#ianal — Public Fediverse posts

Chatrie v. United States

Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cellphone location information.

But is that really the case? Sure, your phone's location data, and (in this country at least) a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that would presumably include cellular data the carriers have.

But does it really include location data that Mr Chatrie sold (bartered, traded in kind for access to network services instead of being charged directly for them) to Google, #Amazon, Faceplant, and other companies who buy ( with the right to resell in exchange for the privilege of utilizing their network services) this data - specifically to sell this privacy mined data to other third party aggregators and.... wait for it.... presumably those who either are, or would sell it to law enforcement agencies on the open market?

Lemme break that down into the crux of the biscuit. Faceplant, InstaSpam, TakToe, Google, Amazon, and others, buy your privacy in a transaction that includes your access to their services - that's the fee for using Faceplant (You know it's not free).

Most of those companies are built wholly, or in part, on this form of legally privacy mining you (in exchange for you using their services). That's how you pay for access to their services. They, in turn, sell that data for operating costs of their business product and hopefully make a profit by doing so.

That sure sounds like consensual sex to me!

So, what's the difference between selling your privacy mined data to other aggregators, for advertising, whatev, and law enforcement?

Don't get me wrong, I think that both notions are atrocious injustices:

- selling your privacy to have access to their network
- Selling that privacy mined data to law enforcement

Let's not church it up here folks - You went to the crossroads, just like Robert Johnson and sold your eternal soul so you could post stupid pictures of yourself on InstaSpam. You literally paid #Meta for network access and the use of their products (InstaSpam and FacePlant and Wassup). You litterally paid google for access to and the use of Google Docs and Gmail and YouTube, gDrive, Etc., (Wait for it...) by giving them permission over the ownership of a certain amount of your personal data (location, posts, private emails, documents saved on Google infra, etc.).

And you wanna know what's wrong with them providing law enforcement with this info.... without a warrant? Umm... Because you sold it to them so they could sell it to others on the open market!!!.

Now, I think there could be distinctions between just handing over data without an actual warrant, and selling that data to law enforcement. The former sounds like infringement of rights while the latter sounds perfectly reasonable to me - both resulting in the exact same disclosure of (potentially) your most private secrets.

But the facts of the matter are that you literally sold them the rights to distribute this information about you in the free marketplace!

"You got this ad because you're a teacher, but more importantly you're a Leo (and single). This ad used your location to see you're in Moscow. You like to support sketch comedy, and this ad thinks you do drag,"

Ew that must've stung!

Once upon a time you could just track virtually anyone's location on Faceplant in real time, but when some people started complaining and there were concerns about potential stalkers, they began shoring this up - first, with Opt-out, but eventually, just removing that capability from the platform for all intents and purposes.... sort of.

There are plenty of companies who publish their AUPs and ToS's explaining that under no circumstances will they divulge shit about you without a legally compelling warrant - further, many of these sites/companies often also publish a Warrant Canary. None of these businesses are of the stature that rises to the level of a #Big_Tech stature.

Here's a bit more on the topic of Warrant Canaries. And another #Warrant_Canary example is HERE.

Now, let's not get all upset about an innocent person being persecuted - Okello Chatrie is a fricken' bank robber who walked into and robbed a credit union in Virginia on the 20th of May in 2019.

If you read through that opinion, you may get the impression that the damming information was cellular data - but I don't believe that's the case; rather, I believe it was GPS data that Alphabet (aka Google) collects with your permission, as a condition agreed to so that you can use Google stuffs. You may say 'same difference', but if it was Geolocation based on GPS data that Google collected from his phone (rather than cellular data provided by the cellular carrier that was his provider), that's an important distinction (Besides, Neither T-Mobile nor Verizon are mentioned).

Anyway, he's a despicable scumbag to be sure, but did he give permission for Google to sell that information to other parties as a result of Google's consent for him to gain access to Googles services? After all, Google paid for the right to do so (when he sold his soul).

Where the distinction becomes relevant, as I see it, oh.... wait... disclaimer (IANAL). There, let's move along, in lay terms, coz I'm a lay person. Anyway, as I see it, Google didn't actually [legally] sell this information to a third party, namely the FBI and other law enforcement agencies - They provided under the terms of a warrant that was issued demanding that it be provided.

That might be nit-picking to some, but I think that's a HUGE distinction. Further, had the cops come to Google and asked if they would sell his geolocation data to them, I believe that it may have been a perfectly acceptable and legal transaction - after all, he did sell his privacy rights at the cross-roads.

