[HN Gopher] Whytheluckystiff's original domain back as an archive
___________________________________________________________________
Whytheluckystiff's original domain back as an archive
Author : samlambert
Score : 261 points
Date : 2022-08-18 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (whytheluckystiff.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (whytheluckystiff.net)
| numbers wrote:
| this is an important part of the internet, _why taught me to be
| kind on the internet.
| pram wrote:
| Why's work had a lot of charm and heart. It was weird and funny
| and avant-garde but in a pretty accessible and (mostly)
| unpretentious way.
|
| It didn't teach me a whole lot about Ruby but I probably read it
| a dozen times or so lol
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Poignant, but good to see. Yay! \o/
| O__________O wrote:
| While not a popular opinion, personally feel that people should
| have the legal right to remain anonymous, even if they have a
| public persona.
| Cyberdog wrote:
| So then what happens if someone's anonymity is stripped away?
| Do they sue the de-anonymizer, or does the de-anonymizer face
| criminal penalties? Or both? How does one determine an
| appropriate penalty for this sort of thing? Does it matter if
| the victim made themselves stupidly easy to dox?
|
| "It oughtta be illegal" is easy to say but not so easy to
| actually make happen.
| vlunkr wrote:
| That doesn't apply here. There's no remaining anonymous for
| someone who didn't attempt to hide their identity.
| roboben wrote:
| Good old Ruby days!
| numeromancer wrote:
| Why, indeed.
| jmconfuzeus wrote:
| Poignant guide was the only programming book that didn't put me
| to sleep.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| His Wikipedia entry reminds me of this quote from him:
|
| "programming is rather thankless. u see your works become
| replaced by superior ones in a year. unable to run at all in a
| few more"
|
| ... and I can't help but think that this experience is
| disproportionately part of the Ruby community he was embroiled
| in. I did some Ruby-on-Rails development back in the day, and
| yeah... It's all completely un-runnable now. But that mostly
| seems to be a Rails-specific issue, where the ecosystem was
| downright hostile to calcification of APIs, workflows, and core
| tools. A person could publish a whole book and have 50% of its
| recommendations obsoleted within two years. That has to be
| demoralizing for an educator and communicator. Contrast that
| massively with Windows binaries that still run that were built
| against operating system versions that existed before college
| graduates were born.
|
| Various other ecosystems lack the high-speed code churn problem.
| I think even the Ruby ecosystem has cooled from its white-hot
| molten state a decade ago.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I have a VERY old rails project that I started back in 2005
| when Rails was like version 0.8 (when migrations were just a
| series of .sql files you ran in order). I continued working on
| it for a few years and by the time I stopped, I had upgraded it
| rails 2.1.
|
| I recently wanted to play around with it again, and I was able
| to get the entire thing running in Kubernetes. You can find
| docker images for Ruby 1.8.7 still, and the Rails 2.1 gems
| still installed fine. It might not be up to date security wise,
| but it runs!
| rsanheim wrote:
| Are you being serious? Have you tried to get a "modern JS app"
| or Python web app running (safely, w/o massive security
| vulnerabilities) that is even a few years old?
|
| All code rots, and it rots quickly. Its the a reality of modern
| software.
| azeirah wrote:
| This is only true for languages that are not taking a long-
| term vision into account.
|
| Run some 8 year old Clojure Github project, should be fine.
|
| Try a Common 20 year old Common Lisp project, you shouldn't
| have an issue.
| Nition wrote:
| Run a forty-year-old FORTRAN program on your mainfram...
| oh, you already are?
