6 ms·

Would it be more ethical to not read the article, warn others of the modal and refuse the site further traffic instead of copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of some

Would it be more ethical to not read the article, warn others of the modal and refuse the site further traffic instead of copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour?

chrismonsanto 13y ago
I am not sure if you are asking a question, or if you are rhetorically stating your opinion. Either way, I personally feel like facilitating discussion on this site brings more benefit to the world than warning everyone not to visit the site and perhaps stifling discussion.
norswap 13y ago
I appreciate the contradiction "refuse the site further traffic" "copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour"
- NegativeK 13y ago
  How is that a contradiction? If you consider copy-pasting copywritten material to be bad, but the modal also bad, refusing the site traffic sounds like a completely reasonable way to deal with the modal.
  - norswap 13y ago
    The op implies that the comment drives traffic to the website (by generating discussion I suppose), and at the same time, somehow hurts the website by reproducing its content.
nakedrobot2 13y ago
No.
coldtea 13y ago
Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright. Considering this site is called "Hacker News" I doubt how many feel similarly, though it does have a huge business bend too.
- freyr 13y ago
  > Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies. This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free information, choose your side, go!" That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it was still worth it.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Not an ethical imperative to you, perhaps. I think the old adage needs an update. "The internet interprets censorship as well as annoying advertising as damage and routes around it"
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put effort into creating this and it's his livelihood. But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative some someone else to stomp on your business. Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical. To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said business was legal). So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it. Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated, or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a huge amount?
    - 13y ago
CamperBob2 13y ago
(Shrug) There are economic costs associated with abusing your readers the way that magazine does. This is one of them. The market, such as it is, has responded.

Would it be more ethical to not read the article, warn others of the modal and refuse the site further traffic instead of copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour?

chrismonsanto 13y ago

I am not sure if you are asking a question, or if you are rhetorically stating your opinion. Either way, I personally feel like facilitating discussion on this site brings more benefit to the world than warning everyone not to visit the site and perhaps stifling discussion.

norswap 13y ago

I appreciate the contradiction "refuse the site further traffic" "copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of someone's labour"

NegativeK 13y ago
How is that a contradiction? If you consider copy-pasting copywritten material to be bad, but the modal also bad, refusing the site traffic sounds like a completely reasonable way to deal with the modal.
- norswap 13y ago
  The op implies that the comment drives traffic to the website (by generating discussion I suppose), and at the same time, somehow hurts the website by reproducing its content.

nakedrobot2 13y ago

No.

coldtea 13y ago

Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright. Considering this site is called "Hacker News" I doubt how many feel similarly, though it does have a huge business bend too.

freyr 13y ago
> Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies. This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free information, choose your side, go!" That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it was still worth it.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Not an ethical imperative to you, perhaps. I think the old adage needs an update. "The internet interprets censorship as well as annoying advertising as damage and routes around it"
- coldtea 13y ago
  >To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put effort into creating this and it's his livelihood. But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative some someone else to stomp on your business. Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical. To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said business was legal). So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it. Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated, or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a huge amount?
  - 13y ago

CamperBob2 13y ago

(Shrug) There are economic costs associated with abusing your readers the way that magazine does. This is one of them. The market, such as it is, has responded.