r/NoSleep, One of the Largest Subreddits On Reddit, Goes Dark In IP-Theft Protest

Fortran IV writes: In an attempt to "start a conversation" about copyright and IP theft, one of the largest subreddits on Reddit.com, the horror sub r/NoSleep, has gone private for a week. NoSleep, with nearly 14 million subscribers, is one of the largest collections of horror fiction on the internet; MIT used it to train an AI system to write horror stories. Authors retain copyright to all stories on NoSleep, but piracy remains an ongoing problem, so the moderators have elected to shutter the sub from 02/24/2020 to 03/02/2020 to draw attention to the issue.

Well, this is creepy...

[magusxxx]

03022020 - 02242020 = 780,000.

#780000 in RGB is Dark Red.

Re:

[Xenx]

I have mixed feelings about that attitude. It should be peoples expectations that they post online will be circulated. However, copyright should be valid for everybody or nobody. Posting it online does not invalidate their copyright.

Re:

[Presence Eternal]

If a man leaves a statue along a roadside, he's an asshole if he yells at people for painting pictures of it.

Re:

[Xenx]

TV shows are broadcast for free OTA for anyone within range.. that doesn't mean you can ignore copyright on them.

Re:

[Presence Eternal]

This brings back memories of the DMCA, Napster, and people arguing about sharing cover songs copied from free radio broadcasts. If I recall, the argument against sharing such songs is that they were paid for by advertising and covered by very thick broadcast licensing agreements. I didn't agree with that line of thinking then, and I don't agree with it now.

Also it would be much more accurate to say Reddit is like public access tv.

Re:

[Xenx]

Also it would be much more accurate to say Reddit is like public access tv.

That wouldn't be a fair assessment, given the nature of how public access TV operates. However, even if I concede that point it still doesn't change the point of the comparison. Just because the owner of the copyrighted content makes it available in one public location under specific conditions, does not mean that the content is in the public domain. If the authors of the works in r/NoSleep retain copyright control of their work, they have the right to determine how their work is used as covered by copyrigh

Re:

[Presence Eternal]

What I hear is the following claim: An author can allow an unbounded number of people to view their work, indefinitely, without expectation of any compensation, in a public place they don't own, but that this doesn't make the work public domain. This does not parse with me. Maybe it's legally true, but I can't hold the idea in my mind.

If it were on their own website, if they said the work was for free for a week to promote their new book, then I'd be much more strongly in their camp. Note that I'm not talki

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Xenx]

Posting on reddit is literally no different, in terms of making available to the public en masse, than a song played on the radio or something airing on one of the local TV stations. If you make your own personal copy, for personal use, then fine. We've had that for TV and radio for decades. That's not what r/NoSleep is fighting against. They're fighting against their content being used in other works without their permission. Regardless of whether they're being offered money or being attributed, they have

Re:

[Can'tNot]

What if someone makes a mold of his roadside statue, and starts cranking out duplicates, and signs those duplicates with themselves as the original sculptor, and then sells them? Maybe the artist isn't such an asshole for being angry in that case?

Re:

[Presence Eternal]

So, the reddit post mentions three things: sharing, narration, and publication. Your example is analogous to full blown publication. Publishing someone else's work without some kind of agreement is theft, yes. I feel comfortable with naming it as theft.

Re:

[spire3661]

You can call it theft all you want, but it only makes you look ignorant. Infringment is not theft, ever.

Re:

[Holi]

I love how Spire3661 thinks he is the one who decides things instead of being an absolute nobody.

Re:

[spire3661]

We settled that issue on this very site a long time ago. Infringement is not theft. Infringement is infringement. Calling it theft is ignorance.

Re:

[Presence Eternal]

If you're referring to unauthorized copying or display, I'd certainly agree.

I'm referring to taking a work, attributing it to oneself, publishing it, and claiming both profit and moral rights to it. If that isn't theft, I don't care about the distinction.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Calydor]

Wait, how did you fit communism, which is supposed to be about sharing everything, into that angry mini-rant?

Re:

[Holi]

Actually it sounds like you are the commie asshole for wanting to own someone else's work.

Re:

[djinn6]

There is no moral argument for copyright as it stands today. It has terms so long compared to the human lifetime that it may as well be perpetual and scope so wide as to cover fan fiction, API's and the shape of clothing. Moreover, that enforcement cost that is borne by the public, while all profits go to the creator.

