2 ms·

> 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 ce

> 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

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