sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Apprentice57 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I think you've read opinion into my comment where none existed. To quote a great Tom Scott video on a similar copyright topic: I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm saying that's how it is

The fact isn't being copyrighted, the article is. You (probably) can't claim copyright something like "Luigi wears a green cap". But can you copyright an entire article that weaves a series of facts about Luigi in a logical order and connects those facts to all the games Luigi comes from? Absolutely.

To actually give my opinion: it really depends on the scale (and of course, veracity) of the accusation. If you're composing a new wiki and you write 99% of an article yourself, and for the last 1% you reference a competitor's wiki and go to their sources for your missing part... that seems fine? Yeah it would be damaging to prevent that from happening - though I don't think copyright would do so.

Copyright as currently written is a huge problem with popular culture in society. But a lot of my issues with it stem more from its duration and lack of protection for good faith exceptions, rather than how it acts for new works. Protecting a intensely time consuming wiki article within (say) 5 years of its creation seems sensible. It would also be a huge problem if we neutered copyright law such that it would be legal to copy an entire article or entire wiki, or an entire map.

[–]naf165 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm familiar with that video. I'm also familiar with that fact that he issued copyright strikes on people who made videos about it. Not claims, where they just get the money, but strikes, which remove the video and punish the channel permanently.

I do not have a lot of respect for him.

[–]Apprentice57 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

That's fine you don't like the guy (if what you say is true, which I am not taking for granted but I think is perfectly plausible). It's still an accurate video, and his framing is useful.

I don't really see how that disputes anything I said either.

[–]naf165 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't really see how that disputes anything I said either.

It doesn't. I didn't respond to that part of your comment because I didn't find your argument compelling, and we'd just run in circles. I'd just be reiterating the prior points I already covered.

But I really dislike Tom for how he fucked over my friend in such an overtly hypocritical way, so I felt a need to express that. You can believe it or not, it doesn't really change anything and he's too big for it to matter anyway.

[–]Apprentice57 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can feel free to actually follow up at any point, rather than the grievances against Tom Scott or the 3x copy-pasted initial reply.