9 ms·

It's not that simple. If I sell you a book, I cannot place a restriction on that sale saying you can't resell that book (first sale doctrine). You're allowed to

by dcow 3y ago

It's not that simple. If I sell you a book, I cannot place a restriction on that sale saying you can't resell that book (first sale doctrine). You're allowed to do that because you own the copy of the book. You can't copy the book and sell it, because you don't own the copyright, but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc. It's not that "copyright is okay with transitive licensing" but more that "copyright simply prevents you from copying a work you didn't create (or otherwise don't have copyrights over)". That's all it does. If you want to place downstream restrictions on your content then you have to license it (and get someone to agree to your license). You have rights over how you license content. Yes. And users may agree that they're only "viewing" a copy and don't in fact own it when engaging with your licensed content, sure. But my main point was that you don't get to publish content to the public domain and then say oh wait no I didn't want Meta to see that oops #privacy #cancelmeta. And further that it's kinda silly to imagine a world where everyone licenses every little toot they make. At some point we're in a public forum and we just all need to understand what that means, including that someone you don't like might be listening. Anyway, I don't think licensing content is a positive thing for society. It may benefit media conglomerates, but not individuals. Arguably, creators shouldn't be allowed to say "Netflix you can stream this content to users but not in Brazil". I don't think it's a sealed deal that downstream restrictions on content distribution are healthy or in any way in the public interest. Charging a royalty for a views/streams of some show is one thing. Saying "only on Tuesdays and not in Brazil" gives too much control to creators to dictate how their art should be interpreted. And nobody can prevent you from using Netflix to stream a show to your Brazilian friend on the couch next to you... nor should they ever be able to. That would be really really bad technology, were it to exist. So short of attaching licenses to every post you make, no, there's not a socially healthy, let alone even viable, strategy to control content distribution in the "fediverse".

