• @ikidd
    link
    English
    23 hours ago

    Because if you’re referencing something specific, why would you take the chance that someone changes that page? Are you going to monitor that from then on and make sure it’s still correct/relevant? No, you take what is effectively a screenshot and link to that.

    You aren’t really thinking about this from any standpoint except your advertising revenue.

    • @7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80
      link
      English
      -12 hours ago

      I’m thinking about it from the perspective of an artist or creator under existing copyright law. You can’t just take someone’s work and republish it.

      It’s not allowed with books, it’s not allowed with music, and it’s not even allowed with public sculpture. If a sculpture shows up in a movie scene, they need the artist’s permission and may have to pay a licensing fee.

      Why should the creation of text on the internet have lesser protections?

      But copyright law is deeply rooted in damages, and if advertising revenue is lost that’s a very real example.

      And I have recourse; I used it. I used current law (DMCA) to remove over 1,000,000 pages because it was my legal right to remove infringing content. If it had been legal, they wouldn’t have had to remove it.