Thank you for your vigilance, Hall Monitor.

I know you shouldn’t comment about votes, but why downvotes? You might be against copyright in certain cases but technically, if not legally, the point holds.

The comment seems to assume that most everyone would agree that such sharing of the link should not be taking place due to copyright reasons. That is an absurd assumption to make, to everyone who has been around the internet for a bit.

It would be different if the commenter would be trying to make an actual, intelligently argued case why the link shouldn’t be shared in this instance.

That being said, one could instead link to https://web.archive.org/web/20080718084442/http://lucis.net/..., where the story is “reprinted by permisssion”.

Because downvotes are heavily used to say "I don't like this" rather than "this is not relevant".

I've complained to HN about this and proposed solutions. They don't care.

Seems like the University of Northern Iowa's concern, no?

it might be no big deal to link to one pirated short story - but multiply that times the internet and writers are getting shafted out of royalties.

You can say arthur clarke has passed on - but part of the way he was rewarded in his life was through licensing the copyright of his works to publishers, and copyright extends to 50 years after death, last time i checked. and diminishing publishers' ability to make money off their licensed works diminishes our ability as a society to support artists in their work.

I see support for nytimes here vs. chatgpt - isn't that the same thing as this, just on a different scale?

Maybe this copy is put out with a permission?

Exactly! From what I can tell, there is no way to tell the actually copyright or licensing status of anything you find on the internet, you can only guess.

Better call the police. Seriously though, Clark died in 2008; it isn’t like he is being victimized.

My ouji board said Arthur was cool with it