3 ms·

The public policy reason is that facts can't be copyrighted, whether that's a street address or GPS coordinates at 5:32 PM.

by ronsor 4y ago

alasdair_ 4y ago
It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions. I fully understand laws are not written by computer scientists and that nuance is involved, I'm just saying that the idea that PII could be copyrightable doesn't seem THAT crazy to me.
- geodel 4y ago
  Huh, one can obviously share snippets of paragraphs or pages for review and all for books. Same with address, it is snippet of information about a person and not the whole detail of everything in a house.
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    Yes, exceptions exist. But while you can use a small sample of a song in a review (say), you can't take the same sample and use it in your own song, even if it's just a few seconds. Perhaps PII for commercial use could be treated differently than for private use?
    - joshribakoff 4y ago
      You can measure the duration, key, BPM etc and publish that which are all facts. A recording of a song (even if it falls under fair use) is not a “fact”, it’s information that took creativity to produce, multiple people working independently would not produce the same exact song - unlike going around and measuring the height of bridges where if multiple people did it they would arrive at the same measurement
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        Just as it's a fact that PI is 3.14 when approximated to 3 digits, it's also a fact that a particular recording can be represented by an MP3 file when approximated to about 3 MB.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  > It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions. Talking about the order of words in text X is not the same as a reproduction of text X. Example: Original: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog Reproduction: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog Talking about the order: In the sentence beginning with the following fair-use excerpt "The quick brown", the word "fox" precedes "dog". > I'm just saying that the idea that PII could be copyrightable doesn't seem THAT crazy to me It would be awesome, because then I could license out my address and collect royalties any time it is used or mentioned.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
    The first word of the sentence is "The". The second word of the sentence is "quick". The third word of the sentence is "brown". The fourth word of the sentence is "fox". The fifth word of the sentence is "jumped". The sixth word of the sentence is "over". The seventh word of the sentence is "lazy". The eighth word of the sentence is "dog". Eight facts. Would replicating an entire book like this violate the copyright? The entire text is reproduced in order, there's just a bunch of junk added. I suspect courts would rule that it is a copyright violation.
    - joshribakoff 4y ago
      Yea because your “fact” is literally a reproduction of the creative work with superfluous additions. Instead, if you publish a list of books and their unique word count it would be a collection of facts - and someone can copy your list (including mistakes) because your list isnt covered by copyright.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Producing a Mona Lisa with a mustache would therefore be a reproduction with superfluous additions then, eh?
        4y ago
- albio 4y ago
  One portion of our daily 10,000 steps will be to write out some copywritten works in the GPS path to make sure our data is doubly copywritten and should not be reproduced!
specialist 4y ago
Per the US Constitution, right to privacy means sovereign control of my body, my self. Since I am my data and my data is me, I already own all my PII. We just want the legal system to honor this simple reality.
- landemva 4y ago
  You can choose to not give away your data by not using those services. Boycott those services or help build competing privacy-centric services.
  - specialist 4y ago
    How could I have known GoodRx would sell my data to advertisers? I thought it was illegal for them to do so.
    - landemva 4y ago
      I am not familiar with that service. If you work W-2, the payroll processor for your company likely gives your payroll details to theworknumber. This is ridiculous.
      - specialist 4y ago
        FTC Enforcement Action to Bar GoodRx from Sharing Consumers’ Sensitive Health Info for Advertising [2023/02/01] Under proposed order, GoodRx will pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for failing to report its unauthorized disclosure of consumer health data to Facebook, Google, and other companies https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/ftc-enforcement-action-bar-goodrx-sharing-consumers-sensitive-health-info-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/... GoodRx Response to FTC Settlement https://www.goodrx.com/corporate/business/goodrx-response-to-ftc https://www.goodrx.com/corporate/business/goodrx-response-to... FWIW, I used to work in healthcare IT, mid 2000s. At the time, it was understood that sharing data for the purposes of marketing and advertising was illegal. Also, being a geek somewhat familiar with stuff like tracking pixels, I'm still not sure what to make of GoodRx's response. If I can't make head's or tails of this case, what hope does a layperson have?

