Gregory's Server@spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon The issue is copyright to content. An analogy is book publishing. You do not give someone the right to make copies of your book and sell them when you publish your book. Same on Mastodon. Meta users do explicitly give Meta a license to their content for various purposes through Meta's Term of Service.
|
6 comments
 @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon It would be the underlying content that the owner retains the copyright to. Boosting is part of the service so it is an authorized use of the content. The Privacy Policy describes the service so there is a limited implied license to any such use of the content. @spaduf @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon You seem to be doing fine. These are all valid issues.  Even if the owner retains the copyright (which they probably do, although IANAL) Meta can use it for a wide variety of purposes without violating copyright. And they have hundreds of lawyers and budget for paying billions of dollars in fines, so even if they theoretically *can't* use it, they still will if they think it's worth it. @mastodonmigration @spaduf @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon @jdp23 @spaduf @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon Indeed. Under no illusions about the effectiveness of any defensive measures. Never-the-less it is better to take what measures one can. Providing notice is one such measure. |
@mastodonmigration
But the argument I think that they’ll make is that boosts are not content and therefore not subject to the same protections. Not to mention they’ll only have to make the argument once caught.
cc: @jdp23 @riomccloud @brianvastag @Mastodon