One of the co-creators here! The file size limits are actually old and we need to update them.
Though on the 1GB total storage I have a question: with a maximum of 2 sites on the free plan, what scenarios do you see your sites being larger than 1GB? I’m genuinely curious if we’re overlooking something.
Your pricing says 5 sites (and 1GB) on the $9/mo plan. For a simple use-case, I create static sites for artists and art museums. As you can imagine, their assets can be quite large and numerous.
Just knowing that there’s such a small limit for $9 is a concern right at the top of the funnel. When there are cloud options for pennies per GB there needs to be a clearer value prop for the additional cost.
It turns out that many people don’t spend the gift cards designated for specific retailers, but rather trade or sell them for cash in their local market.
Because it does far more harm than good. Enforcement of copyright requires all kinds of authoritarianism and infringement upon people's rights to use their own property/devices, which hardly seems a fair trade just for more entertainment media. Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.
Copyright also applies on media that is not for entertainment or "consumption". Where would the money come from to pay for important news reporting, for example? There are a lot of people in this world who are not hackers and have other needs.
As somebody who grew up in the time of government-only media, let me assure you that you don't want the world to regress to that. Copyrighted information is better than no information.
I broadly agree with the underlying sentiment, however this is a classic false dichotomy espoused by people and interests heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. I would argue that news organizations like ProPublica could exist without copyright, and does not rely on public funds. NPR and PBS are publicly subsidized, but not to the extent that they are obliged to operate as state media (or can even be credibly accused of bowing under pressure from government actors). It’s a convenient myth that copyright is somehow inevitable or necessary, or that it fosters creative endeavors.
Sure, if we lived in a society that valued people enough intrinsically to support them regardless of their value in the capitalist marketplace... But we don't. Too bad people need to eat and pay their rent.
Lots of drugs cost little to manufacture but lots to develop. Ideally the costs for robust research and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals would be shared by all people equally because we all benefit from improving the human condition... But they're not. And since pharmaceutical companies can't just blow a whole bunch of money on research for things that will bring them no money, they charge enough for the pill to make their money back, and unfortunately, usually, far beyond that until it's able to be made generically. I believe that windfall profits from prices that keep people from treatment are wrong. But allowing everyone to make new drugs developed by other pharmaceutical companies to sell at generic prices would just mean those companies wouldn't research new drugs... Win? Not without a way in-place to replace that research. And anyone considering some glib argument questioning the value of new drugs, you're full of shit. Not every new drug is a Viagra knock-off.
Lots of people in the tech crowd have adopted this convenient romantic notion that real art must be non-commercial, and that all real art is made by people toiling in obscurity, driven solely by the need for self-expression and the distant hope that they'll someday be discovered, become famous, and have their name in art history books... Or even that hobby art could replace professional art. That, of course, is complete bullshit. Art is no different than any other intellectual pursuit and equating VFX artists for AAA game titles and professional session musicians to weekend basement studio oil painters and people with hobby bands is like equating immigration attorneys writing depositions and technical writers to people who are serious about their personal fanfic blogs.
Saying we need to abolish copyright means the things that are copyrighted have enough value to want; demanding we do that without first demanding an alternate way to support people who do intellectual work is a self-absorbed demand for free stuff. Saying they should get another job and continue to produce that valuable work for free— like a public slave in ancient Rome— is not an answer any ethical adult could entertain in good faith.
Clearly this person thinks people base their moral opinions solely on what would make them more money. "It's impossible to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."
> Especially when there are enough creatives out there who do the work purely for passion that'd we'd never run out of media to consume even if nobody could use copyright to profit from it.
“Because I think people should work for free to entertain me”
"I deserve automatic compensation (rent) for 100+ years for any one who consumes this media just because I recorded any bit of audio, put one mark on a paper, or created 1 frame of a motion picture."
> "I deserve automatic compensation (rent) for 100+ years for any one who consumes this media just because I recorded any bit of audio, put one mark on a paper, or created 1 frame of a motion picture."
Pure straw man argument.
Nobody is talking about “automatic compensation”. Nobody is getting paid for putting “one make on a paper” if nobody wants to buy it.
People get to price their works. If you don’t like the price or don’t think it’s worth it, you don’t pay for it. Nobody gets “automatic compensation” if nobody wants to buy their work. These are such obvious ground truths that you’re ignoring for the sake of trying to make a strained point.
Sorry, you’re not entitled to the output of other people’s labor for free, just like I’m not entitled to the output of your labor for free.
I'm pretty sure copyright law in it's current form was lobbied by the mouse company™ rather than individuals.
