[icebraining]

Why does (s)he have to do that? Because the video makers don't want you to watch it without seeing the ads is not a sufficient reason. Content producers just have to accept the fact that they don't get to control how people see their stuff once they put it out there, just like TV producers didn't get to prevent you from flipping channels during an ad break.

If you disagree, as the copyright holder of my posts, I revoke your license to download them. I guess you'll just have to read HN comments pages where I haven't posted.

[greggman]

Why isn't it a sufficient reason? If they say "don't watch my video unless you pay $5" are you okay with that or do you just think whatever they made you're entitled to it, you never have to give what they ask in return? Isn't it up to them to decide what they want to charge you (pay $$, watch this ad, etc.) and for you to decide not to watch if you don't want to pay whatever they are asking?

How is this any different than say GPL in that you can either pay the price "make your modified version GPL too" or you can not modify the software. Do you also think that's not for them to decide and that you should just use and modify the software anyway?

PS: please don't turn this into a thread about the minutia of the GPL. That's not the point. The point is whether or not the same concept that lets a creator set a software license and choose the terms, whether that concept also applies to other creations, videos, books, movies, games, magazines, articles, etc..

[rodion_89]

> "don't watch my video unless you pay $5"

This is an explicit agreement between the customer and content provider. YouTube, Google search, etc don't have any explicit agreement with users in this regard -- the ads just show up.

The TOS says it, your understanding of their business model conveys it, but at the end of the day they just shove the ads in there without directly claiming to their customers, "you must see ads and be tracked to get free content".

I think usage would change dramatically if they actually claimed this when a user first uses their service.

[icebraining]

I hope you realized you've proved my point by replying to my copyrighted post, in which I revoked your right to download it (which happens after you reply to it).

When the demands of copyright holders are not reasonable, we are not ethically required to comply. Your words say you disagree, but your actions show otherwise.

[tobltobs]

Aren't you a bit childish today?

[icebraining]

Not just today :)

[danmaz74]

You're using a website (hacker news) which has a copyright and privacy policy. When you use this website, you accept this policy and I'm free to read your posts.

If you want to instead post your content to your own website, with a clearly stated policy that excludes people who don't agree with your views on copyright, I'll be more than happy not to visit that website :)

[icebraining]

Where is HN's copyright policy?

[danmaz74]

Actually, now that I checked, they don't have one. They apply the DMCA though, so if you think that my reading your comments here is violating your IP rights, you can ask them to take those comments down:

https://news.ycombinator.com/dmca.html

Besides that, [1] applies.

Regarding ad-supported websites, they have their copyright policies and you should respect them (if you care about having their rights respected as much as you care having your rights respected, of course). If you choose not to respect them, it's your free choice to do so and bear any possible consequences - as it is my choice when I don't respect copyright laws, which happens frequently enough, but with my full knowledge that I'm actually violating the rights of the original content creators, and also, in that case, breaking some laws...

[1] If a reader comments on my blog, does she license the rights to me?

When a person enters comments on a blog for the purpose of public display, he is probably giving an implied license at least for that display and the incidental copying that goes along with it. If you want to make things clearer, you can add a Creative Commons license to your blog's comment post page and a statement that by posting comments, writers agree to license them under it.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP

[icebraining]

If a reader comments on my blog, does she license the rights to me?

Surely an implicit license for HN to redistribute the comment exists, but without an explicit TOS, I don't see why it would be irrevocable. So I'd say people disagreeing with my post are still infringing on its copyright.

They apply the DMCA though, so if you think that my reading your comments here is violating your IP rights, you can ask them to take those comments down

Yes, I know, but the DMCA doesn't eliminate the infringement by the users of a site, it just puts the site itself in a safe harbor.

Regarding ad-supported websites, they have their copyright policies and you should respect them (if you care about having their rights respected as much as you care having your rights respected, of course). If you choose not to respect them, it's your free choice to do so and bear any possible consequences - as it is my choice when I don't respect copyright laws, which happens frequently enough, but with my full knowledge that I'm actually violating the rights of the original content creators, and also, in that case, breaking some laws...

Sure, that's the legal position, no argument there. But I think the discussion regards the ethical position.

[danmaz74]

Regarding ethics, my position is that authors should have the choice to monetize their content with ads if that's their best option.

When this happens, others can make the choice to hack the system and access the content bypassing the ad delivery system, but in that case they should at least be aware that they're getting value from the author's effort without compensating him or her, the ethics of which I'll leave for you to judge case by case.