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| LISPs all seem tremendously resilient.
|
| I wonder what intrinsic quality makes a language long
| lived, rather than blame communities and whatnot.
|
| Another stalwart is Pure Data, the DSP language I am very
| fond of. It's based on atomic principles. Indeed the
| primitive processing elements are called Atoms, being
| irreducible ops like multiply, add, sin and cos. There
| really isn't much that _can_ change. For C as for LISP,
| especially Scheme, it 's hard to break them down any
| further, yet they are high enough level to be useful for
| programming. There's some sweet-spot to be found.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Ha, I just wanted to bring up Pure Data as example. It
| takes backwards compatibility very seriously. Patches
| written 20 years ago should run just fine on any recent
| Pd version. In fact, Miller Puckette strives for at least
| 50 years of support. Pd just had its 25th anniversary, so
| there are at least 25 more years to go :-)
| thom wrote:
| This isn't entirely true about Clojure, because there are
| things that have broken as new Java versions have come out
| (especially with modules and exports etc). Obviously you
| can still run Java 8 if you want though.
| dannyobrien wrote:
| I would love some concrete data on this! Has anyone done
| any studies?
| tomohawk wrote:
| I'm currently bulding a SPA to replace a 25 year old X Window
| app. That app still builds on modern Linux systems despite
| being unmaintained during that time. Seeing that old CVS repo
| brought back some memories. The customer wants to modernize.
|
| By comparison, the SPA is a nightmare of tooling and
| dependencies that will be unsupportable in a few years
| without constant maintenance and updating.
| wwweston wrote:
| It's the unfortunate reality of software, but it's not an
| immutable law.
|
| The Microsoft example is important. I've never been a fan,
| but I stand in grudging respect for what they've accomplished
| with their products as far as backwards compatibility goes,
| which has significant and enduring value.
|
| Emulators are another example of how software can be long-
| lived with the right attention.
|
| Personally, I think we have operating environment conceptions
| all wrong. We continually pay for or fete new versions and
| thus incentivize change for change's sake. We might do better
| to respect or even pay for continuing compatibility.
| tomcam wrote:
| > The Microsoft example is important. I've never been a
| fan, but I stand in grudging respect for what they've
| accomplished with their products as far as backwards
| compatibility goes,
|
| I was a PM for Visual Basic back in the day. A huge amount
| of work was done within dev and Office to work around
| problems with Adobe, Borland, etc. so that compat wasn't
| broken. It was frustrating and heartening.
| bombcar wrote:
| It is _incredibly_ sad that many /most games that were
| released for Mac or Linux more than about 4 years ago will
| run _better_ in an emulated windows environment on those
| platforms than they will natively (if they run at all).
| anyfoo wrote:
| I am able to build, run, and use oneko-1.1 from 1995,
| unmodified on a MacBook M1 Max. It's been almost 30 years,
| but that cat is still cute when it chases the mouse cursor!
|
| This may be a bit of an extreme example, but generally the
| unix-y APIs have been relatively stable over the decades,
| including X11 as we see. % ls -l
| total 176 -rw-r--r-- 1 foo staff 547 Sep 9
| 1995 Imakefile -rw-r--r-- 1 foo staff 15666 Sep 9
| 1995 Makefile -rw-r--r-- 1 foo staff 7545 Sep 9
| 1995 README ... -rw-r--r-- 1 foo staff
| 33472 Sep 9 1995 oneko.c ... % xmkmf
| mv -f Makefile Makefile.bak imake -DUseInstalled
| -I/opt/homebrew/Cellar/imake/1.0.8_5/lib/X11/config %
| touch DarwinMachineDefines; make CFLAGS="-I/usr/X11R6/include
| -I/usr/X11R6/lib --include=stdlib.h --include=string.h
| --include=unistd.h" cc -I/usr/X11R6/include
| -I/usr/X11R6/lib --include=stdlib.h --include=string.h
| --include=unistd.h -c -o oneko.o oneko.c ...
| % DISPLAY=:0 ./oneko
|
| If you want to try for yourself, you need XQuartz (to have
| X11 in the first place), and imake from e.g. homebrew,
| because it's apparently not part of the XQuartz distribution.
| Don't forget to start XQuartz. That's all.
| junon wrote:
| Python I can understand because of the 2 to 3 transition.
|
| But JavaScript that worked in 1995 still works today. All of
| it.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Presumably that's not true for any code that uses modern
| keywords such as class or super or await as variable names.
