3 ms·

Did the users of X consent to XCancel copying their posts to their servers?

by simianparrot 12d ago

conception 12d ago
Everyone who goes to twitter copies the posts to their computers.
- 27183 12d ago
  Spot on. This is where a lot of these "terms and conditions" break down logically. Viewing some content on the internet is literally copying it. So is the distinction that xcancel served the content? But when I run mtr xcancel.com I see a bunch of hops between me and them. Every one of those hops is literally copying and retransmitting all the content. Are they not also serving it?
  - immibis2 12d ago
    No, this is where programmers rules-lawyer in ways that actual lawyers don't and then get law stuff hilariously wrong. No judge thinks that viewing an HTML page is downloading it, because downloading means saving a copy to your computer, not just looking at it. Even having an internet cache folder doesn't count as downloading. Even copying the file from the internet cache folder to somewhere might not count as downloading, although it'd still be a copy. Same as when LG said their TVs don't record you and then Hacker News said "how can they detect voice commands if they don't record your voice"... facepalm.
    - 27183 12d ago
      I don't pretend to understand law, mostly it just doesn't make sense at all.
      - rimunroe 12d ago
        Could you elaborate in what way you find the law mostly doesn't make sense? It has to be flexible in order to work with actual humans. Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Usually when we talk about copying it's someone making a duplicate so it can be accessed later. Only a very technical user is going to be diving into their cache to view that content after the fact. The vast majority of people don't understand that the browser is storing anything on their computer, much less how to access it before it's purged.
        27183 12d ago
        > Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Because there's no physical mechanism for the information to be transmitted over a computer network other than by copying the bytes. Note this is distinct from broadcast systems like analog television or radio. Packet switching networks only function by copying information and storing multiple copies around the internet, including in your computer's RAM (and disk, if cached). So a legal definition that says "this kind of copying is copying but that other kind of copying isn't copying" makes no sense at all. Like many other legal definitions--it's all about what has been successfully snuck past a jury at one point or another in the past, without any heed for how things actually work.
        rimunroe 12d ago
        > Because there's no physical mechanism for the information to be transmitted over a computer network other than by copying the bytes. Your response seems to ignore everything in my comment other than the second sentence. I was asking why that detail should matter as far as the law is concerned, and I gave some reasons I don't think that would be good or practical.
        card_zero 12d ago
        There's the matter of linking to copyrighted works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlink... If your link is set up to make the image display immediately (that is, you wrap it in image tags, or as in one case, embed Instagram posts) then you may be violating copyright. What's more, in Europe, just a hyperlink to a copyrighted work violates copyright. Conclusion: copyright is not about copying, it's about access.
      - immibis2 12d ago
        It makes more sense when you remember it's not a computer program and the things that are written in the law are not the things that will actually happen in the way that "if(foo) bar;" makes bar happen if foo is true. It's more like a book of excuses you could use for why you didn't do your homework. Then the other side also has to bring an excuse for why you were supposed to do it, and if the principal thinks their excuse is better than yours, you get detention. If you tell the principal "I don't have to do my homework because work means employment and it's illegal to employ a minor" you'll get detention for not doing your homework and extra detention for being a smartass.
        rimunroe 12d ago
        And this example is not just due to people not taking the trouble to write fully specified rules. I don't think such rules could even be written. You can just do your best to cover the cases you can think of. The complexity of society is incomprehensibly vast and constantly changing, and the law has to have wiggle room to account for it.
        immibis2 12d ago
        You don't want fully-specified rules because a rule with strict boundaries has loopholes. You actually want a clearly allowed area, a clearly disallowed area, and a gradually increasing gradient of punishment in between, so that a small change in behaviour produces only a small change in punishment, and avoiding punishment requires a large change in behaviour.
        rimunroe 12d ago
        Exactly!
    - conception 12d ago
      I think its more than the law doesn’t understand the technology.
      - mitxela 11d ago
        It's definitely that programmers don't understand law.
bakies 12d ago
i just screenshotted this comment without your consent
embedding-shape 12d ago
I think users implicitly consent to their public data being public data when they put it in public together with other public data. How I view that public data they decided to make public data, is none of their business.
roosterIllusi0n 12d ago
Why can't they distill twitter when AI companies distill everything including twitter? Distilling is copying and redistributing.
- wahnfrieden 12d ago
  No it’s not
- akerl_ 12d ago
  Are they distilling? Distilling isn’t copying and redistributing, for the same reason that you reading a story and then writing your own story based on ideas you learned is different from you reading a book, writing all the words down verbatim, and then publishing it as your own.
  - immibis2 12d ago
    That's not what distilling is either. Distilling is training your AI to exactly copy someone else's AI.
  - roosterIllusi0n 8d ago
    Distilling is reverse engineering. It is literally copying someone else.
- bluecalm 12d ago
  Because LLM's output is not copyrightable?
ranger_danger 12d ago
How do you know data is copied to their servers? > If you serve as a mere conduit for automatic transmission of user communications, there are no other qualifications or obligations you need to meet. If you serve a caching function, in addition to the two requirements above, you must maintain comply with the notice-and-takedown process. https://www.copyright.gov/512/ https://www.copyright.gov/512/ https://internetcases.com/2024/02/12/dmca-subpoena-to-mere-conduit-isp-was-improper/ https://internetcases.com/2024/02/12/dmca-subpoena-to-mere-c...
8note 12d ago
i have not deputized twitter to post takedowns on my behalf. its my content and copyright, not twitter's

Did the users of X consent to XCancel copying their posts to their servers?

conception 12d ago

Everyone who goes to twitter copies the posts to their computers.