wpietri 3y ago
> So short of attaching licenses to every post you make I think you have this backwards. Full copyright protection is the default for all content not licensed otherwise. Publishing does not put content into a "public domain" status. Social media platforms already have strong legal terms around every piece of content. If you violate that license, platforms may choose to fuck you up. E.g.: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/01/untraceable-surveillance-firm-sued-for-scraping-facebook-and-instagram-data https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/01/untraceable-s... It would be easy enough for particular Mastodon servers and/or accounts to be explicit about their downstream licensing.
- dcow 3y ago
  I understand that generally you retain the copyright to your works implicitly and that you don't have to actively file for copyright in order to gain the protection of copyright law. I'm arguing that it's pretty preposterous for a global decentralized federated social platform to assume some authority (enforced by whom, that'd require a central group of enforcers) over the licensing of posts on the network by invoking US copyright law. Conceptually it doesn't make any sense. So the only thing Mastodon can do is at a protocol/code level require that public content flowing through the pipes be licensed for public consumption (copying and distribution) on the network, the colloquial "public domain". > It would be easy enough I can't really imagine the matrix of which nodes can federate with which others based on the default content license they impose on posted content. "Oh you can only view my post if you use this server over here because it uses a compatible downstream licensing configuration." Would that really "work"?
  - onlymonkeys 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
    Mastodon-the-software doesn't have to do anything. Mastodon instances have to choose whether to block Threads or not. Of course there is no 'central enforcement', that would be at odds with the very principle of federated social media (namely, that instance admins are free to choose how they run their own instance).
    - dcow 3y ago
      Blocking Threads doesn't prevent your content from getting to Meta. Some other instance that you federate with might not block it. See: TFA.
      - jdp23 3y ago
        Blocking Threads is necessary but not sufficient. I should probably be clearer about that in the article.
scarface_74 3y ago
> Saying "only on Tuesdays and not in Brazil" gives too much control to creators to dictate how their art should be interpreted. Do you feel the same way about restrictive open source software licenses like GPL3?
- dcow 3y ago
  Yes all software should just be public domain. But because we have icky copyright, we have to have icky software licenses.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    While your view here is perfectly valid, it would have resulted in a -very- different world than the one we have today. There would basically be no software industry. There couldn't be because there would be no way to economically do it. Software would thus only be made by hardware manufacturers- and would need specialised hardware for every task. For evidence of this alternate reality I point to an era when thus was the case. In the 60s and 70s there were a number of hardware companies who all wrote the software for their specific machines. You paid for yhe hardware, not the software. This model flowed into the fame consoles of the 70s (atari, intelivision and so on.) PCs started either this model, although software-only plays start appearing. They make money selling games, visicalc etc. Microsoft famously licenses Dos to IBM but non-exclusivly. Suddenly hardware is a commodity and clones appear. All the big companies today are software companies. The cloud is proprietary software running on commodity hardware. The ability to grow, to make big bets, to develop is predicated on the existence of copyright. But wait, Linux right? That surely negates my argument. Leaving aside the distinction that it's copyrighted, not public domain, Linux is a clone of a commercial system. That inspiration came from somewhere. It exists because Linus had a general-purpose computer, which arguably only existed because of copyrighted software. Aside all that, original Linux was pretty primitive. It grew in part on revenues supplied by other software companies. While it would be fun to imagine a world with only Linux, it's harder to imagine how that world is funded. SQLite is in the public domain. Its an example of what can be done. It's an amazing fantastic bit of software. For all that it's built on the proprietary work of others (SQL). And it's far less capable than proprietary database engines of the 90s (oracle, informix et al.) So while I understand your viewpoint, it's also earth noting that copyright built the world we are in now, and the alternative would look very, very, different.
giaour 3y ago
> but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc The license associated with physical media does have restrictions. You can't mount a public display of the work without acquiring a separate license. E.g., you can't buy a DVD of a movie and then screen it for a group (outside of what's permitted under fair use). If you sell tickets to that screening or intersperse ads, thereby infringing copyright for commercial gain, you're in even hotter water.
- dcow 3y ago
  There's no license attached to physical media, it's all statutory.
justcool393 3y ago
> If you want to place downstream restrictions on your content then you have to license it (and get someone to agree to your license) That's not how copyright works like... at all. HN needs a license to display your comment right now (see here: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou). Copyright works by default (in the US) of being the most restricted. The first sale doctrine applies but online when you distribute something you're not making 1 copy.
- dcow 3y ago
  I understand how copyright works. I'm arguing it's silly to try and apply it to a public forum in the way it's implemented. And all the centralized social platforms agree as you've pointed out because they require users to forfeit their copyright to posts made on their platform, or at least force them to licenses the content for redistribution on/within their network. Like, by quoting me on HN you're actually violating the content license and terms of use agreement (you're only allowed to use your "user content" not mine). You'd argue fair use, and you'd probably win. But nevertheless you'd have to argue it. I think we're in the weeds with copyright. What's the problem we're trying to solve? A federated public communication protocol/system. What do centralized platforms do in the face of copyright? Require users essentially forfeit their copyright over the content they post (if they're nice limited to the scope of the content traversing their network). Why? Because it doesn't work any other way. What is the expectation I have when reading a public post? I expect I am allowed to read it, quote it, remix it, etc. because it's been posted publicly. Nobody asks permission to quote each other even though they technically should in accordance with US copyright law. How would a discussion transpire without a shared understanding of how the content is allowed to be used on any network? --- And I mean if you really want to get into the weeds, copyright prevents you from e.g. playing a digital music file on your computer since the bytes need to be copied over the network, into memory, onto output devices, etc. This was the original observation: copyright basically prevents you from doing anything digital with any digital media. That's why everyone needs a license and we're in license hell. In digital it's copying all the way down so hit it with the copyright hammer. Imagine if we applied our digital understanding of copyright to traditional artwork. I have a painting. You visit. By shining light on the painting I'm reproducing the image on your retinas. You say copyright violation? I say preposterous! What if I take a picture of the painting that I own and show you? Uh oh. Copyright just doesn't make sense when applied to a public social network. At all. And it doesn't make any sense because a social network isn't about artists trying to make money off their works, it's about anons trying to win internet points for the day.
sanderjd 3y ago
I can't believe people who are into decentralization and federation now essentially want to reinvent DRM!
- dcow 3y ago
  Thanks for putting it succinctly.
- gowld 3y ago
  Why not? These are separate concepts.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    It's a good question, so let me try to explain why this is dissonant to me, if I can. I think maybe the easiest way to illustrate it is through the person of Cory Doctorow. I don't know for sure because I haven't been following him for awhile, but I suspect he is a fan of the fediverse concept. He and the kinds of people that he influenced (like me) strike me as the kind of people for whom open federated social networks are appealing and satisfying as a solution in contrast to closed centralized corporate social networks. But then, a big part of my time following him and just generally being in that milieu, one of the primary boogeymen for us was the DRM being pushed by corporate interests. So to me, DRM seems anathema to this entire aesthetic of federation.
    - Nursie 3y ago
      Licensing != DRM though ... ? You can have a very strict license without actually using any cryptographic 'protection' on the content. See, for example, the way IBM used to in the 00s (still does?) release software. There was no copy protection, no license servers, no keys. But copyright was absolutely retained and you couldn't legally just give it to anyone. If you were found to be running their stuff without the appropriate commercial license then their sales department will be along very shortly to work out a nice cost-effective plan for you, and failing that the lawyers will be involved. Closed, licensed, but it's not DRM.

