8 ms·
So you'd thought you'd break the law and steal their content?
by mattmanser 13y ago
So you'd thought you'd break the law and steal their content?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ToastyMallows 13y agoI had no problem getting in, this isn't behind a paywall of any sort.
- Flimm 13y agoIt's probably a violation of copyright to copy an article and paste it here. Copyright automatically applies, paywall or not.
- bananacurve 13y agoThe copyright holder is free to send pg a takedown request letter. https://news.ycombinator.com/dmca.html https://news.ycombinator.com/dmca.html
- sizzle 13y agothank you
- officemonkey 13y agoI would argue that the Fair Use Doctrine means it's probably not a violation.
- smartwater 13y agoYou can't use 100% of something and claim fair-use, that's not how it works.
- officemonkey 13y agoYes you can. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright law sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. * The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes * The nature of the copyrighted work * The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work You don't have to prove all four factors. You just have to prove that the use is fair. For example, if I write a haiku and someone writes an article analyzing my haiku for educational purposes, the use may be considered fair, even if they use the entire poem.
- austerity 13y agoI've just checked and the content is still there, so he clearly hasn't stolen it.
- throwawaykf03 13y agoWell, people were going to that site to get the content, and now they are not (all) going there. Clearly the site has lost something, especially something that ties directly into their revenue. If one considers the content as a proxy for the lost revenue -- which is reasonable, since it's the content that attracts traffic -- one could say it's been stolen. Of course, since it's not your work that is being mis-appropriated, you're free to look at it another way :-)
- chongli 13y agoI would surmise that most readers of Hacker News either use an ad-blocker or don't click on ads often/ever. Viewed in this light, traffic to the site from here might even be considered a cost!
- chaz 13y agoRevenue is to be made on unique visitors and impressions. No clicks are required.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y agoSo the loss of traffic is a good thing because advertisers aren't paying for impressions that aren't actually seen? ;)
- chaz 13y agoThe advertiser usually doesn't care, since most ad blockers prevent the ad call, and their budget will be spent on another visitor. The ad blockers that render the ad off-canvas are bad for the advertiser, since they're getting charged for an ad that has no possibility of being seen. Sites want as many unique visitors as possible because larger sites get more attention from advertisers, it permits better frequency capping, and enables better segmentation of audiences. Even though they get paid per impression, larger uniques tend to allow for higher CPMs. Separately, it's worth considering that many writers are measured on metrics: uniques, minutes, shares, comments, etc. In some places, they might even get paid on such performance (I think Gawker did this). When content gets copied, the writer can be deprived of such credit.
- kalleboo 13y agoYes.