Is it acceptable to use Hive Posts for sharing links and videos that are not your own original content?
With link and credit to original source
https://peakd.com/hivewatchers/@demotruk/copy-and-paste-is-not-the-same-as-spam-or-plagiarism
- Yes
- No
- I don't know
Answer the question at dpoll.xyz.
Voted for
No.
(If done, best to offer a summary rather than copying verbatim)
Why do you need to offer a summary? Does sharing a link not provide value in itself? Why does it work fine on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit?
Publishers are RIPPED off when you copy content word-to-word.
You are basically STEALING their income.
And that is why, in journalism and media, ethics are important. :)
I have been blogging for as long as I can remember, so I link to the source and add some details around it.
Would love to share more if required. :)
I'm talking about links and embedding videos. Not copying and pasting a full article.
Eg. An embedded Youtube video linked in a Hive post can still be monetized by Youtube ads. Links that you click through still brings traffic to the original website. The argument that you are "stealing money" only applies to full copy and paste of text contents - not sharing links or embedding videos.
Voted for
share post anything you like :) but you should not earn from them
Why not earn? The entire basis of curation rewards is that sharing and finding content for others also has value - not just the creation of content.
thin line with plagiarism
Plagiarism is taking credit, claiming authorship. Conflating sharing links with plagiarism is not right.
Voted for
I think it's ok if rewards are declined or reward is burned to @null. I think profiting from other people's work (even if credit is included) is not ok.
Profiting from other people's work is something that everyone does.
Take a truck driver, who brings retail stock from producer to retailer. The truck driver does not create the content, he just transports it. The retailer does not create the content, he just provides a convenient location for people to find and buy the content. Even the producer does not work alone - he relies on the truck driver and the retailer for his product to reach his audience.
It is wrong to imagine that the only person in the attention economy supply chain is the creator of content. Just like in the physical world, content needs to find its end user. In social media, that is what ordinary users do. Why do you think Youtubers keep asking people to like, subscribe and share their content? They want to increase their reach. Good content needs to be shared, curated, aggregated. A prohibition on profiting from this is a disservice. This is the very reason we have curation rewards on Hive.
Good point. It would be nice to see some sort of way that all value generated by content is distributed to all parties from creators to distributors. Maybe some sort of smart contract attached to the item.
That's basically what the idea of curation rewards and benefactors is. But you will never get an implementation that actually gives out value according to everyone who is involved or should get it. A collection of simpler solutions and a culture that acknowledges that there are various ways to contribute value, rather than putting one particular class of user on a pedestal, would suffice.
Yes
it is acceptable if proper reference is given. There should be no ambiguity
Voted for
Depends how often... I had to unfollow a few people, because my feed was clogged with uninteresting stuff..
That is totally fair, if someone is posting too much uninteresting content regardless of whether it's original or not.
Voted for
Sharing articles, images and videos through links is perfectly fine (with credits and link where not obvious where the content comes from); But just sharing an article, image or video without adding anything to it, or very very little; I consider abuse. The reason is very simple: at HIVE we are rewarded with real money therefore that money is to be earned in a way. Spending 10 seconds to share a post and receive value in form of auto votes and self votes is too easy. I would apply a soft rule to that: When this happens once in a while, that should be ok; When it happens a lot, then it is abuse of the reward pool.
Voted for
I understand not wanting people to have accounts that just repost popular news or videos all day. If it's only once in a while and the person posting includes a few words about the video or whatever, i'm fine with that.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
The link in your question appears to be confusing linking with copying and pasting.
The process of linking generally involves creating original content. For example, if I wanted to share my favorite cat video, I would use the video URL and a description as to why this was my favorite cat video.
A large number of people write posts which consist of nothing but a link and a comment. They never get in trouble. People often share videos with comments. They never get in trouble.
The thing that the @cheetah hates is when people copy and paste from other web sites.
I answered "No" to your question because the question appears to have confused copying and pasting with linking. These are two different things.
This question doesn't actually mention copy + paste. It's in the URL in the linked article, which was the original title but it was changed shortly after publishing it.
The post and question are about sharing links.
I also disagree with the necessity of adding your own commentary. It is an arbitrary additional requirement. The need for a comment seems to come from a fixation with only rewarding original content.
The additional comment is not arbitrary. The commentary says why you think the shared link is relevant to the Hive community. This is especially true if you are linking to something that you did not create.
For example, I might link to a picture of President Trump because I love Trump's hair. Now, to make the link relevant to the Hive community I might add something like. I love Trump's hair ... we could nest in there!
Now the link is relevant to Hive.
The bar is low. A link with an original comment seems to be enough to squeak by @cheetah .
If I post a video about electric vehicles on a community for people interested in electric vehicles - why I am sharing that video is entirely obvious and implicit. Adding a comment about why I am sharing that video is redundant - the whole point of such a community is for people interested in content link that to find it there.
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Voted for
Might depend on what the post looks like.