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
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)~