It should be pretty obvious that a decentralized network that many use specifically to not be connected to centralized networks houses mostly people who do not wish to have their posts bridged to B...
It does indeed outside of the united IP holders of america.
In the free world, you can record any tv or radio program that is freely available for your personal consumption.
Welcome to the actual land of the free.
Edit: answering another comment of yours. You can absolutely repost the twitter, reddit and whatnot post of anyone. It is paywalled stuff that you are not allowed to share.
Assuming the comments pass the originality threshold, you’re actually not allowed to just copy someone else’s work and repost it. Copyright still applies to written work, and the EULA of most platforms only provide the service you’re posting to with the right to reproduction. By default, you’re not allowed to reproduce copyrighted works, which would be any piece of original (enough) writing.
Practically, though, no court is going to care. The law may be on the side of the copyright holder, but actually suing reposter will take a lot of money and the damages you can collect will be absolutely minimal.
Thanks for elaborating. The obvious flaw in this logic is that even the most original thing brings both the platform and the writer the visibility. Assuming you‘re knowledgeable and technically correct, this would always be unenforceable because it is the whole purpose of the platform to retweet, cite and repost.
I‘m not too knowledgeable in IP law or the local US court proceedings but where I live, your EULA/TOS become null and void if you put the customer at a disadvantage. Having this damocles sword dangling above their heads would most likely not hold in court (retweet = visibility but technically against TOS)
I agree that enforcing this will be basically impossible, but I can imagine someone with more money than sense going after reposts ending up successful because they may be in the right, legally speaking. In the same way torrenting has had companies calculate damages by multiplying a fine with the number of people the content was shared with, Fediverse servers may rack up quite a fine if such a lawsuit ever succeeds.
The lines about reproducing works in EULA/TOS don’t exist to provide any (dis)advantage to the user, they’re basically legally required for the software to operate. Otherwise, websites like Facebook wouldn’t be allowed to share the image you posted with anyone but you. I don’t think anyone will object to the right for Facebook to show your friends the pictures you’ve shared with them, so I don’t think they’ll be struck by not complying with the law, either. If anything, Fediverse servers need a line like that, with an addition that any servers federating with the user’s server may also reproduce the work.
As for a sword of Damocles in the Fediverse: any EU-based Fediverse server (and there are many!) hosted by a company or organisation is in a lot of trouble if any data protection agency ever bothers to look into them. I don’t know any Fediverse server that has the capabilities to be GDPR-compliant. For servers hosted as a hobby by individuals, I don’t think this is a problem (there are legal exemptions for personal stuff) but the copyright thing is only a minor risk compared to the data privacy issues.
Often, Fediverse enthusiasts choose to ignore the laws that make their dreams very hard to achieve, but I can imagine a Threads/Tumblr lawsuit having devastating effects for the Fediverse at large, and nobody seems to care. I know the law is complicated and boring and I’m no lawyer myself, but the wishful thinking that legal issues will never crop up that I often see in open source communities can be a real risk. I’m reminded of Napster blatantly ignoring copyright on the internet because they wanted to bring new and exciting tech to the world; great aspirations, but how long will they last?
I do kind of get where you’re coming from but I think you’re overstating the danger here.
Life is riddled with dangers. Cars that can kill you, diseases, angry humans, animals. The risk isn’t great - statistically speaking - but it’s never zero. I can relate to fear creeping into ones thoughts but we mustnt give into them.
Besides insane privilege, the only way to improve ones situation in this world is to take risks. As Youtube has flourished through copyright infringement before pulling up the ladder after themselves, we need to abolish the idea of the law abiding citizen. There is no good in following law, only morals. Obviously one should choose wisely which laws to ignore and do so in a smart way. We should also change them to benefit humanity, not mega corporations but that is a longer task.
In any case, I suggest we all give it a try and do what we think is best instead of letting fear govern our lives.
Does that mean every TV show broadcast over the air, every song on the radio, and every book in a public library is now “free” to pirate on the Internet because they were made publicly available?
The answer to that is yes, at least if you‘re not living in a corpo hellscape.
