this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
886 points (98.8% liked)

Fediverse

35109 readers
414 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (14 children)

No it doesn't because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.

Mastodon could only argue damages but that would be impossible to litigate in any extent due to decentralized and free nature of Mastodon and Fediverse. Except for some backward countries like China or Japan where there's no information freedom protections and any corporation can sue you for damages for any information infringement (even if it's not yours).

This is a good thing. Mastodon shouldn't control anything related to the legality of data flowing in the fediverse - that's the entire point.

[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

The way copyright law works, by default you don't have any right to make use of anything, even if it's posted publicly. Why do people allow Fediverse platforms to do the thing they do? Leniency on their part.

Gathering data from Mastodon for AI training is technically feasible, but that doesn't mean it's legally justified. Many people will object to that. Many already do!

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

No that's not how copyright works. Copyright prohibits distribution not copying.

[–] maxwellfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don't think this is true. While copying might fall under fair use if used for some purpose, you definitely can get in trouble for copying even without distributing those copies.

For example, you can't rent a library book and then photocopy the whole thing for yourself

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Those are entirely different laws you're thinking about like DMCA, EUCA, database protection laws (yeah lol it's a real thing) etc. Copyright on its own is about distribution.

That being said data law is really complex and more often than not turns to damage proof rather than explicit protections. Basically its all lawyer speak rather than an actual idealistic framework that aims to protect someone. This is primary argument why copyright is a failed framework because it's always just a battle of lawyers and damages.

[–] maxwellfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I still don't think this is correct for two reasons. 1: I believe the DMCA and friends count as copyright law. 2: just reading the text of the law (#17 U.S. Code § 106):

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission

It seems pretty clear that only the copyright owner has the rights to make copies, subject to a number of exemption.

Now IANAL so I could be missing something pretty huge, but my understanding was that this right to make copies (especially physical ones for physical media) is at the core of copyright law. Not just the distribution of those copies (which is captured by right 3)

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)