@Zer0Hedge - The Owner of This Profile Is Just Reposting From ZeroHedge.com - Without Any Affiliation!
I like the posts from the website Zero Hedge, but I just noticed that the profile on Steemit @Zer0Hedge that posts from that website is not actually affiliated with the website...
Does this mean that they are just blatantly thieving the content from zero hedge and reposting it here, getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process?
I personally don't like strict copyright rules much and would like to see the free flow of information help us all - but at the same time, if people are sucking the rewards pool and not even doing any work in their posts - then are they working against our best interests? I'm not even sure of the answer to that. I guess the question is - "Why are we upvoting someone who just posts what's on another website when we could just go to the other website?"...
Apparently the Cheetah bot has no problem!
What do you think / feel?
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
View My Witness Application Here
This has been going on for quite a long time @ura-soul... I'm not sure who it was that called BS on this, but a couple months ago I read a similar post... I guess @cheetah doesn't mind copy-pasta anymore - at least it isn't a problem for @zer0hedge...
Hi @ura-soul, I've flagged this account on numerous occasions over the last few months because I do not personally believe that someone strictly copy and pasting from a single source (whether it is an aggregate site or not), using the websites name and logo should be profiting off the hard work of the original authors.
@steemcleaners has been consistently warning this account about the abuse more recently and they have reached out to the actual zerohedge.com website who do not consent to their content being lifted and monetized on the platform.
I think this makes it crystal clear that this is blatant plagiarism and reward pool abuse.
Thanks for that, it clarifies the situation greatly. We only need to see the copyright comment at the bottom of the site and their use of amazon adverts to realise that they are likely to have an issue with this. That said, it appears they haven't bothered to actually open an account and post here themselves.
(btw, I think you accidentally added the word 'not' into your comment? 'I do not personally believe that someone strictly copy and pasting from a single source (whether it is an aggregate site or not), using the websites name and logo should not be profiting off the hard work of the original authors').
Yes, thanks for the correction.
The arguments made by the account holder in our interactions were less than convincing.
Sourcing an article does not make it ok to copy the entire piece, while adding nothing of your own commentary or analysis. Using the name and logo muddies the waters even with a disclaimer as it may give the impression to some that the original site is aware or encourages this activity.
I agree, yes. One part of me dislikes copyright entirely as we need free flow of information - however, the copyright rules do go some way to actually allowing for free flow of information while prohibiting direct copying in totality. Ultimately though, if the original authors take no action then there's no actual issue with it 'legally' afaik.. The issue then just comes down to whether this community would reward so highly if they were fully conscious of the details of the situation, I think they wouldn't.. but obviously some have not problem with it all.
Yes, I'm also all for the free flow of information as well and people borrow, share and build on concepts and ideas from others all the time...that's progress.
I think the original authors would take issue with someone else profiting off their work, but i believe they're not even aware that this is occurring. I think that as more and more people begin to take steemit seriously we could see more situations like this coming to the surface.
Oh, I thought that the steemcleaner comment maybe meant that the authors are aware, but maybe the site operator never mentioned it to the authors.. I don't know. Considering the author has named himself after an anarchist who blew up skyscrapers in a kind of 'system busting' way, it might be a bit hypocritical to try to use the system's rules to control the words - but I'm just speculating really.
This is a new message from steemcleaners (maybe a week old?) so this suggests that the website has been informed and has responded, I have no idea about each of the original authors.
I guess I can see your point about the Tyler Durdan avatar but from my perspective it's more to do with a way to protect the identities of the authors and less to do with identifying with the ethos of a fictional character. But I'm also just speculating here.
I try to follow the philosophy of erring on the side non authoritative interference. I prefer to be responsible for my own experience online and use my efforts to speak out, vote, support, and encourage those who try to make the communities that I choose to be a part of a better place.
I find many issues to be concerning, but I've found over the years of being part of online communities that most actions made by those in positions of authority that are in a good faith to stop bad behavior tend to cause more problems than they solve.
I'm not an absolutist, though, so I try to keep an open mind when it comes to taking action. But I'm not easily convinced. I need more than something just being unfair, it needs to be some sort of existential threat before I'll get on board with taking any action beyond social pressure. I'm very much okay with social pressure, just not authoritative force.
But, this certainly is something worth thinking about, thanks for the information!
In principle I agree - however, reading the white paper for steem, it is clear that the intended design is for 'whales' to downvote content that imbalances the system. Whether or not this profile or others like it are imbalancing the system, therefore comes down to those with the most SP. If everyone only considers existential threat relative to their own existence, then no such downvoting will take place until the account in question becomes super massive. In short, the existential threat in such cases (in the context of steemit) is mostly to the smaller accounts who lose out the most - so they need to come together to act as a whale.. However, just as in offline reality - there are too many pointless disagreements and too little co-operation - in general - for that to occur significantly. Also, I think I'm right to say that downvotes use up vote power, so a downvote is a loss of payout for self and other more positive posts.
I'm certainly willing to withhold judgement on this. And, BTW, by existential threat I was referring to the community here.
As for the whitepaper and whales being charged with the responsibility of taking on a moderator like position in this way. Again, I'm willing to hold out on judging whether or not that's a good idea. It's a pretty different way of doing things than I've seen before. Maybe the fact that the whales have to make a sacrifice in order to exercise that power is an appropriate way to go about this. My mind remains open.
Thanks for your perspective, it really gives me food for thought.
