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? There's a reason that social media companies include clauses in their EULA that posting content gives them (and only them unless otherwise noted) the right to reproduce that content.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

False equivalence.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Okay, well try this one:

Take any media publicly uploaded by a major artist on X and repost it to YouTube unaltered. You should be able to defend any copyright strikes because of your "publicly available" argument, right?

Allowing public broadcast once doesn't void the rights of the creator to control when and where that content gets broadcast again.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Again, false equivalence, and I don't think you understood what @Crackhappy meant when they said it.

You are trying to equate the concept of whether you can do something with whether a civil lawsuit would rule that you are liable for damages for it.

Of course you can copy something someone uploaded to the internet. They made it publicly available, it's trivial to copy. Disney or so might take you to court for it, and here we get to the crux of the matter: Assuming you were to post all your posts here under an "all rights reserved" license and the instance you're doing that on confirm you in writing that they'll comply with orders for data in case you need it for a lawsuit, you'd absolutely be able to go after someone creating a bridge copying your data to Threads in a civil lawsuit.

Are you going to do that over any comment you post here? Probably not, plus, honestly, good luck showing that you have been materially damaged by the copy.

But again, false equivalence. You can trivially copy anything on the web. Whether you are liable for it is a wholly different thing nobody was talking about.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Copyright has fair use provisions, and one could argue that a bridge that lets you public content on a different network is no different than providing a VCR-to-DVD service.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, go ahead and take a music video your favorite artist posted publicly on X and upload it to YouTube unaltered and see how far fair use gets you with the defense that the content was publicly available. 🤷

[–] rglullis@communick.news 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's is not the right analogy. No one is making the bridge and saying "I can take the content from person A on Lemmy and sell it on Bluesky". they are just saying "Here is a copy of what Person A posted on Lemmy".

In terms of copyright, why is it okay from someone on a different Mastodon server to relay content from a Lemmy server and even redistribute it (through, e.g, RSS readers), but it's not okay for a bridge to redistribute it to a Bluesky server?

[–] Breve@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Those examples are all forms of linking back to the content which is still hosted by the original server in which it was posted. Effectively they are sharing links to the content over the content itself, because if the hosting server removes the content then it is no longer available through those other mediums. And yes there are caching mechanisms involved, but those fall to the personal use case because the cache is not made publicly available.

For these bridge services to work, they are creating and hosting duplicates of the content. That is the biggest difference. If BlueSky actually federated then they would not be rehosting the content either.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 3 points 9 months ago

Lemmy's federation model is that all posts and comments get replicated across all instances. If an instance goes down, the copied content still will live in my instance. It's not just caching.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

How is reposting content to another social media platform with over a million users "personal consumption"?

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 2 points 9 months ago

Thats not what I said. I was answering to this:

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.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 9 months ago

How is that any different from content from user@smallinstance.mastodon being followed by a single individual from mastodon.social?

[+] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yes.