27183 12d ago
Spot on. This is where a lot of these "terms and conditions" break down logically. Viewing some content on the internet is literally copying it. So is the distinction that xcancel served the content? But when I run mtr xcancel.com I see a bunch of hops between me and them. Every one of those hops is literally copying and retransmitting all the content. Are they not also serving it?
- immibis2 12d ago
  No, this is where programmers rules-lawyer in ways that actual lawyers don't and then get law stuff hilariously wrong. No judge thinks that viewing an HTML page is downloading it, because downloading means saving a copy to your computer, not just looking at it. Even having an internet cache folder doesn't count as downloading. Even copying the file from the internet cache folder to somewhere might not count as downloading, although it'd still be a copy. Same as when LG said their TVs don't record you and then Hacker News said "how can they detect voice commands if they don't record your voice"... facepalm.
  - 27183 12d ago
    I don't pretend to understand law, mostly it just doesn't make sense at all.
    - rimunroe 12d ago
      Could you elaborate in what way you find the law mostly doesn't make sense? It has to be flexible in order to work with actual humans. Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Usually when we talk about copying it's someone making a duplicate so it can be accessed later. Only a very technical user is going to be diving into their cache to view that content after the fact. The vast majority of people don't understand that the browser is storing anything on their computer, much less how to access it before it's purged.
      - 27183 12d ago
        > Why should visiting a page on your computer count as copying? Because there's no physical mechanism for the information to be transmitted over a computer network other than by copying the bytes. Note this is distinct from broadcast systems like analog television or radio. Packet switching networks only function by copying information and storing multiple copies around the internet, including in your computer's RAM (and disk, if cached). So a legal definition that says "this kind of copying is copying but that other kind of copying isn't copying" makes no sense at all. Like many other legal definitions--it's all about what has been successfully snuck past a jury at one point or another in the past, without any heed for how things actually work.
        rimunroe 12d ago
        > Because there's no physical mechanism for the information to be transmitted over a computer network other than by copying the bytes. Your response seems to ignore everything in my comment other than the second sentence. I was asking why that detail should matter as far as the law is concerned, and I gave some reasons I don't think that would be good or practical.
        card_zero 12d ago
        There's the matter of linking to copyrighted works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlinking_and_framing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_hyperlink... If your link is set up to make the image display immediately (that is, you wrap it in image tags, or as in one case, embed Instagram posts) then you may be violating copyright. What's more, in Europe, just a hyperlink to a copyrighted work violates copyright. Conclusion: copyright is not about copying, it's about access.
    - immibis2 12d ago
      It makes more sense when you remember it's not a computer program and the things that are written in the law are not the things that will actually happen in the way that "if(foo) bar;" makes bar happen if foo is true. It's more like a book of excuses you could use for why you didn't do your homework. Then the other side also has to bring an excuse for why you were supposed to do it, and if the principal thinks their excuse is better than yours, you get detention. If you tell the principal "I don't have to do my homework because work means employment and it's illegal to employ a minor" you'll get detention for not doing your homework and extra detention for being a smartass.
      - rimunroe 12d ago
        And this example is not just due to people not taking the trouble to write fully specified rules. I don't think such rules could even be written. You can just do your best to cover the cases you can think of. The complexity of society is incomprehensibly vast and constantly changing, and the law has to have wiggle room to account for it.
        immibis2 12d ago
        You don't want fully-specified rules because a rule with strict boundaries has loopholes. You actually want a clearly allowed area, a clearly disallowed area, and a gradually increasing gradient of punishment in between, so that a small change in behaviour produces only a small change in punishment, and avoiding punishment requires a large change in behaviour.
        rimunroe 12d ago
        Exactly!
  - conception 12d ago
    I think its more than the law doesn’t understand the technology.
    - mitxela 11d ago
      It's definitely that programmers don't understand law.

bakies 12d ago

i just screenshotted this comment without your consent

embedding-shape 12d ago

I think users implicitly consent to their public data being public data when they put it in public together with other public data. How I view that public data they decided to make public data, is none of their business.

roosterIllusi0n 12d ago

Why can't they distill twitter when AI companies distill everything including twitter? Distilling is copying and redistributing.

wahnfrieden 12d ago
No it’s not
akerl_ 12d ago
Are they distilling? Distilling isn’t copying and redistributing, for the same reason that you reading a story and then writing your own story based on ideas you learned is different from you reading a book, writing all the words down verbatim, and then publishing it as your own.
- immibis2 12d ago
  That's not what distilling is either. Distilling is training your AI to exactly copy someone else's AI.
- roosterIllusi0n 8d ago
  Distilling is reverse engineering. It is literally copying someone else.
bluecalm 12d ago
Because LLM's output is not copyrightable?

ranger_danger 12d ago

How do you know data is copied to their servers? > If you serve as a mere conduit for automatic transmission of user communications, there are no other qualifications or obligations you need to meet. If you serve a caching function, in addition to the two requirements above, you must maintain comply with the notice-and-takedown process. https://www.copyright.gov/512/ https://www.copyright.gov/512/ https://internetcases.com/2024/02/12/dmca-subpoena-to-mere-conduit-isp-was-improper/ https://internetcases.com/2024/02/12/dmca-subpoena-to-mere-c...

8note 12d ago

i have not deputized twitter to post takedowns on my behalf. its my content and copyright, not twitter's