5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    This gets you right back to the issue of having to transmit licenses with all content. Which is fine - this can absolutely be a thing which exists within the protocol. But then people are suddenly going to find they don't get the impact they want either: because the immediate outcome is simply going to be "license for public distribution or we'll reject your content" because everything else is too much hassle.
- jayd16 3y ago
  Its important to remember that the tech must conform to the law, not the other way around. If it's not compatible, the the tech that must bend. That said, why is it strange to think that a license agreement must happen before a node can reshare a post?
  - dcow 3y ago
    How can the node copy the bytes to display the post to users and to send it to other nodes, if obeying US copyright to a T, if the node does not either have copyrights over the content or the content is sufficiently licensed in a way that allows the node those privileges?
- wpietri 3y ago
  > 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 Why is that not-an-entity the only thing you're considering as able to enforce copyright or otherwise check a platform for doing something legally dubious? > the colloquial "public domain". That is not what public domain means.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > That is not what public domain means. FWIW, I've had a discussion with a British lawyer, IIRC British law has no specific term for what is named "public domain" in US copyright law, and the term "public domain" in UK law means "the public can access it".
  - dcow 3y ago
    Would you like to elaborate instead of just a snarky "that's not how that works" with no real contribution to the discussion? 1. Who would enforce copyright on a globally distributed content platform? Which country's "copyright" laws does a node follow? Who is responsible (who do you sue) when Meta federates with a node and receives a copy of content it allegedly isn't licensed to have or doesn't have copyrights over? (Hint: not Meta, they didn't make the copy.) 2. Why do you think I used "colloquial"? On a platform where people are free to publicly view, share, copy, remix, etc. the content then the content is said to be in the public domain. In the US specifically (post 1988) the terms of use of the platform would probably need to explicitly have you release your copyrights on the content before you post, to make it clear that the content is to be treated that way. But I'm saying, the spirit of a public social network where everyone is free to engage with the text of other people's posts, is that the content is "in the public domain". Unless you can provide an alternative context and definition of "public domain" where you're technically correct... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
- 542354234235 3y ago
  >Not even legally you don't… Copyright cannot restrict who can view a work you created once you transfer or license that work to somebody else (e.g. by releasing it publicly on the fediverse). This is literally the opposite of what you are saying now. Saying you legally have no right to restrict then trying to act like you were saying that, in some sort of practical sense, it would not be possible to enforce a legal restriction.
  - dcow 3y ago
    I can see how my wording was confusing. Sorry. Just focus on this: > 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". I'm arguing that copyright in and of itself does not grant you the right to control how owned copies of your work are used. This is evident by the first sale doctrine. You can choose to only distribute your work with an attached license that does not confer ownership rights. And because of the license I've agreed to I can't do anything with that work that would breach the license agreement. And because you didn't transfer ownership to me of an actual copy of the work, the first sale doctrine does not apply. And I'm not allowed to copy that work, because of copyright. The limits you've imposed on the work are because of the license not because of copyright. There's no component of copyright that statutorily grants an author any control of the transitive flow of copyrighted content. It's all in the license.

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.
- XorNot 3y ago
  This gets you right back to the issue of having to transmit licenses with all content. Which is fine - this can absolutely be a thing which exists within the protocol. But then people are suddenly going to find they don't get the impact they want either: because the immediate outcome is simply going to be "license for public distribution or we'll reject your content" because everything else is too much hassle.
jayd16 3y ago
Its important to remember that the tech must conform to the law, not the other way around. If it's not compatible, the the tech that must bend. That said, why is it strange to think that a license agreement must happen before a node can reshare a post?
- dcow 3y ago
  How can the node copy the bytes to display the post to users and to send it to other nodes, if obeying US copyright to a T, if the node does not either have copyrights over the content or the content is sufficiently licensed in a way that allows the node those privileges?
wpietri 3y ago
> 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 Why is that not-an-entity the only thing you're considering as able to enforce copyright or otherwise check a platform for doing something legally dubious? > the colloquial "public domain". That is not what public domain means.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > That is not what public domain means. FWIW, I've had a discussion with a British lawyer, IIRC British law has no specific term for what is named "public domain" in US copyright law, and the term "public domain" in UK law means "the public can access it".
- dcow 3y ago
  Would you like to elaborate instead of just a snarky "that's not how that works" with no real contribution to the discussion? 1. Who would enforce copyright on a globally distributed content platform? Which country's "copyright" laws does a node follow? Who is responsible (who do you sue) when Meta federates with a node and receives a copy of content it allegedly isn't licensed to have or doesn't have copyrights over? (Hint: not Meta, they didn't make the copy.) 2. Why do you think I used "colloquial"? On a platform where people are free to publicly view, share, copy, remix, etc. the content then the content is said to be in the public domain. In the US specifically (post 1988) the terms of use of the platform would probably need to explicitly have you release your copyrights on the content before you post, to make it clear that the content is to be treated that way. But I'm saying, the spirit of a public social network where everyone is free to engage with the text of other people's posts, is that the content is "in the public domain". Unless you can provide an alternative context and definition of "public domain" where you're technically correct... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
542354234235 3y ago
>Not even legally you don't… Copyright cannot restrict who can view a work you created once you transfer or license that work to somebody else (e.g. by releasing it publicly on the fediverse). This is literally the opposite of what you are saying now. Saying you legally have no right to restrict then trying to act like you were saying that, in some sort of practical sense, it would not be possible to enforce a legal restriction.
- dcow 3y ago
  I can see how my wording was confusing. Sorry. Just focus on this: > 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". I'm arguing that copyright in and of itself does not grant you the right to control how owned copies of your work are used. This is evident by the first sale doctrine. You can choose to only distribute your work with an attached license that does not confer ownership rights. And because of the license I've agreed to I can't do anything with that work that would breach the license agreement. And because you didn't transfer ownership to me of an actual copy of the work, the first sale doctrine does not apply. And I'm not allowed to copy that work, because of copyright. The limits you've imposed on the work are because of the license not because of copyright. There's no component of copyright that statutorily grants an author any control of the transitive flow of copyrighted content. It's all in the license.