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- endisneigh 3y ago
  So what? Code gets deleted too. Why do you think you’re entitled to versioning?
  - randerson 3y ago
    These articles not only record history but create history, in part by swaying public opinion. To edit an article years later so that its not what was originally published is a disservice to historians.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Code from big tech definitely sways public opinion just as much or even more so by controlling what is seen and when as well as by who. So you agree then code should also be free?
      - em-bee 3y ago
        not the same thing. more accurately, while i rarely have the need to run decades old software, i should have the right to. look at attempts to preserve old games. it's the same story. it should be legal to archive copies of old software. ideally with the source. that doesn't mean that the source should be free now, but it should most definitely be available once the copyright expires.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        So you agree old code should be free?
        em-bee 3y ago
        once the copyright expires it is obviously going to be free, yes. but someone needs to preserve the code until then.
        endisneigh 3y ago
- afavour 3y ago
  It’s both things, though. You can’t maintain an archive of content without bypassing the NYT paywall. To me the actual issue is a profit-driven business producing goods of important public value. There’s an inherent contradiction in there that doesn’t seem easy to solve.
0x445442 3y ago
Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  > Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here. This is a good example of what I’m talking about. Tech bros devaluing other professions work, lol.
  - 0x445442 3y ago
    If most of what was written wasn’t utter tripe the “tech bros” would probably value it more, lol.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  If the articles didn't preserve their value over time, then people wouldn't care to archive them.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
That's not an accurate summation of anti-copyright sentiment. The idea is that people should be paid for the work that they do and they shouldn't be able to continue getting paid after they've completed the job. e.g. If I employ a builder to build a wall, I would expect to pay them for their time, effort and materials, but when the wall is finished, I don't want to continue paying them and their descendants. The fundamental idea behind copyright is to provide an extra incentive to get people to create original works and in return, those works end should end up in the public domain. However, with copyright terms being so extreme, many works can disappear before they can enter the public domain which is fundamentally breaking the "contract". If a newspaper doesn't allow archiving to preserve historically interesting documents, then they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of copyright as they won't be fulfilling their side of the deal.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  And how do you reconcile your view with modern software development? Let me guess, software is different because it requires “maintenance”? How convenient that most creatives except software developers result in having to give away their stuff lol. Also the “contract” you’re referring to doesn’t seem to be rooted in any law, but rather your opinion.
  - yesco 3y ago
    Are you not familiar with open source or do you not understand it?
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Without referencing a specific license your comment isn’t really useful.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > And how do you reconcile your view with modern software development? I mainly work with Linux and open source software, and though I'm not a software developer, I'm more than happy to share any BASH scripts that I've written with anyone that wants them. > Also the “contract” you’re referring to doesn’t seem to be rooted in any law, but rather your opinion. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Ki... > The modern concept of copyright originated in Great Britain, in the year 1710, with the Statute of Anne. This Act prescribed a copyright term of fourteen years, and let the author renew for another fourteen years, after which the work went into the public domain. Over the years, additional acts and case law steadily refined the definitions of what could be protected, including derivative works, and the degree of protection given.
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Reminds me of the reaction whenever the controversy over training sets of artwork rears its head, honestly.

gmerc 3y ago

code is not an end product. a story is.

presentation 3y ago
And therefore stories need not be compensated?
- gmerc 3y ago
  Who said that?
endisneigh 3y ago
Makes no sense. Are building plans an architect produces an end product? There are multiple end products as the lifecycle is very long.

fifteen1506 3y ago

Did you actually read the article? Unlike its paper counterparts, online papers are subject to article edition or outright article deletion. That's what at stake. Remember Orwell's 1984's newspaper article edition on the whims of the party's current views?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
endisneigh 3y ago
So what? Code gets deleted too. Why do you think you’re entitled to versioning?
- randerson 3y ago
  These articles not only record history but create history, in part by swaying public opinion. To edit an article years later so that its not what was originally published is a disservice to historians.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Code from big tech definitely sways public opinion just as much or even more so by controlling what is seen and when as well as by who. So you agree then code should also be free?
    - em-bee 3y ago
      not the same thing. more accurately, while i rarely have the need to run decades old software, i should have the right to. look at attempts to preserve old games. it's the same story. it should be legal to archive copies of old software. ideally with the source. that doesn't mean that the source should be free now, but it should most definitely be available once the copyright expires.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        So you agree old code should be free?
        em-bee 3y ago
        once the copyright expires it is obviously going to be free, yes. but someone needs to preserve the code until then.
        endisneigh 3y ago
afavour 3y ago
It’s both things, though. You can’t maintain an archive of content without bypassing the NYT paywall. To me the actual issue is a profit-driven business producing goods of important public value. There’s an inherent contradiction in there that doesn’t seem easy to solve.

0x445442 3y ago

Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here.

endisneigh 3y ago
> Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes. Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve. I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here. This is a good example of what I’m talking about. Tech bros devaluing other professions work, lol.
- 0x445442 3y ago
  If most of what was written wasn’t utter tripe the “tech bros” would probably value it more, lol.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
If the articles didn't preserve their value over time, then people wouldn't care to archive them.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

That's not an accurate summation of anti-copyright sentiment. The idea is that people should be paid for the work that they do and they shouldn't be able to continue getting paid after they've completed the job. e.g. If I employ a builder to build a wall, I would expect to pay them for their time, effort and materials, but when the wall is finished, I don't want to continue paying them and their descendants. The fundamental idea behind copyright is to provide an extra incentive to get people to create original works and in return, those works end should end up in the public domain. However, with copyright terms being so extreme, many works can disappear before they can enter the public domain which is fundamentally breaking the "contract". If a newspaper doesn't allow archiving to preserve historically interesting documents, then they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of copyright as they won't be fulfilling their side of the deal.

endisneigh 3y ago
And how do you reconcile your view with modern software development? Let me guess, software is different because it requires “maintenance”? How convenient that most creatives except software developers result in having to give away their stuff lol. Also the “contract” you’re referring to doesn’t seem to be rooted in any law, but rather your opinion.
- yesco 3y ago
  Are you not familiar with open source or do you not understand it?
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Without referencing a specific license your comment isn’t really useful.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > And how do you reconcile your view with modern software development? I mainly work with Linux and open source software, and though I'm not a software developer, I'm more than happy to share any BASH scripts that I've written with anyone that wants them. > Also the “contract” you’re referring to doesn’t seem to be rooted in any law, but rather your opinion. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Ki... > The modern concept of copyright originated in Great Britain, in the year 1710, with the Statute of Anne. This Act prescribed a copyright term of fourteen years, and let the author renew for another fourteen years, after which the work went into the public domain. Over the years, additional acts and case law steadily refined the definitions of what could be protected, including derivative works, and the degree of protection given.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

Reminds me of the reaction whenever the controversy over training sets of artwork rears its head, honestly.