|
Top-level
 @mwl This is one of the craziest things I have ever read... The funny thing is, by claiming they own any content hosted on their services that does also put them in legal jeopardy in that they also are legally responsible for any hosted content that violates any laws. I realize that they're just saying there that they "have the right to use it any way they want" and would try to argue this doesn't mean responsibility, but the claim of legal ownership will pretty much wreck the argument. 4 comments
@eccentric_econ @mwl I did acknowledge this already. What I am saying is that the chief arguments in favor of "not responsible for what users place on their services" starts to weaken severely when they claim that they have full rights to take and use said things -- which, while not technically ownership, is also close enough that their legal rights to claim lack of ownership are almost nil.  @nazokiyoubinbou @eccentric_econ @mwl exactly. they can't be a platform but grant themselves copyrights like publishers. the DMCA doesn't shield copyright holders from liability for their content, so what gives? @blogdiva @eccentric_econ @mwl Honestly the whole thing is crazy. I would imagine there will be a mass exodus from their services as people and companies realize what they are doing, so chances are this will drive them out of business before any theoretical legal actions would even take place (beyond maybe someone suing them for using their content since the license isn't necessarily absolute anyway.) But it would be interesting to see how it would play out. What were they thinking? |
Gregory's Server
@nazokiyoubinbou @mwl Strictly speaking, you’re still the owner, but they are trying to grant themselves a perpetual unlimited license to your data.
Lawyers will quibble over the difference, but the headlines of “Licensing CSAM for commercial use” is pretty bad no matter what way you look at it…