It does indeed outside of the united IP holders of america.
In the free world, you can record any tv or radio program that is freely available for your personal consumption.
Welcome to the actual land of the free.
Edit: answering another comment of yours. You can absolutely repost the twitter, reddit and whatnot post of anyone. It is paywalled stuff that you are not allowed to share.
Assuming the comments pass the originality threshold, you’re actually not allowed to just copy someone else’s work and repost it. Copyright still applies to written work, and the EULA of most platforms only provide the service you’re posting to with the right to reproduction. By default, you’re not allowed to reproduce copyrighted works, which would be any piece of original (enough) writing.
Practically, though, no court is going to care. The law may be on the side of the copyright holder, but actually suing reposter will take a lot of money and the damages you can collect will be absolutely minimal.
Thanks for elaborating. The obvious flaw in this logic is that even the most original thing brings both the platform and the writer the visibility. Assuming you‘re knowledgeable and technically correct, this would always be unenforceable because it is the whole purpose of the platform to retweet, cite and repost.
I‘m not too knowledgeable in IP law or the local US court proceedings but where I live, your EULA/TOS become null and void if you put the customer at a disadvantage. Having this damocles sword dangling above their heads would most likely not hold in court (retweet = visibility but technically against TOS)
I agree that enforcing this will be basically impossible, but I can imagine someone with more money than sense going after reposts ending up successful because they may be in the right, legally speaking. In the same way torrenting has had companies calculate damages by multiplying a fine with the number of people the content was shared with, Fediverse servers may rack up quite a fine if such a lawsuit ever succeeds.
The lines about reproducing works in EULA/TOS don’t exist to provide any (dis)advantage to the user, they’re basically legally required for the software to operate. Otherwise, websites like Facebook wouldn’t be allowed to share the image you posted with anyone but you. I don’t think anyone will object to the right for Facebook to show your friends the pictures you’ve shared with them, so I don’t think they’ll be struck by not complying with the law, either. If anything, Fediverse servers need a line like that, with an addition that any servers federating with the user’s server may also reproduce the work.
As for a sword of Damocles in the Fediverse: any EU-based Fediverse server (and there are many!) hosted by a company or organisation is in a lot of trouble if any data protection agency ever bothers to look into them. I don’t know any Fediverse server that has the capabilities to be GDPR-compliant. For servers hosted as a hobby by individuals, I don’t think this is a problem (there are legal exemptions for personal stuff) but the copyright thing is only a minor risk compared to the data privacy issues.
Often, Fediverse enthusiasts choose to ignore the laws that make their dreams very hard to achieve, but I can imagine a Threads/Tumblr lawsuit having devastating effects for the Fediverse at large, and nobody seems to care. I know the law is complicated and boring and I’m no lawyer myself, but the wishful thinking that legal issues will never crop up that I often see in open source communities can be a real risk. I’m reminded of Napster blatantly ignoring copyright on the internet because they wanted to bring new and exciting tech to the world; great aspirations, but how long will they last?
I do kind of get where you’re coming from but I think you’re overstating the danger here.
Life is riddled with dangers. Cars that can kill you, diseases, angry humans, animals. The risk isn’t great - statistically speaking - but it’s never zero. I can relate to fear creeping into ones thoughts but we mustnt give into them.
Besides insane privilege, the only way to improve ones situation in this world is to take risks. As Youtube has flourished through copyright infringement before pulling up the ladder after themselves, we need to abolish the idea of the law abiding citizen. There is no good in following law, only morals. Obviously one should choose wisely which laws to ignore and do so in a smart way. We should also change them to benefit humanity, not mega corporations but that is a longer task.
In any case, I suggest we all give it a try and do what we think is best instead of letting fear govern our lives.
Have a good one.
How is reposting content to another social media platform with over a million users “personal consumption”?
Thats not what I said. I was answering to this:
The answer to that is yes, at least if you‘re not living in a corpo hellscape.
How is that any different from content from user@smallinstance.mastodon being followed by a single individual from mastodon.social?