> just because I recorded any bit of audio, put one mark on a paper, or created 1 frame of a motion picture
What's your opinion on books, for example, where almost all the work was done by an individual? Do they deserve lifetime compensation or similar?
Disney might be a big name behind it, but don't let that fool you into thinking individuals haven't tried to shape this too, see Sonny Bono for one. But you can also look around at the current massive fight over AI and see a lot of individuals who are fighting very hard for stronger enforcement of copyright in its current form. Even here in the tech community we see a lot of people wanting to keep their public sites and code from being used in these models, which is a significant change from the "Information wants to be free" days of yore.
IMHO it should be similar timeframes to patents, for all media types, and network infrastructure should not bear the responsibility to enforce it.
For things requiring lots of research and development, I think some mechanism should exist to document and extend the period, or "pay per year" scheme, but no longer than 30 years.
What is the point of art entirely, in the context of telling me what I can do and watch with my own Internet connected computing/media devices? Should we fully subsidsize anyone who calls themselves an artist? Should we track all media usage for this purpose?
> What is the point of art entirely, in the context of telling me what I can do and watch with my own Internet connected computing/media devices?
It’s fascinating to see people in this thread pretend like art exists in a vacuum and act like the people who created it shouldn’t be involved in the equation at all.
Something tells me those same people would get very upset if we suggested their own work, code, or labor should be freely used by anyone who wanted to, including their employer. I’m guessing they like to be paid for their work. They just don’t like paying other people for their work.
> Should we fully subsidsize anyone who calls themselves an artist?
Why are you trying to talk about subsidies and how people identify?
You’re throwing out straw man arguments to try to distract from the real point: People get to decide how much to charge for their work. If you don’t want to pay that amount, you are not entitled to receive it for free.
The way some people are pretending like they have a moral entitlement to the labor of other people in this thread is wild.
Good art will outlive its creator - either in the form of the work itself or through inspirations to others. The relation between a work of art and its creator cannot be "ownership like the physical sense" forever.
> Something tells me those same people would get very upset if we suggested their own work, code, or labor should be freely used by anyone who wanted to, including their employer. I’m guessing they like to be paid for their work
For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious.
> People get to decide how much to charge for their work. If you don’t want to pay that amount, you are not entitled to receive it for free.
It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1.
It costs 0 dollars to make copy 2 of something. Anything you think you should receive above 0 for copy 2 is only justifiable with moral entitlements to the money of other people.
> Good art will outlive its creator - either in the form of the work itself or through inspirations to others. The relation between a work of art and its creator cannot be "ownership like the physical sense" forever.
Yet another strawman! Nobody demanded ownership forever, but some form of compensation for things you enjoy.
> For the record, I think it should work like this: I'm an artist. You want art from me. You tell me what you want, I create it, you pay me. This is straightforward and obvious.
What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service.
> It costs many dollars to make copy 1 of Y. You worked, you should get paid for copy 1.
If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss, because pretty much nobody was able to pay the cost for an artwork upfront - a single movie costs up to several hundred millions of dollars to manufacture. This leads to a world where most media simply wouldn't exist. I doubt that's the one you'd prefer living in.
Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people, and a way for artists to make a living from creating artworks as a service.
> Yet another strawman! Nobody demanded ownership forever, but some form of compensation for things you enjoy.
> What you describe isn't art, but the service of creating an artwork on demand as a service.
Not a strawman (and also relevant to copyrightable art) while copyright is able to used to enforce royalties. Fair compensation is 1 work = 1 payment, not 1 work = pay over 100+ years.
(Related aside: Private entities have the right to enter into contracts they wish (e.g. if you personally want to pay an artist over and over during your lifetime, fine), but when it seeps into law that enables third parties to sue, then it is no longer a private matter.)
> If we were doing that, society would be at a net loss,
> Instead, by spreading this amount over consumers, we can have accessible content for most people
Mass media dilutes art, makes it impersonal, limits attention span by encouraging a "fad/fashion" approach to creative works, and forces art to be subservient to things like advertising. You sure it wouldn't be a net gain?
It does make artists lives more difficult, but things that are more important to society are difficult as well, such as being a doctor, so ... no sympathy.
If this was true, people wouldn’t try to pirate copyrighted content because they’d be busy with this supposed abundance of free creative media.
People pirate because they want content that other people produced with the expectation of getting paid.
People like getting paid for their work. I suspect you do, too, but you think that people who do creative work don’t deserve to be paid because you are the consumer.
As Valve's Gabe Newell once said: piracy is a service problem. As such, if the paid for version provides a good service, people will use that instead. Lots of stuff getting pirated doesn't even get consumed, and people don't have unlimited money. Not as if people would've suddenly bought everything they pirated. That is a pipe dream.