by dcow 3y ago

wpietri 3y ago

> So short of attaching licenses to every post you make I think you have this backwards. Full copyright protection is the default for all content not licensed otherwise. Publishing does not put content into a "public domain" status. Social media platforms already have strong legal terms around every piece of content. If you violate that license, platforms may choose to fuck you up. E.g.: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/01/untraceable-surveillance-firm-sued-for-scraping-facebook-and-instagram-data https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/01/untraceable-s... It would be easy enough for particular Mastodon servers and/or accounts to be explicit about their downstream licensing.

dcow 3y ago
I understand that generally you retain the copyright to your works implicitly and that you don't have to actively file for copyright in order to gain the protection of copyright law. I'm arguing that it's pretty preposterous for a global decentralized federated social platform to assume some authority (enforced by whom, that'd require a central group of enforcers) over the licensing of posts on the network by invoking US copyright law. Conceptually it doesn't make any sense. So the only thing Mastodon can do is at a protocol/code level require that public content flowing through the pipes be licensed for public consumption (copying and distribution) on the network, the colloquial "public domain". > It would be easy enough I can't really imagine the matrix of which nodes can federate with which others based on the default content license they impose on posted content. "Oh you can only view my post if you use this server over here because it uses a compatible downstream licensing configuration." Would that really "work"?
- onlymonkeys 3y ago
  [dead]
- Tijdreiziger 3y ago
  Mastodon-the-software doesn't have to do anything. Mastodon instances have to choose whether to block Threads or not. Of course there is no 'central enforcement', that would be at odds with the very principle of federated social media (namely, that instance admins are free to choose how they run their own instance).
  - dcow 3y ago
    Blocking Threads doesn't prevent your content from getting to Meta. Some other instance that you federate with might not block it. See: TFA.
    - jdp23 3y ago
      Blocking Threads is necessary but not sufficient. I should probably be clearer about that in the article.

scarface_74 3y ago

> Saying "only on Tuesdays and not in Brazil" gives too much control to creators to dictate how their art should be interpreted. Do you feel the same way about restrictive open source software licenses like GPL3?

dcow 3y ago
Yes all software should just be public domain. But because we have icky copyright, we have to have icky software licenses.
- bruce511 3y ago
  While your view here is perfectly valid, it would have resulted in a -very- different world than the one we have today. There would basically be no software industry. There couldn't be because there would be no way to economically do it. Software would thus only be made by hardware manufacturers- and would need specialised hardware for every task. For evidence of this alternate reality I point to an era when thus was the case. In the 60s and 70s there were a number of hardware companies who all wrote the software for their specific machines. You paid for yhe hardware, not the software. This model flowed into the fame consoles of the 70s (atari, intelivision and so on.) PCs started either this model, although software-only plays start appearing. They make money selling games, visicalc etc. Microsoft famously licenses Dos to IBM but non-exclusivly. Suddenly hardware is a commodity and clones appear. All the big companies today are software companies. The cloud is proprietary software running on commodity hardware. The ability to grow, to make big bets, to develop is predicated on the existence of copyright. But wait, Linux right? That surely negates my argument. Leaving aside the distinction that it's copyrighted, not public domain, Linux is a clone of a commercial system. That inspiration came from somewhere. It exists because Linus had a general-purpose computer, which arguably only existed because of copyrighted software. Aside all that, original Linux was pretty primitive. It grew in part on revenues supplied by other software companies. While it would be fun to imagine a world with only Linux, it's harder to imagine how that world is funded. SQLite is in the public domain. Its an example of what can be done. It's an amazing fantastic bit of software. For all that it's built on the proprietary work of others (SQL). And it's far less capable than proprietary database engines of the 90s (oracle, informix et al.) So while I understand your viewpoint, it's also earth noting that copyright built the world we are in now, and the alternative would look very, very, different.

