This quote by Patrick stood out to me-

“Our target audience is the people making things on the web...And ultimately, there are no websites that are not built by developers.”

Having a huge population doesn't help much. I am from India and I can say that the current state of the country is not good. There are some good initiatives such as the Digital India initiative and some good advancements on the Fintech scene but the country is not in the best state right now. At least, not positioned for remarkable growth like China had in the past few decades.

> Having a huge population doesn't help much.

The article highlights this by saying "India currently punches below its weight on the world stage" and it's true if we go by the numbers. Also, if we go by the numbers the country is in the best state ever compared to its past. Modernization in manufacturing or agriculture will surely increase the country's output which I believe should be the target of governance.

Also, Participation of women in the economy is super low. This needs to be improved.

edited. And definitely agree on the second point.

Hi,

OP here. I have had this idea of building an Internet Library for quite some time now. So, thanks to a perfectly timed random tweet, I started working on it in Coda. It's still a WIP and we are adding topics on it every week.

If you want to contribute to the project, my email is on the link.

Do let me know what you think about it!

We have attributed each post to its user by linking it to the original thread :)

You're skirting the question every time it's asked.

The question is whether you have obtained permission from each individual whose original work you have copied.

I do not understand the smiley at the end of your sentence.

Is this a joke and you did not actually mention these people (not that it changes anything copyright wise)?

Or are you telling us how smart you are when doing illegal things?

I really do hope a DCMA brings your website down, you may then understand that when you are kindly told that you are stealing things, it is worthwhile to listen and not answer bullshit.

That's something you might be able to get away with as a blogger out journalist, but I'd not put that on my institutional website as marketing material - and then charge for it.

No. This is called copyright infringement. Get a lawyer or take it down -- what you're doing is against the law.

Hi, Ankit here. You can choose to not pay for it as well.

If you read the blog carefully, we have mentioned it very clearly- "(Pro Tip: Type in '$0' in the price bar below and you can have the magazine for free. At Juno, we'll never charge fees )"

You cannot take Harry Potter bookes 1–7, put them together as an ePub, and put it on your website for sale with an option to put $0. You cannot even put them for free on your website. Why? Because it is copyrighted. Reddit comments are copyrighted too. Without authors' permission, what you are doing is illegal.

EDIT:

Those posting content on Reddit retain the rights to their content. They give Reddit a license to do certain things to their content, but this license is solely to Reddit, not the general public.

If you want to do what you do legally, you have to ask for permission of every single person whose content you have included in your ebook. Depending on the jurisdiction, you probably can legally compile a list of links to interesting content and publish that, but certainly not the contents themselves.

Now I am questioning whether this kind of disregard for copyright goes further than the ebook. For example, does your software use GPL code without complying with GPL?

Hi, We have attributed each post to its user by linking it to the original thread. And if you think of it, a lot of original content from Reddit is shared around, we have just done that :)

> We have attributed each post to its user by linking it to the original thread.

It is still not legal. You can attribute Harry Potter to J. K. Rowling all you want. It still won't make it legal to republish her books.

> if you think of it, a lot of original content from Reddit is shared around, we have just done that

Businesses are held to a higher standard that random strangers with pseudonyms on the internet. For one, unlike 14-year-olds on twitter, a bank is supposed to have its metaphorical legal shit together.

If an organization does not understand and comply with such widely-known laws as copyright, what are the odds that they understand and comply with thousands of obscure laws and regulations pertaining to financial institutions? Will it be just a matter of time until a regulator knocks on your door, does an audit, and learns that the company has violated dozens of laws and needs to be shut down immediately?

I would be very concerned about trusting my money with a financial institution who seems to have a tendency to skirt, bend, and outright break the laws.

Yeah, it all seems very weird to me. You're one DMCA notice from a random redditor away from having your entire website shutdown.

In general, you can't republish someone else's writing unless you get the permission from the author, or they publish it under a permissive license. Posting to Reddit does not put something in the public domain.

> I would be very concerned about trusting my money with a financial institution who seems to have a tendency to skirt, bend, and outright break the laws.

You mean like all of them? You seem to have some kind of axe to grind.

In the author's defense, that's not an accurate analogy at all - see the comment regarding Reddit's TOS below.

In your example, you could just add one extra page which critiques the entire series and that would fall under fair use. You could literally put “After reading these books it’s shit and the writer is a hack”. Totally fair game.

Fair use is not that simple, and the original authors would most likely win a suit against such a "critique".

Typically the defense of fair use would apply to a work that excerpts from a larger work. Copying the original work in whole is going to be very hard to justify.

No, not at all. There are very clear very specific cases of what constitutes fair use in the written word case such as a book. Look it up.

Fair use is like a guilty plea. You're saying "yes I violated the authors copyright, but I should be allowed to." Then a judge decides if you're right. They use a test, and much of the criteria is a spectrum. However commercial use is more binary. You charge for something, you lose points.

Is this work transformative?

Are you going to address the rest of his comment?

Hi, Ankit here. Try once again perhaps? Might be a one time error.

it was fine on the 2nd try. I downloaded the ebook.

Great to see this company growing :)