Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
But the fediverse isn't them taking that data, it's you giving your data to them. It's you placing your data directly on their server.
It's more than my flyer metaphor, it's you literally placing your flyers in someone's house and then saying "but you can't do x y or z". Even if morally you are in the right, how would you ever enforce that or prove something in court? You still have the hurdle of "if you didn't want them to have it, you shouldn't have handed it to them"
Uh, copyright always works that way. You're not supposed to make copies of movies most of the time, but people do, and it is virtually unenforceable as long as they take basic precautions. One of the only times it is reliably enforceable is when a business tries to make money off of your work and you can sue them.
Movies though have a license that you accept, and it comes encrypted. License is on the box that you are allowed to watch it at home, with so many people, on approved devices. By buying it you are accepting the license. Even modern day blurays have a license, and they can actually revoke the license (by pulling the encryption keys). If you don't approve of that license, you simply don't buy it. (However people get around it and as you said it's unenforceable).
Whereas Lemmy and fediverse you're giving your stuff out license free to anyone, and any other server can have their own terms. Such as "By giving me your data you are giving it to me license free, and remove yourself of all ownership." Unless it's specifically defederated, well there's no way of you knowing and so you give your data. What does a judge say in that case? You said not to use it, but you put it on a server that said they can use it however they want.
I agree with you mostly, just pointing out the slight differences on how movies and studios get around that little hurdle of "ownership". (i.e., we don't own it)
Sure, but I would say that there's a reasonability test there. Like, I could have a posted note somewhere on the internet that says, "by allowing my computer to download your content you grant me full license to use your intellectual property for any purpose in perpetuity throughout the universe," but that doesn't make it binding on anyone. Federation means other servers pull the data, so you don't have control over it, so you can't be considered to agree to a random server's terms.
The same thing happens when you download a website. The website always allows others to download its content, but that confers no license no matter what anyone else says.
"License free" doesn't mean "free license", it means the opposite. No explicit permission is granted.
ah but an important distinction. The servers aren't going out and asking for data from other servers. Federation means instances push data to listening servers. It doesn't sound like much but it's an important difference when we're talking about it. So for me, I view that as a whole different thing, because by pushing data you're saying "I don't care who is listening, I'm sending it anyway". If it were a pull model then it would be like what you are saying "Hey, I only give you access to this on my terms". By pushing, you remove your server and it's rules completely.
and that's why I keep going back to my imaginary court. If you're trying to tell a judge that "They shouldn't have used it to train AI/write a book on, I didn't want them to do that" the obvious next question is "Well, why did you give it to them then?" They didn't take it from you, you gave it to them.
I think this is a very fine distinction that would have to be settled in court and could go either way. I can only say what I think it should do. And to be honest I think copyright is garbage, but for it be consistent I don't think that this difference should matter.
I think an important distinction for me with federation though is that it's not just a push, you have to subscribe, so it's a two way street. It would be similar to an RSS feed, and I'm not aware of that having any particular implications for copyright. There is certainly no explicit acknowledgement of terms baked into either protocol, so I think the only reasonable conclusion should be that it doesn't impact copyright either way. That remains unlicensed and subject to the normal rules, which presuppose that permission is not granted.
.
If you license your content, that license travels with the content, and has to be honored on other servers (Federated or otherwise).
The license is with the content, and not the server the content is first posted to.
"Other server owners, did you follow the license that the content is licensed with? No?"
Lemmy.World's TOS does not claim ownership of our content that is posted/shared to their server. So they can't use it however they want, they do not own the content, each individual poster still does.
And they don't want to own our content, as that's one hell of a 'safe harbor' law exposure/risk for them, if they start to do that.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I'd argue that isn't settled yet. Take this. I run my own server, I don't want your "licensed" comment. I can go and add that to my ToS right now, that anything you give me will be trained. I say in there that I will disregard any license on there, and by placing anything on my server you are relieving yourself of any license. Since it's my server, I can say that. "If you don't want your data trained on, don't put it on my server."
So, I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. It's exactly the same as Facebook's ToS, they state in there that by using their service and putting data on their servers that you allow facebook to use that data however they see fit. Why is me doing the same thing on my server any different?
So, to use your own format
"No, you're honor, you can clearly see on our homepage that it's stated that any and all licenses are lost when they give us information.
"That's irrelevant, our legal terms are clearly stated on our website, if they didn't want their information shared to us, then they shouldn't have shared them with us."
This format isn't well designated in the courts, there are no real precedents for the fediverse or how it works. You're arguing that it should work that way. I'm arguing that how it should work is irrelevant, and right now there is nothing stopping anyone from using unencrypted data given to their server in any way.
What could happen, but isn't really set up at least on Lemmy yet, is that when one server federates with another the receiving server sends a ToS/license that is server wide, forcing the subscribing server to accept or to not federate. I think that would shore up gaps in the law here, because in your example they could respond with "Your honor, we gave them terms and licenses to subscribe to our updates, and they accepted". I also think that then would be required for new users signing up, to see how data is licensed from other servers. If this were a github issue I'd back it 100%.
However, in both scenarios, both current and what I'd like to see, I don't see that adding a license at the bottom of your comment will ever hold up in court.
(Of course I'm not actually doing that, this is all a thought exercise, but I do 100% guarantee someone is just accepting all of our data and using it, license linked or not)
So you're setting up a straw man by adding the TOS clause of ownership on the posting server to your example. I'm not saying that. The issue being discussed by me in response to your comment was if a license on content that is being federated stays with the content or is somehow magically stripped off when its federated.
As far as your TOS example goes, If Lemmy World added to their TOS that any content added to their site they own, then I wouldn't post any content on Lemmy, as I want to keep ownership of my content.
