Hacker News Reader

Everything on the internet is not assumed to be public domain. In fact if you don't put any license on it then it is assumed to be de facto copyright material and other people can't republish it without your explicit permission.

Things like the Internet Archive have an opt-out process rather than opt-in. The extent to how the IA operates within the law isn't clear to me, but it does suggest that the case isn't as open-and-shut as you make it seem.

I think they are opt-out because Wayback Machine would be very incomplete if it required opting in. They are just willing to deal with legal issues that occur due to this policy.

They have removed web sites before due to copyright claims and have a DMCA claim process.

Whether the IA is incomplete or not doesn't sound like a legal argument though. My point is that this is not a black & white issue. :)

Bill Clinton signed the DMCA law into effect at the start of the internet boom because somebody could have power to shutdown a platform because their doodle got shared. Then they could go after the host, and even the software providers. To prevent these recursive litigations that could easily have malicious intent (competition uploading copyright material to your platform to shut you down), the DMCA safe harbour was born.

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.

Yes, and I think this runs counter to the parent poster I was responding to claiming that things like the IA "can't" do what they've been doing for decades. They can. And the people hosting this web site can do it too. They might get a DMCA notice, absolutely, in which case, maybe they'll still be able to host the content. It's a grey area. The parent poster was speaking in very clear absolutes and thus, IMO, misrepresenting the situation.

And their opt-out policy for books was ended after their extremely-optimistic ploy to parlay becoming America's covid library into a general weakening of copyrights. I don't even know if they have an opt-in process for the copyright holders of books.

Yes I'm aware. But opt-out remains for web sites, which are also copyrighted. The difference is that books had a powerful entity arguing their case. So I think my point stands.

The internet is no different than any other public domain. If you send nude pictures to your partner and they leak it, there is an implicit understanding that it is intended to be private and they can be held liable.

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.

"Public domain" isn't a smart way of saying "things that people have seen publicly" it's a legal term. You're confidently wrong about every single point you've made here. Including the first: if you send your boyfriend nude pictures, and also post them on the internet for the public to see, it remains a violation of copyright for him or anyone else to post them without your permission, and damages can be claimed.

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 repeating what rest of us know but the outcome here is exactly the same as you would when you declare it a public domain. You lose control over its distribution.

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.

You are confused, 'public domain' is an explicit legal definition of a work being licensed for any use. You have to explicitly put a work into public domain. Just uploading something to a server people can access for free does not make the work 'public domain'.

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.

yes in aware of the technicality but here nobody really cares. if you publish it and its posted on reddit or some other forum all you can do is hope the web host respects your DMCA notice. Often the process is offputting that most would not bother and claiming damages is even more expensive and difficult with very low chance of success.

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.

> Once it enters public domain,

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.

The scale of the Internet makes it, in the general case, impossible to prevent such re-hosting somewhere, at some level of publicity.

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.

I think _why is only slightly more likely to sue over these materials than William Gibson is to sue over the text of Agrippa, the "ephemeral poem" whose text was recovered and sent all over the internet shortly after its release.

> No implicit agreement between

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...