giaour 3y ago

> but you can sell the original copy, show it to whomever you want, etc The license associated with physical media does have restrictions. You can't mount a public display of the work without acquiring a separate license. E.g., you can't buy a DVD of a movie and then screen it for a group (outside of what's permitted under fair use). If you sell tickets to that screening or intersperse ads, thereby infringing copyright for commercial gain, you're in even hotter water.

dcow 3y ago
There's no license attached to physical media, it's all statutory.

justcool393 3y ago

> If you want to place downstream restrictions on your content then you have to license it (and get someone to agree to your license) That's not how copyright works like... at all. HN needs a license to display your comment right now (see here: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou). Copyright works by default (in the US) of being the most restricted. The first sale doctrine applies but online when you distribute something you're not making 1 copy.

dcow 3y ago
I understand how copyright works. I'm arguing it's silly to try and apply it to a public forum in the way it's implemented. And all the centralized social platforms agree as you've pointed out because they require users to forfeit their copyright to posts made on their platform, or at least force them to licenses the content for redistribution on/within their network. Like, by quoting me on HN you're actually violating the content license and terms of use agreement (you're only allowed to use your "user content" not mine). You'd argue fair use, and you'd probably win. But nevertheless you'd have to argue it. I think we're in the weeds with copyright. What's the problem we're trying to solve? A federated public communication protocol/system. What do centralized platforms do in the face of copyright? Require users essentially forfeit their copyright over the content they post (if they're nice limited to the scope of the content traversing their network). Why? Because it doesn't work any other way. What is the expectation I have when reading a public post? I expect I am allowed to read it, quote it, remix it, etc. because it's been posted publicly. Nobody asks permission to quote each other even though they technically should in accordance with US copyright law. How would a discussion transpire without a shared understanding of how the content is allowed to be used on any network? --- And I mean if you really want to get into the weeds, copyright prevents you from e.g. playing a digital music file on your computer since the bytes need to be copied over the network, into memory, onto output devices, etc. This was the original observation: copyright basically prevents you from doing anything digital with any digital media. That's why everyone needs a license and we're in license hell. In digital it's copying all the way down so hit it with the copyright hammer. Imagine if we applied our digital understanding of copyright to traditional artwork. I have a painting. You visit. By shining light on the painting I'm reproducing the image on your retinas. You say copyright violation? I say preposterous! What if I take a picture of the painting that I own and show you? Uh oh. Copyright just doesn't make sense when applied to a public social network. At all. And it doesn't make any sense because a social network isn't about artists trying to make money off their works, it's about anons trying to win internet points for the day.

sanderjd 3y ago

I can't believe people who are into decentralization and federation now essentially want to reinvent DRM!

dcow 3y ago
Thanks for putting it succinctly.
gowld 3y ago
Why not? These are separate concepts.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  It's a good question, so let me try to explain why this is dissonant to me, if I can. I think maybe the easiest way to illustrate it is through the person of Cory Doctorow. I don't know for sure because I haven't been following him for awhile, but I suspect he is a fan of the fediverse concept. He and the kinds of people that he influenced (like me) strike me as the kind of people for whom open federated social networks are appealing and satisfying as a solution in contrast to closed centralized corporate social networks. But then, a big part of my time following him and just generally being in that milieu, one of the primary boogeymen for us was the DRM being pushed by corporate interests. So to me, DRM seems anathema to this entire aesthetic of federation.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Licensing != DRM though ... ? You can have a very strict license without actually using any cryptographic 'protection' on the content. See, for example, the way IBM used to in the 00s (still does?) release software. There was no copy protection, no license servers, no keys. But copyright was absolutely retained and you couldn't legally just give it to anyone. If you were found to be running their stuff without the appropriate commercial license then their sales department will be along very shortly to work out a nice cost-effective plan for you, and failing that the lawyers will be involved. Closed, licensed, but it's not DRM.