IMO copyright should be drastically shortened, and should possibly have a mechanism for varying the length based on the application - for instance, aerospace software can take literal decades just to be permitted for use, so if the copyright only lasts 10 years then aerospace software basically isn't covered.
In contrast, perhaps the average videogame might need only five years of copyright to sufficiently incentivize their production. Hypothetically. In such a scenario, there's no one-size-fits-all solution, so we need a different system than just a flat copyright duration.
While I agree in theory, I'm afraid that disputes over what is sufficient in what industry would result in 10 years for one kind of work, 40 for another, and 5 for yet another. I would accept a one-size-fits-all solution in the form of a lowest-common-denominator which simultaneously is much closer to the original US copyright term. Surely 15 years of monopoly privileges after publishing - or 20 years after writing/making, whichever is sooner - is sufficient. (No extensions, although I might accept something like Bill Willingham's proposal of giving licensees 10 years total and max [1].) If that's not enough incentive then the prospective author isn't confident that the work would sell well in the best conditions, and a government should not further distort a market to make an at-best-poorly-selling product sell well.
It should also be strictly limited to original works, not vaguely applied to "derivatives." A cover of a song should be considered an original work, and not infringing upon the original. As should a song that uses sections of melody or samples.
I'd also say that durations should be shorter than the original terms, due to the much higher volume of works produced today and greater accessibility of those tools. 5-10 from publication at the most.
After all, a massive supply of something with a relatively static demand simply means it has a lower value than it once did.
Because it's not private property. When something is a private property, that means that if I have 100% of it, you have 0% of it. That doesn't happen with, for example, songs. I can have 100% of a song and listen to it as much as I want and that doesn't mean you can't have and listen that song as well.
Copyright (and patents) are a limited monopoly granted by the state, thus they are inherently immoral, as everything that any government does, as they do that by the use of force.
Other way to look at it is that ideas are not scarce at all and it's copyright/patents/the government that creates scarcity where there's abundance.
We only have it to promote useful arts and science. With more books than you can read in a lifetime is copyright necessary? Is it the most useful way to ensure more art is created considering the cost?
I'm guessing that somehow a chunk of their source code got marked as "copy to the bundle" from within the project's build phase. One scenario I could think of this happening is a bug in a custom build script that was intended to copy other resources (images, sounds, etc.) to the bundle and copied an unintended directory containing the leaked source code as well.
Not necessarily. The way that the enumerated type is declared, the associated types of the success and failure values are declared to be normal (not optional). This restricts nil from being passed in as the data or the error.
Super fast – that's really impressive! There may be an off-by-one bug. The next page of results seems to be missing the first element (e.g. 30, 60, etc). The results go from 29 to 31, 59 to 61.
Great point, and for that reason I really like it, but generally my view is: "for most situations, humans are more expensive than the compute costs, so do the thing that is easy for a human to understand and pay the tax on your compute power". Obviously that doesn't always hold true, so place your bets accordingly.
Why would it be hard for a human to understand a type declaration using a syntax that has been well established in some of the most popular programming languages (C, C++, Java, C#) for several decades now?
The longer [if based] format can almost be interpreted by any human that has no programming experience but a good grasp of logic, the other is just inherently more complex and less verbose.
Edit: And my point here is basically that less experienced programmers will get it, which makes the barrier to entry lower. Going back to my previous statement, without a better reason, I'd encourage self documenting code and less abstract approaches. This is a pretty mild one, easily looked up...and probably a great thing for people to learn, but still more complex at the end of the day. Language is almost irrelevant here, it's a general statement.
I think you overestimate the readability of C-based syntax in general. A human that has no programming experience would have to start with parsing what !== means (and it's not at all obvious that ! is negation, or why = is doubled), and then move onto &&, although that's slightly more obvious. Nor is "int" obvious as a shortening of "integer" outside of CS - I've seen people interpret it as "internal", for example.
Going further, to even figure out why you need to do all this, that human would need to know such concepts as variables, data types, and nullability. The notion that variables can have designated types is a pretty obvious takeaway from the first two.
Just for fun, if you didn't know what "?int $var = null;" meant, how would you explain that to someone verbally, or better [like most programmers would] how would you search for this online?
Finding the definition of "!==" is easy, simply searching that [including quotes] gives me the answer. Looking for something like "?int =" just gives me useless responses upon first glance.
Maybe I don’t understand the value for such a high premium compared to more ubiquitous providers such as GCP, AWS, or Azure.