But since Lemmy World does not do that (smartly so for safe harbor reasons), then the creator of the content is the owner of the content, and if they license that content it carries forward as the content is federated. Its up to the receiver of the federated content to reject the content, or abide by its licensing.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Me giving an example of something that might break what you're saying is not a straw man. A straw man is if I said "oh so you think no one should be allowed to train any data ever".
I hold to my argument. In the current Lemmy (and fediverse environment as a whole) I can put on my server that my placing data on my server, you forego all licenses, and I can do what I like.
At this point, I don't see anything legally that prevents me from doing that. I think that would be a valid argument, unless you can show me where it says I can't do that, because I don't think that is law that has been made.
I know what you're claiming. I understand what you're claiming, that you retain ownership. I think this is a new area that doesn't have a clear definition yet, and since other sites can have clauses saying you give up ownership by using it, I think that could be argued here too.
You keep arguing the wrong point.
No one is saying you can't on your server create a TOS that says that anyone who puts content on your server that you then own that content, you become the owner. That's not what's being discussed.
The point is because of various reasons like safe harbor and PR, Lemmy World and other servers in the Federation are not claiming ownership.
When you post your comment on the Lemmy World server, you still own it, and you can license that content that you own in any way that you like, and that license is on the content, not on the server, so as that content is federated, that license travels with it and is still in action, and must be abided by.
I feel confident in my position, because if we went with your position then it would be very easy to "money launder" anyone's content by just passing it through a third party Federated server with a TOS that says they own any content on their server. I'm pretty sure the big boys who own content aren't going to allow that to happen, and would talk to their friends in Congress about it.
It's really mostly existing basic content law. It's not as cloudy and up in the air as everyone wants to say it is, there's just a new wrinkle to it, and I'm pretty sure those in power will make sure everything stays status quo.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
Right, you keep using Lemmy.world and the safe harbor stuff. I'm not on Lemmy.world. I'm on my own server, and I don't agree to their terms or rules or anything. That's super you retain ownership there, but then lemmy.world hands it off to me, or anyone, who does not have those rules in place. Who cares what lemmy.world said? I didn't sign a ToS when I spun up my server.
Who cares? My server says you forego that license, and if they wanted to keep it licensed then they shouldn't have sent it to me.
and from your bolded thing, yes, that is what I'm saying, it'd be extremely easy to "money launder" any text that comes through my server, because that's what can and is happening right now. They can talk to congress if they want, I don't think there are any laws right now preventing that. That's my entire point.
I agree with you in your last point, there is a new wrinkle to it, but as of this point, right now, I don't believe a license, tos, or anything applies for data willingly given to me. Should it? Probably, that's a new area, and it probably will stay status quo, but unless someone can show me where in their laws that ownership still exists in this case, I don't think it matters.
We have two conflicting agreements in this example. One from Lemmy.World saying you retain ownership, one from another server who receives data but clearly states that by giving them data you release all licenses. At this point, I don't think there are any actual laws protecting you or your content. Adding a license at the bottom I believe is a placebo. Until this area of the law is fleshed out, I wouldn't trust that anything I put here wouldn't go to it. Now I personally don't care, I think that's a small cost for having a free P2P system, that there will be a few bad actors, but I get to others that they will care heavily. To those like you who care, then I say at this point in the fediverse, I'd call your license pretty much toilet paper.
(Again, I use the term "my server" as just an example, just to play devil's advocate. I of course don't do anything with the data or my user's data)
It's where the content was initially posted, so any terms of service would be applicable to the content at the time of posting. That's why.
The onus is on the Federated server receiving the content that's already licensed to reject the content if they do not want to abide by the license. If they accept the content, they have to abide by the license.
And as far as the rest of you diatribe, I'll just remind you that licenses can't just be stripped from content because some third-party TOS says it can.
We would have seen much 'money laundering' style mayhem on the Internet with other people's content before today, if that was possible.
I think we've discussed this enough, so I'm just going to leave it with an 'agree to disagree', and move on.
Have a nice day.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I added this as an edit, but I think it's fair to reply, I agree to the disagree, for fun I ran this through GPT just to see what it'd say. Not that I would trust it to be correct ever, but it’s interesting getting an “outside opinion” about this.
I’ll paraphrase the wall of text, but it looks like we’re both honestly correct. (If we trust chatgpt)
Right now, there is no law specifically for this scenario, so it will go unchecked until it gets challenged in court. In court, they will usually go off of the first place a user signed, so in this case lemmy.world, with the caveat that my server can override that if terms are presented and accepted by you, the user. There is no mechanism for that, so it would probably lose in court. However, the enforcement of such is pretty much nil, and getting it to court is a problem by itself.
So, I think we’re both right. I think you are right in terms of what should be happening, and the laws should be expanded to include federated content, and I think I’m right in that it’s impossible to expect privacy until the law catches up and puts it in writing.
One important thing for you, specifically though, is that your link at the bottom is more or less useless. All of these are based on the server, your server owner’s rules are what matter, what you leave in the comment does not. So if you chose Lemmy.world because of how they handle user privacy, awesome, that’s what will hold up in court. A license in the comment from what I see, probably will do nothing.
Anyway, I agree, we can leave it be. The only thing I'd encourage for you is to not trust that anything you put here is private or safe, this is not a walled garden, even if it's not legal anyone can have a server and be listening to our data, or training, or whatever. Just, be careful what you put out here.
I'm don't believe an "outside opinion" from an AI company's product, about if an AI company has the legal right to ignore a content's license and scrape the content to program their models, would be unbiased, and should not be trusted, as you've stated.
Attempting to agree to disagree, and move on.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~