4 ms·

I've just checked and the content is still there, so he clearly hasn't stolen it.

throwawaykf03 13y ago
Well, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Revenue is to be made on unique visitors and impressions. No clicks are required.
    - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
      So the loss of traffic is a good thing because advertisers aren't paying for impressions that aren't actually seen? ;)
      - chaz 13y ago
        The 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.
        TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > 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. I was wondering whether such ad-blockers exist. Searching for one and installing it now.
chaz 13y ago
We all know that he means copyright infringement: the content was reproduced without permission. Using the literal definitions of the words "stealing,""theft," and "piracy" mistakes pedantry as rebuttal, and helps no one when discussing copyrights.
- DougBTX 13y ago
  I'm all for using the actual meaning of words. If that means it is harder to make emotional arguments, then so be it.
  - chaz 13y ago
    I am, too, but like "hacking," those horses have long left the barn.
  - BlackDeath3 13y ago
    Though I had a good chuckle at the grandparent post, it seems to be less about preventing emotional arguments and more about derailing a legitimate concern (potential loss of revenue or whatever) with pedantry.
  - chc 13y ago
    Words do not have an "actual" meaning. They have definitions assigned on a more or less arbitrary basis, and there may be multiple conflicting definitions for any one word†. The Greeks used to believe that foreigners were stupid because they spoke something that was not proper Greek. Nowadays we laugh at their naïveté, but then turn around and talk about the "actual meaning of words." It's just silly. † Just within English we have words like "cleave," that are widely accepted as meaning both "hold on tightly" and "separate." And in Spanish, we have "dame" which means "give," while in Japanese they use the same word to mean "don't do that." Can we declare the Spanish or the Japanese to be wrong about what that word means?
    - Crito 13y ago
      > Words do not have an "actual" meaning. When they are terms of art, they frequently do.

Well, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Revenue is to be made on unique visitors and impressions. No clicks are required.
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    So the loss of traffic is a good thing because advertisers aren't paying for impressions that aren't actually seen? ;)
    - chaz 13y ago
      The 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.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > 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. I was wondering whether such ad-blockers exist. Searching for one and installing it now.

chaz 13y ago

We all know that he means copyright infringement: the content was reproduced without permission. Using the literal definitions of the words "stealing,""theft," and "piracy" mistakes pedantry as rebuttal, and helps no one when discussing copyrights.

DougBTX 13y ago
I'm all for using the actual meaning of words. If that means it is harder to make emotional arguments, then so be it.
- chaz 13y ago
  I am, too, but like "hacking," those horses have long left the barn.
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  Though I had a good chuckle at the grandparent post, it seems to be less about preventing emotional arguments and more about derailing a legitimate concern (potential loss of revenue or whatever) with pedantry.
- chc 13y ago
  Words do not have an "actual" meaning. They have definitions assigned on a more or less arbitrary basis, and there may be multiple conflicting definitions for any one word†. The Greeks used to believe that foreigners were stupid because they spoke something that was not proper Greek. Nowadays we laugh at their naïveté, but then turn around and talk about the "actual meaning of words." It's just silly. † Just within English we have words like "cleave," that are widely accepted as meaning both "hold on tightly" and "separate." And in Spanish, we have "dame" which means "give," while in Japanese they use the same word to mean "don't do that." Can we declare the Spanish or the Japanese to be wrong about what that word means?
  - Crito 13y ago
    > Words do not have an "actual" meaning. When they are terms of art, they frequently do.