3 ms·

Viewing the data necessary copies it. The data is of course, all Disney IP in the sense that all employee output is the employers intellectual property. Copying

Viewing the data necessary copies it. The data is of course, all Disney IP in the sense that all employee output is the employers intellectual property. Copying Disney IP hasn't historically worked out for folks.

contravariant 2y ago
I never liked that interpretation of copyright much. Clearly the person publishing the data ought to be the one liable, if someone obtains the data they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it in private. I think at least some legal systems agree with my interpretation, but the U.S. is insane.
- wilg 2y ago
  It's not publishright, it's copyright.
  - 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
    The broad contours of modern copyright were formulated at a time when only for-profit enterprises (and perhaps sufficiently well-funded religious groups, but I repeat myself) could actually afford to copy things at scale. It may as well have been called "publishright".
  - contravariant 2y ago
    Well over here the most literal translation is 'author's rights', so arguing it ought to be about copying just because that's in the name doesn't carry much weight in my view. If anything it's a great example of how framing can manipulate people's views. I did mention that I considered the U.S. interpretation insane, didn't I?
0xcde4c3db 2y ago
> The data is of course, all Disney IP in the sense that all employee output is the employers intellectual property. IANAL, but I think this description is overbroad. There is a "work for hire" doctrine in copyright law that assigns copyright to the employer, but I believe by default that only applies to works of authorship within the scope of an employee/contractor's assigned duties, with any broader scope needing to be explicitly assigned by contract. I would expect internal communications in general to be covered by an NDA or some concept of privacy rights, depending on the context.

contravariant 2y ago

I never liked that interpretation of copyright much. Clearly the person publishing the data ought to be the one liable, if someone obtains the data they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it in private. I think at least some legal systems agree with my interpretation, but the U.S. is insane.

wilg 2y ago
It's not publishright, it's copyright.
- 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
  The broad contours of modern copyright were formulated at a time when only for-profit enterprises (and perhaps sufficiently well-funded religious groups, but I repeat myself) could actually afford to copy things at scale. It may as well have been called "publishright".
- contravariant 2y ago
  Well over here the most literal translation is 'author's rights', so arguing it ought to be about copying just because that's in the name doesn't carry much weight in my view. If anything it's a great example of how framing can manipulate people's views. I did mention that I considered the U.S. interpretation insane, didn't I?

0xcde4c3db 2y ago

> The data is of course, all Disney IP in the sense that all employee output is the employers intellectual property. IANAL, but I think this description is overbroad. There is a "work for hire" doctrine in copyright law that assigns copyright to the employer, but I believe by default that only applies to works of authorship within the scope of an employee/contractor's assigned duties, with any broader scope needing to be explicitly assigned by contract. I would expect internal communications in general to be covered by an NDA or some concept of privacy rights, depending on the context.