RE: Does Steemit Have A Copyright Problem?
Thanks for bringing attention to this, I flagged this account for a while because of this blatant plagiarism.
It's bullshit.
I'm happy you spoke to an author from zerohedge.com about this and would like to hear more about this from the actual content producers.
@zer0hedge claims that it's not plagiarism because of the one line disclaimer. Also claims that it takes him a lot of 'time to curate' the few articles that he selects to copy and paste onto his blog. It must be a painstaking processes to select 4 or 5 articles about BITCOIN everyday.
He also uses the Zerohedge logo as his avatar and when called out on this just highlighted it neon yellow. Well that takes care of that, problem solved.
This is a serious issue, that people need to consider as the platform grows.
What message does this send to new users (the ones that actually realize it's not the real zerohedge)? It tells them that copy and pasted material is profitable and they'll emulate this strategy.
This does not add value to Steemit, it does the opposite. It's original content that will bring new users and readers to Steemit.
Yep I pmed one of the Tyler Durdens myself and told them about this account.
Please do. But it's entirely within his right, even judicially under copyright law as far as I can understand, to repost content this way. He's not merely copy pasting and he's definitely not claiming to be or represent Zerohedge.
Then again, I have zero respect for copyright laws. I follow them if I must, but I don't think state enforced restrictions on communication is how you get a flourishing society.
The internet doesn't run on copyright.
This is inaccurate.
The account uses the Zerohedge name.
zerohedge / zer0hedge - the use of the number slightly distinguishes the username from the website. Most users will not see a difference and will assume this is official.
Not merely copy and pasting?
Please elaborate?
What does this account add or do aside from the disclaimer?
You may think the non-affiliation is made clear but a lot of users simply vote on the title alone, they see @zer0hedge believe it's authentic and upvote without reading the article itself.
What of using the zerohedge logo?
After steemians challenged the account about this the user made a cosmetic adjustment changing the color but the fact remains that the logo and the name is still used.
I can respect your opinion about copyright without downvoting your perspective, although we disagree.
You mostly answer your own questions and thus leave me little to add, but here are a few points.
I'm ok with it, as it helps get attention to the posts themselves and he's clear both in profile and posts that he's not Zerohedge.
Then maybe we have bigger fish to fry, such as fixing the incentives.
That's entirely up to you. In cases that I downvote something it is sometimes specifically because I do not respect that particular opinion.
Getting paid for someone else's work is unethical..
Says who? Why must everyone both sow and reap? Why can’t one sow and another reap and both be glad together?
Sowing and reaping both imply limited work though.
You want something that involves no work at all?
The opposite. The point I was trying to make was that both the sower and reaper earns the value of his sowing or reaping.
It's not the case that one gets paid for the other working, but both get paid for their level of productivity in whatever system they happen to have a position.
Yes, getting paid specifically for someone else work is unethical. That's not what I'm supporting.
LETS KILL HIS ACCOUNT)) He/ She claims that "this content adapted to" Ooooo then it's "OK" to post. No man, it's garbage. Also you could visit @lndesta120282 . She may be one of them.
You will never kill it even if you take away all his rewards. With time many more will do the same thing if there are those wanting to read it, for profit or not for profit.
Today his posts fill an important function, as they let users remain on the platform while still consuming their news. This raises engagement levels and retention rates, which is a wonderful thing for a social media platform.
Why do they go here but not there - on official site? He atracted only 30 - 160 views per article - it's a death for huge site who makes money from leads. I think - you are not right.
I also visit their site from time to time, especially after reading his blog. If he didn't make those posts however, I would have spent more time off social media in general.
His content engages users, so I wish we had more similar accounts for other topics.
I am guesses you dont produce your own content also, right?
So Tell me this, If you write a book, would It be ok If someone started unauthorized copies, making money from it, but they justify that they have the name If the author and the name of the book on the first page. By the way, you dont see a dime from these sellings.
What would you call that?
I would call it reprinting and selling. Copying. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. In fact some use it as a means to get publicity for their art. That would for the most part actually be a good thing for me most likely, as long as I also had supporters funding me separately.
That's not to say that funding and staying afloat can't be made a lot more difficult by copiers under certain circumstances, or that a writer should not be allowed to engage in copyrighting agreements with his customers or consumers. But this would have to look a whole lot different than what is currently going on. The issue I see with modern copyright law is when the state enters the picture and it's no longer two people making a voluntary arrangement.
All of this aside, I'm only endorsing small size or very clearly stated copying of the material of others. Nothing that would end up harming or even going against the wishes of the creator if they were to make them explicit.
It has to add value to the Steem platform and not simply be mooching of the producers of the content. @zer0hedge is a good example of someone fitting into the former category and not the latter.
At least I would highly doubt that he ever cost them money, attention or respect. My own visits to their site have increased since he started posting.
One detail i noticed only now... the discussion here is about @zer0hedge, and not @zerohedge (wich is an identity thief, not plagiarist)
Its Fair as long as the creator publicly allowed It.
If not, its stealing someone else intelectual work.
Its Fair to talk about the article and reference It, but not copy-paste.
This is a very "modern" or typical view, but libertarians (both left, center and right) tend to disagree.
It's not his content. Nobobody can make 5 articles per day.
That's what you think.. I have done that before and so do many of the Tyler Durdens but we all work hard so taking credit or getting paid for someone elses' work is unethical and wrong.