>>52268000
>reddit is technology
Uh huh.

Apart from those digits this thread really shouldn't be here.

Your comments belong to reddit, as in the TOC

>>52268063
Internet culture is technology

>>52268063
Discussion about whether websites own our comments or not is absolutely technology related. Fuck off, redditor.

>>52268000
I'll buy it if there's the AMAs of the broken arms incest dude and the two penes man.

>>52268138
Not him but it was technology when Facebook decided they owned your pictures. It was technology when YouTube decided it owned your videos.

This is a continuation of a worrying trend not just limited to reddit.

Does 4chan own our posts?

Does Microsoft own your computer?

Do I own my black slaves?

>>52268000
>publishing shit that's publicly available on the internet

Wow, it must be illegal cause OP is dumb as shit.

>>52268615
No, the fbi does

>>52268699
Things change when you're making a profit off of it pipsqueak.

>>52268615
>All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

It's printed on every page

and that's why 4chan tries to make a profit off of jlist ads and why the site was sold to an Hiro instead of publishing epic threads in book form.

>>52268080
>Internet culture is technology
No it isn't. Technology is a means to an end (A report, a message, jacking off). Internet culture is the end.
This board is to discuss the means, LaTeX, sms, private trackers, etc.

>>52268615
>Does 4chan own our posts?

NSA does and Google

>>52268615
No, comments are owned by the poster.

I don't know if the same is true for reddit though.

>>52268711
no it doesn't, especially when nobody owns it.
>you can't make money from things that are in teh public domain!
>being this retarded
You can publish one just like it too fagget. Doesn't mean they can sue you because it doesn't belong to them. They can make as much money off it as they want and so can you.

>>52268772
Comments are also owned by the poster, but you give reddit the authority to do whatever the fuck they want with it.

"You retain the rights to your copyrighted content or information that you submit to reddit ("user content") except as described below.

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so."

Source: mad googlefu bruv

>>52268800
>By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so."

Why is this legal again?

>>52268800
>they put it in the EULA so it must be true
They should also put that your children will now be SJW neutered manslaves for the new feminazi order.
Doesn't make it and truer or more legal.
The fact is that it's public domain. You can print a book just like it and they couldn't sue you if you don't use their logo.

>>52268615
Nope. Whoever posted it owns it.
http://recode.net/2014/08/02/this-post-is-art-framed-4chan-post-sells-for-90900-on-ebay/

>>52268800
>If you post it, it's our
>claiming things that aren't yours are yours just because you put a disclaimer in.
Top kek, good luck proving that in court.

>>52268810
Because both parties 'agreed' to it by creating an account and not reading the agreement.

>>52268816
The agreement doesn't say they get exclusive rights. You're right, anyone can publish the same book, they are well within their rights to do so.
It's just this book has more effective marketing.

>>52268856
Yep, can't wait till we get a 4chan /g/ branded off-brand edition.

>>52268855
>>52268816
>Not understanding the difference between ownership and a licence to reproduce
>Inability to read the comment
Never change, /g/.

>>52268879
>license
There's no license agreement anywhere apart from the shitty EULA. It's not a binding agreement. If you want you can probably get your comment deleted from the book through legal action.

>>52268876
Calling dibs.

4CHAN SHITPOST

THE GREATEST HITS

ORDER NOW

$39.99

>>52268936
4CHAN SHITPOST DELUXE EDITION
THE GREATEST HITS
ORDER NOW
$39.90
*get in quick before 1000000000 imitators make it below cost of production unless you're in DESIGNATED land.

>>52268936
They already did this years ago it's called ICANHAZCHEEZBURGER

>>52268816
>The fact is that it's public domain.
Please explain how. Not everything published on the Internet becomes public domain, especially considering that the EULA explicitly states the poster still owns the content.

>>52268899
>There's no license agreement anywhere apart from the shitty EULA. It's not a binding agreement.
So sick of this stupid fucking statement. As long as the EULA does not contradict the law, it is an agreement that you have entered and as such you are legally bound by it.

>>52268976

It becomes public domain when you post it in a publicly available space. And any copyright is only worth as much as you can enforce anyway. Then there's argument of what you publish might just be an archiving or journalistic extract of a site as a whole. You can't just claim copyright to things that you publicly and willingly publish to everyone without first registering to protect it or at the very least putting a license like creative commons on your work. That and EULAs are laughable and just saying something in an internet agreement doesn't make it true.

>>52269018
but it does make it true. If your license agreement is claiming something that isn't lawful i.e. claiming someone's work is yours just because you said so.

I hereby decree that every post under this post forfeits all their assets to me because I said so.

>Legally binding because it's not unlawful.

>>52269018
There's no license agreement because there's not consideration exchanged between you and reddit. You dumbfuck.
Google fucking basic contract law 101.

>>52269180
>>52269200
An agreement is not a contract it's not legally enforceable. They can ban you the fuck out of the site (private property) but it doesn't mean they can claim your property you dumbshit especially when they haven't paid you a dickshitting cent for the 'license' of your comments. Again you don't understand the difference between what is legally enforceable and what isn't. They can't sue you for using their site while not actually following their terms. You can sue them for using your quotes without permission because they can't just claim your property just because they put it in an agreement.
If you reply to this post you legally revoke the right to all your possessions.
See I can bullshit agreement too.

>>52268800

If that is the case then why aren't websites with comment sections liable for user comments?

>>52269627
because you own it when it's convenient but not when it's not.
Welcome to the real world. Corporations are the biggest copyright infringers and abusers.

>>52268810
It's not. It's completely unenforceable. Just because you say something and require a user to click accept, doesn't mean it's valid.