For better or worse, when you publish something on the internet it no longer belongs entirely to you.
The files and such may live forever, but your ability to publish them, reproduce them, etc. is only allowed if you were granted a license to do so.. i.e. if _why published them under a permissive or open source license.
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.
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.
Given that they haven’t. And haven’t for years, I imagine they’re done with the whole thing.
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.
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.)
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
But I think the bigger point is, if you're a fan of WTLS, it seems very odd to be so disrespectful of WTLS's desires. I can only conclude the the party who put up the archive is someone who wants to hurt WTLS's feelings, or at least is quite willing to do so.
The average HN user who posts blog content and deletes it is not going to be able to stop it from being distributed. Technically they own the copyright to its content but the end result would be identical to if he or she had announced it to be in public domain. Anybody anywhere could freely share and publish its content on platforms without any consequences unless you notify the platform with DMCA notice and it would be largely up to the discretion of the platform to comply or not as many hosting services explicitly advertise such "bulletproof" hosting.
Your own take on what's moral and not has no bearing here since we don't know how the author feels about his work being shared. Yeah I get it that he has copyright to it but its not exactly enforceable on the internet.
Internet Archive operates the same way, if they receive DMCA notice, they need to comply in order to keep the safe harbour process.
As to whether WTL will file a DMCA to take down his material, it looks unlikely. For whatever reason he suddenly wanted to be out of limelight and I get the feeling that he doesn't care much whether his work is shared or not but who knows, maybe he will come out of the woodwork to raise his voice (which would be in contrast to his reclusive state).
He really is a mysterious figure and even more mysterious is the sheer amount of effort he put into his work and passion to share it suddenly relinquished overnight, out of whim? stress? depression? We can only guess.
They have removed web sites before due to copyright claims and have a DMCA claim process.
However, the platforms and websites that publish that leak cannot be held accountable nor are they beholden to any agreement between you and your partner. Simply because there is no explicit /implicit agreement outside those two parties.
The same logic applies to whatever material you publish on the web. Once it enters public domain, you've relinquished the control over its distribution. The principle here is that once you publish to a public domain and while you can claim copyright and take down the material using DMCA, as long as the platform complies they are granted safe harbour and you are not going to be able to claim damages especially if you did not commercialize it. Even if a game you were selling were distributed online, it would be very tough to stop or go after platforms that hosted it.
Following the "partner leaked pictures" scenario, the opinion of courts with precedent ruling is that it demonstrates an explicit boundary between the parties involved in the original leak of the picture who are known to each other vs third parties that consume it who have no idea what agreements took place between them. Damages to the partner that leaked it can be held responsible but neither the platform or its audience. Even if they monetized the content, they would not be at fault because there is no implicit/explicit agreement once those leaks enter the public domain.
I don't know why we are getting side tracked with leaked nudes scenario but the gist of it is that only your partner that leaked your nudes are liable. If he/she uploads and it enters public domain and is shared amongst the entire cities spanning the globe the platform and its audience cannot be held responsible because of the lack of implicit/explicit agreement between the subject in the photo and the original distributor.
> it remains a violation of copyright for him or anyone else to post them without your permission, and damages can be claimed.
You can file DMCA to take down the photos and you can claim damages from the leaker, not the people who distributed it after the fact and the platforms that monetized and hosted the content.
Otherwise we would not be able to enjoy websites like xvideos or pornhub, who would take down the photos/videos if requested through DMCA but would not be liable for further dissemination nor will its audience.
Simply said and put: Once you put out content in the public domain or view, you lose control of it, and you cannot put the cat back in the bag. Copyright laws and right to privacy IS NOT going to change this principle.
Think about it... if the opposite were true then I could watch or download a TV show from Hulu for free and claim I own it and rebroadcast it to others while charging them money. That's not how it works though, just because I watched it for free doesn't mean it's public domain and I am free to do whatever I want with it.
putting it in public domain or publishing it on the internet results in the same outcome, you lose control over it's access and distribution. its even worse because if you try to censor it or known to litigate, it would cause streisand effect.
you are not hulu and you cannot afford the legal costs. even then it still doesn't stop torrent websites from hosting your content and distributing it.
More damages could be potentially claimed if the pictures your ex are posting are pictures you sell commercially, in fact, because you've demonstrated that those photos have value and that you depend on your copyrights to make a living.
You are also wrong on the scenario with leaked photos. The partner who leaked is liable not the rest of us who view it and share it.
Your last sentence also couldn't be further from the truth. Someone who is making ad revenues also isn't at fault and compliance with DMCA notice would be enough for them to continue operating.
Public domain is a legal term of art. It is not the internet, and it is not achieved by publishing something on the internet.
Common carrier status is orthogonal to all this.
Of course, as per the laws of most countries it is also a copyright violation and the copyright holder can absolutely sue for such behavior, with penalties ranging from a legal obligation to cease to host the content to damages.
True; instead it is explicit. This isn't controversial at all, in typical jurisdiction unless explicitly released into public domain the author retains all copyright - your consuming one of those copies gives you no further rights at all.
As a matter of practicality, it probably wont be acted on. Unless there is enough money involved to go after such copyright violations, it's unlikely anyone will bother...
They teach stories in high school these days that came from manuscripts Franz Kafka explicitly demanded be burned upon his death. It is, perhaps, disrespectful.
Perhaps we all disrespect him with every new generation of students.
Perhaps that's a strangely fitting fate for the man who is the namesake of the term "Kafkaesque." I'd like to hope he'd laugh, but I know only the writings and not the man.
_why is invisible, not known to be dead. It is possible to harm unseen people.