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Modern JS apps I encounter are packaged up with npm and I
| rarely have trouble running them.
|
| Python, I agree, is a challenge. I don't use it. I used to; I
| concluded it was too much hassle most of the time to maintain
| my Python working against other people's Python. Coupled with
| the lack of static type checking, I pulled it off my quick-
| grab list years ago (though with the growth of mypy, pip, and
| conda I may revisit it some day if I get bored with my
| current tools).
|
| Go code is pretty stable. Java seems downright calcified.
| And, of course, the whole C library space may as well be
| igneous stone. You can get FFTW version 3, for example, built
| from the relatively recent date of last year, but FFTW has a
| version 2 stable release dating back to 1999.
| rsanheim wrote:
| I could've been more clear in my original post. I'm not
| just thinking about "getting an app running": ruby, rbenv,
| and bundler has had that solved for many years, and npm,
| nvm (or whatever and js is stable there as well.
|
| If you take any app built three years ago, you are going to
| have critical security vulns in libraries you depend on.
| With java think of the log4j fiasco. With Ruby there are
| nokogiri or rails things. With javascript there are
| probably at least a handful of downstream packages that
| have pretty big security issues. Now you have to update
| dependencies, and then the real fun begins.
|
| If it a walled-off intranet app on a VPN, or a small CLI
| app, sure, maybe you can ignore that issue. But if its a
| public web or mobile app that is gonna see real use, you
| are going to have to head down the security audit + package
| update rabbit-hole.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| JS apps nowadays have so many layers that often something
| breaks over time or if you run it with the wrong version of
| node.
|
| Frontend post react is an absolute nightmare: My experience
| with a fleet of semi abandoned next.js static websites is
| pretty terrible: just in months something stops working in
| my pipeline on vercel and I need to spend time to debug it.
| Running things locally is even worse, I just change the
| code, push and hope for the best.
|
| Python is a downright nightmare: between 2vs3 and pip, egg,
| venv, I usually just salvage the code I need and try to
| make it work or convert it to something saner (eg. I did
| that with an opencv algorithm I found - I just transposed
| it to rust + the same opencv api calls). My favourite story
| happened literally 2 days ago. I was trying to install a
| dependency (keras_ocr) and I kept failing on some
| dependency; I tried installing that dependency manually and
| it worked but no success on installing keras_ocr.
| Eventually I updated pip and it started working.
|
| I had huge problems running old Go software, I think I
| succeeded once after a lot of pain and gave up the other
| times.
|
| I had fairly good results with ancient C, C++, Java and
| Haskell. Probably because they started before we had cool
| and glamorous developers on twitter selling you a course
| and not maintaining his 200 leftpad libraries.
|
| I'm curious to see where Rust will sit in a few years.
| Rauchg wrote:
| Hey jokethrowaway. I'd love to get more color on your
| experience upgrading your Next.js sites: feel free to
| email rauchg@vercel.com.
|
| - On local: `npm i && next dev` is guaranteed to be
| stable.
|
| - On remote: your pipeline is guaranteed to be stable.
|
| If you have an example where this is not the case, please
| let me know.
| stormbrew wrote:
| I mean, bundler goes back a pretty far distance into the
| history of rails at this point and has been the defacto
| mechanism of dependency control for ruby for most of its
| history by now, so barring old gems being yanked you
| _should_ be able to run any rails app with a lockfile if
| you also find the right ruby version.
|
| Js (or specifically npm) and python were _far_ slower to
| adopt this convention, to the point that I think it 's fair
| to say that neither have fully adopted it yet.
|
| Js at least has made almost no backwards incompatible
| syntax or core lib changes though, which is a point in its
| favor. Ruby 2 and python 3 were major breaking changes.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| For JavaScript, I generally assume backwards-incompatible
| changes are a non-starter because of its embedding into
| the browser as its killer app. At this point, we really
| don't know what websites will break if backwards-
| incompatible JS changes are made.
|
| Ironically, this has made JS a very stable language
| (though APIs do occasionally drop out or change
| drastically for security reasons).
| thomashabets2 wrote:
| I just found some of my C and C++ code from around 2001. I
| just needed to add one missing prototype I'd let be implicit
| in my sloppiness, and it all built and ran just fine.
|
| Just runs a lot faster. :-)
| snickerbockers wrote:
| Nobody's trying to argue that python and javascript aren't
| terrible, just that there are other languages and APIs that
| are standardized and maintained by people who prioritize
| reliability over following dumb trends that bloggers come up
| with.
