|
Top-level
@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… 3 comments
 @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
@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.