3 ms·

I dont get how you can release something under anything other than all rights reserved without identification. We need to be able to persecute you in case you a

I dont get how you can release something under anything other than all rights reserved without identification. We need to be able to persecute you in case you are not the author. Or is it that i may republish anything under any license?? It could be that the platform licences it in the toss but with cc are they not obligated to make it available without obstructie?

shkkmo 2y ago
Requiring indentification to publish so that copyright is protected would be massive overreach and this sort of thinking is why I think copyright is a dangerous concept that needs to be sharply curtailed, not expanded to cover AI training. In practice, the safest course is to not use content from untrustworthy sources in ways that require a license (aka in ways that are not fair use in your applicable jurisdictions).
- theendisney 2y ago
  I think by default you just cant use things? Who thought that was a great idea i dont know. We must be missing an enourmous chunk of progress. Every juristiction its own idea of fair use? Thats just hilarious? I never really thought about peoples privacy either but at first glance you seem to be right. Do you have any solution to the puzzle? People are quite attached to the concept and many build their house on this soil. Appeal to tradition?
Repulsion9513 2y ago
Prosecution and persecution are two different things. Persecuting anyone is not a good time :) Why, if you're not allowed to release under a license, should you be able to release all rights reserved (which can still be a copyright violation!)? If you need to prosecute the person, there are established procedures for that: DMCA, or ultimately a lawsuit over the infringement. That you didn't identify yourself publicly on the site does not make that impossible. In fact the point of the DMCA was to make it easier to handle this - because if the provider doesn't comply with your DMCA, you can sue the provider.

shkkmo 2y ago

Requiring indentification to publish so that copyright is protected would be massive overreach and this sort of thinking is why I think copyright is a dangerous concept that needs to be sharply curtailed, not expanded to cover AI training. In practice, the safest course is to not use content from untrustworthy sources in ways that require a license (aka in ways that are not fair use in your applicable jurisdictions).

theendisney 2y ago
I think by default you just cant use things? Who thought that was a great idea i dont know. We must be missing an enourmous chunk of progress. Every juristiction its own idea of fair use? Thats just hilarious? I never really thought about peoples privacy either but at first glance you seem to be right. Do you have any solution to the puzzle? People are quite attached to the concept and many build their house on this soil. Appeal to tradition?

Repulsion9513 2y ago

Prosecution and persecution are two different things. Persecuting anyone is not a good time :) Why, if you're not allowed to release under a license, should you be able to release all rights reserved (which can still be a copyright violation!)? If you need to prosecute the person, there are established procedures for that: DMCA, or ultimately a lawsuit over the infringement. That you didn't identify yourself publicly on the site does not make that impossible. In fact the point of the DMCA was to make it easier to handle this - because if the provider doesn't comply with your DMCA, you can sue the provider.