This has come up before... @zerohedge is just providing a service — i.e. currating articles from that GREAT website by Tyler...
whomever it is makes it quite clear what he is doing — reposting another’s content. He has also said: if you don’t like what i’m doing don’t upvote me.
Personally i have no problem with this — but i do see your point.
Cheers! from @thedamus
hehe - well, curation does not bypass copyright legislation.. but since tyler takes his name from an anarchist, maybe he/she doesn't care about copyright and maybe we should all just repost their material and have a post-off.. haha
I’m in! Lol
I have not been reading your post @ura-soul, I hope you are given always health so that it can continue to post for our stemian.
Man that's too bad that account acquired so much SP. That would take a whale size account to knock that account down a few pegs. The @zer0hedge account has way more SP than me and I hold about 6000. I'm afraid to even flag smaller accounts that flagrantly spam and plagarize.
wow thats messed up. their account is worth 160 thousand
Just read that post myself and upvoted it. Think you have a point there....will have to look into this. Thank you :)
They are providing a curation service on Steemit. If Zer0 Hedge wants in on Steemit, they can get in on here. If that happened, then I would fault @Zer0hedge for what's being posted, because the original content creator would be on here. At this point, no one on Steemit would see ANY articles from the REAL Zer0 Hedge without @zer0hedge posting them.
Curation applies to content already in a system, so to curate content from outside of a system means bringing it into the system and that therefore brings with it all of the issues relating to 'copyright' and IP rights etc.
Whether or not zero hedge complains is up to them - but obviously if you applied your logic to other material, such as disney movies - Steemit would swiftly come under attack from numerous well financed directions.
The copyright notice on the zero hedge website states:
Copyright ©2009-2018 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
While it might be logical to assume that the authors don't care about ownership/profits/copyright, since they present themselves as anarchist minded - the reality is that they have a copyright statement on the site and use adverts from Amazon.. So that assumption appears incorrect.
The point I made in this post is not about whether Zero Hedge's authors are losing out on money, but about whether the community wants to direct rewards pool payouts towards accounts that don't actually show any conscious ability or intent to add anything themselves. If it's possible to get large payouts without creativity, while genuinely creative people get almost nothing - then why be creative? why not just copy all day long? We generally recognise that a society that just copies all day long doesn't achieve very much and so we value creativity - I am just highlighting this in the context of Steemit. Just as people are free to upvote posts they subjectively value for their own reasons - I am free to highlight that I subjectively value creativity. ;)
I never said that Zer0 Hedge cares or doesn't care. My point is that @zer0hedge is referring the Steemit community to valuable Zer0 Hedge information and vice versa, which entitles @zer0hedge to receive referral fees. The original content still has links to it. There is no violation of copyright law in this manner, as @zer0hedge clearly states that the material is not affiliated with the Steemit profile. Without @zer0hedge, many of the REAL Zer0 Hedge articles and commentaries will remain unknown to members of the Steemit community. This information enriches the community.
It is completely different if someone copies and pastes information, and attempts to pass it off as their own without attribution or links to the original content. This is copyright theft. Informing the public with proper attribution is covered under Fair Use.
Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
-U.S. Copyright Office, 2018, https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
@zer0hedge never posts with the request for exchange of funds. It is up to the DONATION of the Steemit community. Steemians can read the content without upvoting it. Upvoting is a free choice. Obviously, community members value the information, so they have upvoted the @zer0hedge account to the value it enjoys today.
The value of @zer0hedge 's account is irrelevant to the service the account provides. Any commentary on the value is merely jealousy that the commenter was not the first one to do this. I repost videos of my favorite YouTube channels. I comment on their videos that they should join Steemit, so that I can resteem the video, rather than uploading them as new content. I always give proper attribution and have been accused of copyright theft by unscrupulous Steemians. I definitely DO NOT APPRECIATE such accusations.
lol, erm, no - it isn't. As I already pointed out, anyone here could just do the same thing to attempt to gain similar upvotes, or pick another site and use that as the source - but they don't, because they don't want to and they don't agree with the idea for their own reasons. You can see that @V4vapid raised this already and has a highly significant amount of steem available - your claim that V4vapid is simply jealous is unfounded and has no evidence to support it.
Fair enough.
not really, it directly effects the potential payout of steemit as a whole - any account that takes large payouts constantly will be effectively depleting the reward pool and meaning other posts receive less - that is part of why the community generally shouts loudly when they see this occurring. if the service the account provides is ultimately something that could be identical in quality and value just by pasting a link that goes to zerohedge instead of pasting the text (which it is), then it is not unreasonable to point out that receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars for effectively dropping a web link into a form a few times a day is at the very least worthy of being commented on.
True, it isn't fair for those who generate original content. However, life is not fair. If we are about freedom in cryptocurrency, then people are also free to support this. It will never end. Eventually, we will end up censoring what people say, because the community may not agree with the content...Slippery slope.
I have a few questions, though: If we are supposed to get paid for valuable contributions to original content, why are there upvoting buttons on comments?
Should short comments not be upvoted?
reposting has some utility but impersonating the source is not acceptable.
linking to the source and commenting on it would be useful.
This is a late birthday !BEER
View or trade
BEERat steem-engine.Hey @isnochys, here is a bit
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!LOL! Thanks.
More !BEER for you
Posted using Partiko Android
View or trade
BEERat steem-engine.Hey @bluerobo, here is a bit
BEERfor you. Enjoy it!