|
| C is a great example of this. Even if the ABI changes, in the
| worst case scenario a well-written C program only needs to be
| recompiled.
| kbenson wrote:
| Pick your poison. Either you evolve your language to keep
| people interested and old code becomes stale and eventually
| stops working, or you don't and you lose your community and
| interest in the language, like Perl.
|
| We run twenty year old Perl scripts on new hosts at work all
| the time, with little to no change required in them. We have
| lots of microservices written in Perl over the last decade or
| more, and those generally have very little to no problem being
| ported to new systems as well. The problem now? Finding people
| that know Perl or want a job writing it.
| ww-picard-do wrote:
| > Finding people that know Perl or want a job writing it.
|
| Indeed. Although writing Perl is not so bad, reading not so
| much.
| enneff wrote:
| It doesn't have to be that way. 10 years since Go 1 and
| almost all Go programs written then will run correctly,
| unchanged, against Go 1.19. It takes a lot of effort but the
| effort pays off big time. Any programming language that wants
| to survive the test of time should push hard on maintaining
| compatibility imo.
|
| I think people lost interest in Perl because Python was just
| a better language for a lot of people's use cases (and
| arguably a lot less mysterious). And the focus on Perl 6 (now
| Raku) arguably distracted a lot of people from Perl 5 and
| then took too long to mature. (At least that's how it looked
| from my outside perspective.)
| kbenson wrote:
| I wasn't very clear, but I view this specifically as
| something interpreted languages have to deal with far more
| than compiled languages. Compiled languages have a slightly
| different set of trade offs that make this less of a
| problem (less, but not nonexistent).
|
| > Python was just a better language for a lot of people's
| use cases
|
| I won't argue that about the short term, but long-term?
| Long-term the difference in policy in how it deals with
| changes ends up at exactly the problem we're discussing.
| The fact that (IMO) pyenv and virtualenv are needed to
| manage python deployments in any sane way is evidence of
| this.
|
| Long-term a lot of projects that ended up using Python
| would likely have been better served by Perl because of the
| expected target and lifecycle of the programs in question.
| There are a lot of aspects of languages which aren't
| necessarily the thing people were thinking of at the time
| that they do think of now, because of very negative
| examples. Examples such as package distribution, which
| Javascript has had numerous problems with in the past with
| NPM, and Python occasionally still struggled with (I'm
| looking at you, pip, and your CLI search interface
| brokenness).
|
| These days new languages take package management and
| deprecation policies and cycles and how to deal with long-
| term stability extremely carefully, because of the examples
| of Perl and Python and Javascript, etc. At least the ones
| that plan to have any real adoption do. Rust is a somewhat
| recent example of that. Look at all the effort they put
| into making sure they got those aspects as correct as they
| could and communicated them well to users. I don't think
| Rust would have nearly as many people using it or
| interested in it if they didn't give those the importance
| they did (I imagine C# and Java are similar, but I follow
| news about them somewhat less).
| jonas21 wrote:
| An exception is C++, which HN loves to hate, but has managed
| to remain mostly backwards-compatible while evolving into a
| modern language and maintaining a large community.
| vfclists wrote:
| Some people don't like chunky bacon, but a lot of others do.
| foxbarrington wrote:
| chunky bacon
| whitepoplar wrote:
| chunkybacon chunkybacon !!!!
| partomniscient wrote:
| come on, seriously. chunky bacon.
| fwip wrote:
| It seems almost disrespectful to republish all of the writings
| that _why had decided to delete.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Are we sure _why isn't somehow involved in this?