The public policy reason is that facts can't be copyrighted, whether that's a street address or GPS coordinates at 5:32 PM.

by ronsor 4y ago

The public policy reason is that facts can't be copyrighted, whether that's a street address or GPS coordinates at 5:32 PM.

alasdair_ 4y ago

It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions. I fully understand laws are not written by computer scientists and that nuance is involved, I'm just saying that the idea that PII could be copyrightable doesn't seem THAT crazy to me.

geodel 4y ago
Huh, one can obviously share snippets of paragraphs or pages for review and all for books. Same with address, it is snippet of information about a person and not the whole detail of everything in a house.
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  Yes, exceptions exist. But while you can use a small sample of a song in a review (say), you can't take the same sample and use it in your own song, even if it's just a few seconds. Perhaps PII for commercial use could be treated differently than for private use?
  - joshribakoff 4y ago
    You can measure the duration, key, BPM etc and publish that which are all facts. A recording of a song (even if it falls under fair use) is not a “fact”, it’s information that took creativity to produce, multiple people working independently would not produce the same exact song - unlike going around and measuring the height of bridges where if multiple people did it they would arrive at the same measurement
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      Just as it's a fact that PI is 3.14 when approximated to 3 digits, it's also a fact that a particular recording can be represented by an MP3 file when approximated to about 3 MB.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
> It's a "fact" that a book has specific words in a specific order, yet we're not allowed to share that fact with other people without legal repercussions. Talking about the order of words in text X is not the same as a reproduction of text X. Example: Original: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog Reproduction: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog Talking about the order: In the sentence beginning with the following fair-use excerpt "The quick brown", the word "fox" precedes "dog". > I'm just saying that the idea that PII could be copyrightable doesn't seem THAT crazy to me It would be awesome, because then I could license out my address and collect royalties any time it is used or mentioned.
- SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  The first word of the sentence is "The". The second word of the sentence is "quick". The third word of the sentence is "brown". The fourth word of the sentence is "fox". The fifth word of the sentence is "jumped". The sixth word of the sentence is "over". The seventh word of the sentence is "lazy". The eighth word of the sentence is "dog". Eight facts. Would replicating an entire book like this violate the copyright? The entire text is reproduced in order, there's just a bunch of junk added. I suspect courts would rule that it is a copyright violation.
  - joshribakoff 4y ago
    Yea because your “fact” is literally a reproduction of the creative work with superfluous additions. Instead, if you publish a list of books and their unique word count it would be a collection of facts - and someone can copy your list (including mistakes) because your list isnt covered by copyright.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Producing a Mona Lisa with a mustache would therefore be a reproduction with superfluous additions then, eh?
      - 4y ago
albio 4y ago
One portion of our daily 10,000 steps will be to write out some copywritten works in the GPS path to make sure our data is doubly copywritten and should not be reproduced!

specialist 4y ago

Per the US Constitution, right to privacy means sovereign control of my body, my self. Since I am my data and my data is me, I already own all my PII. We just want the legal system to honor this simple reality.

landemva 4y ago
You can choose to not give away your data by not using those services. Boycott those services or help build competing privacy-centric services.
- specialist 4y ago
  How could I have known GoodRx would sell my data to advertisers? I thought it was illegal for them to do so.
  - landemva 4y ago
    I am not familiar with that service. If you work W-2, the payroll processor for your company likely gives your payroll details to theworknumber. This is ridiculous.
    - specialist 4y ago
      FTC Enforcement Action to Bar GoodRx from Sharing Consumers’ Sensitive Health Info for Advertising [2023/02/01] Under proposed order, GoodRx will pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for failing to report its unauthorized disclosure of consumer health data to Facebook, Google, and other companies https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/ftc-enforcement-action-bar-goodrx-sharing-consumers-sensitive-health-info-advertising https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/... GoodRx Response to FTC Settlement https://www.goodrx.com/corporate/business/goodrx-response-to-ftc https://www.goodrx.com/corporate/business/goodrx-response-to... FWIW, I used to work in healthcare IT, mid 2000s. At the time, it was understood that sharing data for the purposes of marketing and advertising was illegal. Also, being a geek somewhat familiar with stuff like tracking pixels, I'm still not sure what to make of GoodRx's response. If I can't make head's or tails of this case, what hope does a layperson have?