64
Hacker News: APIs for content sites must be free
(readhacker.news)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
593 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Like the author of this paper said, for me it's not really about third party apps. The problem is that reddit try to monetize a content that is our collective property.
Is it our property though?
Intellectually speaking yes, but legally speaking? Probably not. Chances are if its stored on their servers, it belongs to them.
Legally, currently, yeah. Needs to change though. I'm ok with monetizing the presentation and delivery but if you want to use collective property you should still have to make that available as part of the deal.
Replacing "comment" with "artwork" kind of helps illustrate it. If we all made tons of artwork for Reddit, then they started gating it behind a paywall and while painters and all the behind-the-scenes painting staff earned nothing -- well that's kinda where we are today.
But what you mentioned absolutely happens, though.
It's €17 to go to the Louvre. Many of the paintings there are public domain, which logically says they should be free as they have no owners. Yet to see them, most people need to pay €17.
Those are paintings locked behind a paywall. The pieces may be donated freely by an artist - just as users contribute freely on a website - but the museum still charges for admission.
So while I'm not defending the practice - and there are many free museums; even the Louvre has ways to get in for free - it's also not exactly a way to convince others that the practice is inherently bad.
Wouldnt the image of the painting be public domain but the physical piece be different?
Like you could take a photo of the Mona Lisa and use it however you like, but the physical item itself is private property and access to it can be monetized?
Yeah, pretty much this. When I post anything on social media I intend to speak publicly to anyone who wishes to listen. I'm not speaking to Reddit, Lemmy, whoever in confidence, so no matter what the ToS says, my intent is any advice or anecdote I give is anyone's to view and use, not in the content host's sole ownership.