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| It's a pretty good guess, he has been found, reached out to,
| etc. He just wants to move on from that time in his life.
|
| So it must feel really weird to him that people go to so much
| trouble to keep his old texts alife. It's like the whole _why
| thing is now completely separate to him and it's now about
| the idea of him and people care more about the idea of _why.
| It kinda feels like making a tribute site/song/whatever to
| your first love years a decade later.
| andrew_ wrote:
| The internet is forever, as they say.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| For better or worse, when you publish something on the internet
| it no longer belongs entirely to you.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| No _why still owns the copyright on them and if you try to
| republish them in violation of any license they put on them
| (like requiring attribution, etc.) then you are in violation
| of their copyright and the law.
|
| The files and such may live forever, but your ability to
| publish them, reproduce them, etc. is only allowed if you
| were granted a license to do so.. i.e. if _why published them
| under a permissive or open source license.
| jopperdoo wrote:
| You're explaining this to someone who undoubtedly knows
| that, and is making a different point than you think (which
| is that it doesn't matter).
|
| We all know what copyright is. We all know nobody cares
| online, too. Those of us who remember the work when
| published originally also know that you're making an
| argument that _why would hate you making, and that they
| consciously chose to avoid through how they published. I
| can tell how you're arguing here that you don't remember or
| didn't know _why's preferences, which is itself somewhat
| disrespectful.
|
| Stick to the respect, which is an interesting thought to
| consider, and spare the copyright litigation. It's honestly
| tedious.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| No one other than _why can say what their intentions and
| desires for their works are.
|
| The exact same argument you're making is what someone who
| would steal _why's work and charge money to republish it
| would make. Imagine if someone ganked the poignant guide
| to ruby and it became a NYT bestseller... can they just
| say "oh this is what _why would have wanted, for more
| people to read this" and walk away with all the profits?
|
| Copyright is there for a reason, to protect the owner of
| a work. If _why chooses to do so they can go after anyone
| republishing their work for money or not.
| enneff wrote:
| That's totally different to republishing something for
| free.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's not disrespectful to argue that putting something on
| the internet doesn't make it public domain, no matter
| what _why thought or thinks. If _why doesn't want it
| taken down, he won't ask them to take it down. That
| doesn't mean that conversations about whether things put
| the internet become publicly owned, even sparked by
| someone bootlegging a defunct site under the original
| domain name, have to hinge on what _why thinks.
|
| Or whether things put on the internet are any more
| publicly owned than books, television shows, or movies,
| which can all easily be put on the internet (and which
| everybody agrees is extremely problematic irt the law.)
|
| edit: also, this really reeks of weird parasocial hero
| worship unless you know the man and have asked him about
| it.
| jopperdoo wrote:
| He discussed his preferences on copyright. It's
| projecting a weird kind of parasocial hero worship to
| assume I meant otherwise despite my not giving you a
| single shred of evidence on my opinion of him. I actually
| detest your little edit because you've charged my opinion
| and put me on a defensive footing regarding my opinion of
| somebody who I honestly couldn't care less about (sorry;
| wasn't my scene). I worked very hard to avoid saying that
| because I know he's loved and my opinion doesn't matter.
| But you had to make me say it.
|
| I've not written a single line of Ruby in my life and
| even I know his thoughts on copyright and public domain
| and intellectual property, is the point. I actually hate
| how many people worship him like he's Jesus because the
| content is more interesting than the person, which is the
| case for pretty much anyone creative and has nothing to
| do with him. (Something tells me he'd vibe on that take,
| too, given how he left.)
| tomcam wrote:
| I agree with you morally but legally you are completely wrong
| of course. Anything you originate is owned by you, at least
| in the United States
| ben0x539 wrote:
| Does that mean it's not disrespectful?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| This is a long-standing question.
|
| They teach stories in high school these days that came from
| manuscripts Franz Kafka explicitly demanded be burned upon
| his death. It is, perhaps, disrespectful.
|
| Perhaps we all disrespect him with every new generation of
| students.
|
| Perhaps that's a strangely fitting fate for the man who is
| the namesake of the term "Kafkaesque." I'd like to hope
| he'd laugh, but I know only the writings and not the man.
| googlryas wrote:
| Ironically enough, _why's last act "CLOSURE", he talks
| about how he read everything by Kafka, even the deleted
| stuff. So I have to hope he wouldn't have a problem with
| someone creating this archive to keep his deleted
| writings alive.
| drewcoo wrote:
| Kafka is dead. It's difficult to show he is harmed by
| anything we do today without resorting to the
| supernatural.
|
| _why is invisible, not known to be dead. It is possible
| to harm unseen people.
