Hacker News Reader

Comment by ricardobeat | Hacker News Reader

This is stupid. Are we starting over again?

Just don't provide a high quality version if you are selling it. This kind of blocking is just annoying as any other DRM and will certainly be side-stepped by end users.

View on HN

Blocking? This is just a gentleman's agreement to respect the author's wishes. Does Pinterest include attribution?

Agreed - if my images on flickr are set to NOT allow sharing, Flickr implementing solutions to prevent people from sharing these easily is a good thing. Attribution or not, if you've set your images to not allow sharing, sharing it expressly goes against the creators wishes.

Compare: google (or any third party) using tracking cookies when your settings say otherwise & expressly told your browser not to allow it.

Your rights as a content creator are limited by law, and it's unfair for content creators to use technical means to circumvent the public's right to their content.

(I say this as an author of one of those dead-tree things, and of much software. I'd like people to follow my license agreement, but some in some cases copyright law grants my users more rights than the license, and I respect that.)

Are you implying that the public has a right to share content by law, regardless of the content creators wishes?

It does; it's called fair use.

Ah fair use is a defense in court, not something you can trot out in all situations before you get to court.

Secondly, consider the context... how are you going to argue that people have a fair use right to share copyrighted images with the public simply because they want to show what they 'like' on their pinboard?

Allowing that makes a loophole big enough to render pretty much any copyright protection of images null.

Fair use is as much a legal right as copyright protection itself; it's codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107. You don't have to argue before a judge before you can use a work without permission under the fair use doctrine -- thankfully.

A good portion of US law is the "meet these conditions or this protection doesn't apply" type; fair use is no different. We don't go around telling people "don't run user-generated content sites, the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA is just a defense in court".

What I'm trying to get at is that every provision concerning fair use is murky, and has to withstand argument in court. Every part of a fair use claim is subject to 'judgement' rather than merely establishing factual claims.

The law doesn't provide any real guidance as what constitutes a fair use work, only that somethings do count as fair use and in court we'll decide which do.

Determining fair use is a complicated, fact-specific analysis and even lawyers will have a hard time predicting if a case will win under a fair use claim.

Lots of things are items 'to be decided in court', but the preponderance of prior cases, and the strictness of the law makes it pretty clear if an argument is going to be successful or unsuccessful. Fair Use doesn't really provide that.

Edit: I started this discussion on the wrong foot... we're talking about how the laws apply globally, but my intention was to remark about Pinterest and Pinterest users only.

>and the strictness of the law makes it pretty clear if an argument is going to be successful or unsuccessful. Fair Use doesn't really provide that.

You can say the same thing about copyright law - both are provided for and are explicitly provided, and both are a matter of judgement.

Here's the thing: As provided in the law, fair use and copyright are on equal footing. One does not carry more weight than the other. Both "rights" exist. You can copyright something, but that does not strip other parties of their fair use rights.

I think copyright is clear cut, and fair use is not.

I guess you disagree.

I dunno if I agree with this. Yes, the public has rights to the content described and limited by law. No, there is no provision in the law that requires content creators to make copying easy, nor is there any provision preventing them from making it as difficult as they can.

Also, I doubt that all of Pinterest users' use cases are protected. Depending on the proportion, it might be more apt to say that these content owners are proactively protecting their content from unprotected uses, rather than resorting to the courts or DMCA.

Edit: wow, this is an incredibly contentious topic. Never seen this density of downvotes in a thread before.

> nor is there any provision preventing them from making it as difficult as they can

Whilst that might be accurate in the detail of the law, it appears to contain something basically malfunctional.

It seems to render the law effectively meaningless. If you are actually prevented from doing something, what has happened to your right to be allowed to? If there were public rights-of-way across someone's farmland, but they built walls around it, there would seem to be some kind of problem. (Or maybe a better example would be a visibility-cloaking device that made it look like there was a wall -- is that prevention, or just making things less easy? Does that make it OK?)

If the letter of the law supports the frustration of the intent of the law, something is wrong, surely.

I don't really think so. There are a lot of other laws like this. For example, you have the right, according to law, to take pictures of people in their homes, provided you stand on public ways and are not harassing them. When people pull the shutters, is that malfunctional?

There's also a difference between a positive right (the government protects your right to do something) and a negative one (the government will not prevent you from doing something). Fair use seems to be a negative right -- the government does not prevent you from using copyrighted works. But it doesn't require that copyright owners convey these works to you as conveniently as you want.

Yes, but what is the basic intent? It is to make/keep things reasonably available (in the constitution (USA) and/or the standard economic view) . . .

What additional rights do you believe they have here? If I understand rightly, pinning something is using an entire work under US copyright law, which makes it hard to claim fair use.

The problem is that it's as pointless to disallow using a pinterest extension as it is to intercept right-clicks. Anyone can still capture/copy the image and share it trough other means. That's the reason photographers' websites seldomly feature hi-res images and plaster watermarks all over.

Pinterest might be doing attribution wrong (I don't know, I don't use it), but this doesn't fix it. Nothing stops me from taking a screenshot of a Flickr page and sharing it on twitter. Isn't that fair use? Anyone can see the same page already. Pinterest just became a tool that annoys you because of other people's paranoia with copyright infringement, just like a DVD player that only read Zone 4 discs, the iPod disallowing grabbing songs from it, or the aforementioned right-click popup saying "This content is copyrighted". It's stupid. I can't believe how different the attitude is here in contrast to other stories on music and DRM, it's like a totally different crowd.

It's unrealistic to expect EverNote, pinboard and every other software that clips web comtent to "respect wishes". Should audio recorders listen for signatures that disallow the recording of copyrighted audio? Cameras refusing to take pictures inside art venues (I've heard that one)? I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in that world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com