muntedcrocodile

joined 8 months ago
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Replicating a personal backup to another device is covered by free use. Only distribution and derivative works are covered by copyright.

And yes, the length of copyright is way too long. It recon it should be the same as patents, 20 years. Or let it be as long as the warranty and let the big companies duke it out with each other.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

It seems like a very dangerous, very slippery slope. The first people to abuse this would be the big corporations who want to hide and cover up as much as they possibly can. I think the copyright law framework is a useful lens to view this with which I outlined in my response above.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You chose to distribute said website to everyone on the internet. I chose to exercise my rights of fair use to make a local convenience copy of said website. I can then theoretically hold, said local convenience copy, for as long as I want, until your copyright expires, at which point I can publish it.

It's a bold assumption that that data is not just sitting on someone's hard drive somewhere.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Not really. If the archive decides to publish your work, that's copyright infringement. If an AI company decides to scrape your content and develop an AI with your content, I would argue that that's a derivative work, which is also protected by copyright.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

I don't think requiring is a great idea, but definitely making the standard that you can do if you want would be very cool.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

Well the whole premise of their argument is flawed because they're basing it on the fact of redistribution. If I'm not redistributing it, then the whole argument of that falls away entirely. Under fair use, I believe you're also allowed to make copies of things for research purposes, so I'd argue that's what an archive is.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, they can't Google first sale doctrine.

They can remove shit from your digital library because in page 76 of the terms and conditions that you didn't read, they redefined the word purchase to mean temporarily rent.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I would argue that AI is a derivative work and that is protected by copyright. Archiving a copy of something and keeping it for personal use is not derivative work and not distribution and that's not protected by copyright.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Copyright only protects distribution and derivative works. I can keep a copy of it on my local machine for as long as I want. Theoretically I can keep it until the copyright expires and then I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (14 children)

Yes, and when I archived your website, I became the owner of that specific copy of your website.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Thats exactly what i was looking for. I found the thread where this was being prototyped but could find the repo.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

Want to be forgotten is about personally identifiable information. Other work, which is covered under copyright, which means if someone has legally obtained a copy of it, as long as they're not distributing it, is their right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. Even hold it until the copyright expires at which point they can publish it as much as they want.

view more: ‹ prev next ›