| jholman wrote:
| As a matter of legality, that's wrong, of course. This is
| copyright violation. For whatever that's worth.
|
| But I think the bigger point is, if you're a _fan_ of WTLS,
| it seems very odd to be so disrespectful of WTLS 's desires.
| I can only conclude the the party who put up the archive is
| someone who wants to hurt WTLS's feelings, or at least is
| quite willing to do so.
| upupandup wrote:
| You can't take back what you publish in public domain which
| is what happens when you publish content on the internet.
| You may own the copyright in technically but it would be
| freely shared and distributed on the internet with your
| only recourse being submitting DMCA notices to platforms.
| Youtube does this very well but only because they are
| required to by large corporations that can litigate.
|
| The average HN user who posts blog content and deletes it
| is not going to be able to stop it from being distributed.
| Technically they own the copyright to its content but the
| end result would be identical to if he or she had announced
| it to be in public domain. Anybody anywhere could freely
| share and publish its content on platforms without any
| consequences unless you notify the platform with DMCA
| notice and it would be largely up to the discretion of the
| platform to comply or not as many hosting services
| explicitly advertise such "bulletproof" hosting.
|
| Your own take on what's moral and not has no bearing here
| since we don't know how the author feels about his work
| being shared. Yeah I get it that he has copyright to it but
| its not exactly enforceable on the internet.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
| bitwize wrote:
| 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.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| 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.
| upupandup wrote:
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| "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.
| upupandup wrote:
| 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.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| 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.
| upupandup wrote:
| 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.
| ska wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| burntsushi wrote:
| 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.
| jyxent wrote:
| 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.
| upupandup wrote:
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| 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.
| ska wrote:
| > 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...
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Did _why take them offline because he didn't want anyone to
| read them?
|
| I thought it was more like a book going out of publication--
| there's no desire from the author that people should stop
| reading it, just that it's out of the author's hands.
|
| I don't know if _why ever expressed a desire that people
| shouldn't go back and read his writing.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| It is assumed but not proven that _why's final thoughts about
| killing that pseudonym are captured in CLOSURE [1].
|
| There's a lot of different takeaways from that and other
| contemporary writings of _why. Some of them are that _why
| wished to pursue the Right to Be Forgotten, not just in the
| GDPR terminology sense, but in a "Last Chance to See"
| existential way. Those impressions yield that _why watched
| the internet transition from "pseudonyms are fine and
| ephemeral" to "everyone knows your real name and pseudonyms
| are permanent fixtures in the modern internet" and tried as
| hard as possible to kill everything about that pseudonym as
| Performance Art. As a reminder of an internet long gone. As a
| reminder of a Right to be Forgotten.
|
| From that perspective, this archive is maybe a bit of putting
| a Banksy into the Louvre. It's out of context, it's maybe
| against the artist's wishes, it's kind of weird and over-
| pedestalizing a legendary figure.
|
| (Arguably _why's last stand failed to account for that little
| last bit, that human tendency even older than the internet of
| myth making and legend building. As this shows, as the
| history of mentions of _why on HN alone every few months
| shows, legends loom large in culture and _why was already a
| part of the programming legendarium before he tried to murder
| that pseudonym.)
|
| [1] https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/raw/master/CLOSUR
| E.p...
| blonky wrote:
| _Why's work led me to where I am. At a crucial time in my life I
| found _Why. That put me on a path to learning Ruby and then a
| whole bunch of steps now I have an actual job as a web developer.
| I work in Python, but I'm sure _Why won't mind. Before I found
| _Why I wasn't sure what to do with my career-life. He showed me
| that programming can be art and science.
| mavu wrote:
| Exactly the same for me (except its still ruby). I really hope
| he knows how many lives he touched with his work/art.
| invalidator wrote:
| _Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby is what got me hooked. His
| quirky little foxes made it fun to just burn through the whole
| book and left me with enough knowledge to be useful, and able
| to ask the right questions to learn more.
|
| It was just the right kick at the right moment, and he will
| have a place in my heart forever.
| lioeters wrote:
| A related link posted here recently.
|
| Why the Luck Stiff Documentary -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64anPPVUw5U
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-18 23:00 UTC)