Re:

[Xenx]

There is no moral argument for allowing people to trod over these authors, just because they cannot defend themselves easily in court. If you have a problem with the current copyright laws, target the people abusing the laws and/or the laws themselves. These authors are literally the people copyright was originally intended to protect.

Re:

[spire3661]

I have no respect at all for the current copyright regime or those who try to leverage it. It hinders far more than it helps.

Re:

[Xenx]

The authors of r/NoSleep, in general, are exactly the types of people copyright was set out to protect. They're not the ones abusing the copyright system. You have a right to not agree with the system, but they're not the ones that broke the system.

The system as originally intended definitely helped more than hindered. Feel free to be against the current system, but these people don't deserve to be treated the same as the groups abusing it.

This is bad

[110010001000]

I'll have to go back reading Star Trek Doctor Who Hentai mashup fanfic for the week.

this is just a storm in a teacup to me

[set]

This looks to be a continuation of SomethingAwful and Chan content being stolen/reused/updated/etc. for purposes that were not originally intended or considered. What's the difference here?

There's nothing special about /r/NoSleep as far as this phenomenon is concerned, I think. I expect anything with a critical mass of readership can end up being used for *something*.

Re:

[VMaN]

Unless the original was somehow scrubbed, nothing has been stolen.

Re:

[Holi]

Ah yes, make the argument about semantics.

Nerds United...can never be defeated

[rooboy69]

Haha

On topic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let it ever leave the shower.

Or what? An angsty teen with white face paint, a flat black choker around her neck, too much mascara, half her face smeared with eyeliner, on a 4 day coke binge will stab me with a bowie knife in the shower while violins shriek in protest?

Re:

[Fortran IV]

Since when does posting something online mean it has "no saleable value"? That's gonna come to a shock to the many webcomic authors selling hundreds or thousands of print copies of their free-to-read-online comics: XKCD, Questionable Content, SMBC, Kevin & Kell, Skin Horse, and more. Narbonic ended thirteen years ago, has remained free online ever since — and the author just put out a new print edition two years ago.

Re:

[djinn6]

I think there's a slight difference between something sold because the readers wanted to read it and something sold because the readers wanted to support the creator. The latter is more of a donation, or perhaps a "sale" of future works not yet created.

Re:

[Cederic]

However: Do act against others trying to sell your work as their own.

Even if you created it while enjoying a hobby.

Re:

[JaredOfEuropa]

They are not acting against not receiving compensation, but against their work being pirated. Copyright should serve to enrich the world, and that very much includes protecting authors who want to publish their work for free, while maintaining some control over it.

Someone writes a story for fun, publishes it on Reddit for free reading with the condition that the work not be republished elsewhere. The story turns out to be a hit... in which case it is not at all unreasonable for the author to sell his st

Who cares?

[EmoryM]

If you need a redditor's spoopy story check /r/Thetruthishere - it's better anyway, the 3rd rule is "Post must be true." /r/nosleep always struck me as a club for for folks who fashion themselves the next R.L. Stine.

Re:

[Mattcelt]

/r/LetsNotMeet is another good place for creepy (supposedly true) stories.

wait what

[sectokia]

So they block their own audience from reading and posting things, drawing traffic to the pirates who still have the content up ok let me know how it goes

Hmmmm...

[Malays Bowman]

NoSleep just went to sleep

There are some good r/nosleep story ideas

[Camembert]

I occasionally read the highest rated r/nosleep stories. And sometimes I think that they could be the basis of a cool and original scary movie. I would find it normal that in such case the IP of the original author is honoured.

Copyright is already half dead

[lucasnate1]

The only ones who can use it are rich people and corporations, normal people will be drowned in coroporate lawyers if they protest against a corp stealing their art. Better to just cancel the whole thing for good. Ofcourse that the US would never do it since it would ruin one of their strongest power bases.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bad time to create awareness imo

[OpinOnion]

People are mostly going to be paying attention to pandemic and markets for the next week or two.

Honestly..

[Anonymous Dotter]

People will just wait a week for it to open it back up unless the subreddit owner feels the protest is not enough.

The delusion of information "property".

[BAReFO0t]

How many times does reality have have to punch them in the face, before they realize that the concept of ownership cannot be appied to lnformation and ideas?

Look, in essence you are bitching about the world telling each other your secret, after you literally told your secret to the whole world!
Yes, it is not OK for others to make money off of telling people your secret. For that same reason that it not OK for *you* to.do that!
It is only OK to take money for *working*! Not for the resulting work! Don't tell