But this was a judicial warrant, and the information was subpoena'd (I'm reaching here with the nomenclature, but you get the gist of what I'm saying here.

For a warrant demanding the information, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the sale of the disclosure of information privacy farmed in his Google account for these very purposes, the sale would have, or rather might have, been perfectly legal.

I dunno. I'm interested in your take on this.

So, did the #InstaSpam users have an expectation of privacy to keep #Signal from publishing their private information? Nope! Because that data was legitimately purchased from #Faceplant (Meta, Whatev).

On the other hand, was the same data that law enforcement could have presumably legally purchased from #Google, but chose instead to acquire by court order, substantively any different due to the method they incorporated to secure that data?

Was this a subtle difference? Because I could buy that data from Google if I wanted to, right? Was it just because it was #law_enforcement?

In closing, again, I reiterate that #IANAL but it seems to me that there sure are a lot of crux in that biscuit.

#tallship #privacy_mining #privacy #industrial_surveillance #Supreme_Court

⛵

Chatrie v. United States

Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cellphone location information.

But is that really the case? Sure, your phone's location data, and (in this country at least) a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that would presumably include cellular data the carriers have.

But does it really include location data that Mr Chatrie sold (bartered, traded in kind for access to network services instead of being charged directly for them) to Google, #Amazon, Faceplant, and other companies who buy ( with the right to resell in exchange for the privilege of utilizing their network services) this data - specifically to sell this privacy mined data to other third party aggregators and.... wait for it.... presumably those who either are, or would sell it to law enforcement agencies on the open market?

Lemme break that down into the crux of the biscuit. Faceplant, InstaSpam, TakToe, Google, Amazon, and others, buy your privacy in a transaction that includes your access to their services - that's the fee for using Faceplant (You know it's not free).

Most of those companies are built wholly, or in part, on this form of legally privacy mining you (in exchange for you using their services). That's how you pay for access to their services. They, in turn, sell that data for operating costs of their business product and hopefully make a profit by doing so.

That sure sounds like consensual sex to me!

So, what's the difference between selling your privacy mined data to other aggregators, for advertising, whatev, and law enforcement?

Don't get me wrong, I think that both notions are atrocious injustices:

- selling your privacy to have access to their network
- Selling that privacy mined data to law enforcement

Let's not church it up here folks - You went to the crossroads, just like Robert Johnson and sold your eternal soul so you could post stupid pictures of yourself on InstaSpam. You literally paid #Meta for network access and the use of their products (InstaSpam and FacePlant and Wassup). You litterally paid google for access to and the use of Google Docs and Gmail and YouTube, gDrive, Etc., (Wait for it...) by giving them permission over the ownership of a certain amount of your personal data (location, posts, private emails, documents saved on Google infra, etc.).

And you wanna know what's wrong with them providing law enforcement with this info.... without a warrant? Umm... Because you sold it to them so they could sell it to others on the open market!!!.

Now, I think there could be distinctions between just handing over data without an actual warrant, and selling that data to law enforcement. The former sounds like infringement of rights while the latter sounds perfectly reasonable to me - both resulting in the exact same disclosure of (potentially) your most private secrets.

But the facts of the matter are that you literally sold them the rights to distribute this information about you in the free marketplace!

"You got this ad because you're a teacher, but more importantly you're a Leo (and single). This ad used your location to see you're in Moscow. You like to support sketch comedy, and this ad thinks you do drag,"

Ew that must've stung!

Once upon a time you could just track virtually anyone's location on Faceplant in real time, but when some people started complaining and there were concerns about potential stalkers, they began shoring this up - first, with Opt-out, but eventually, just removing that capability from the platform for all intents and purposes.... sort of.

There are plenty of companies who publish their AUPs and ToS's explaining that under no circumstances will they divulge shit about you without a legally compelling warrant - further, many of these sites/companies often also publish a Warrant Canary. None of these businesses are of the stature that rises to the level of a #Big_Tech stature.

Here's a bit more on the topic of Warrant Canaries. And another #Warrant_Canary example is HERE.

Now, let's not get all upset about an innocent person being persecuted - Okello Chatrie is a fricken' bank robber who walked into and robbed a credit union in Virginia on the 20th of May in 2019.

If you read through that opinion, you may get the impression that the damming information was cellular data - but I don't believe that's the case; rather, I believe it was GPS data that Alphabet (aka Google) collects with your permission, as a condition agreed to so that you can use Google stuffs. You may say 'same difference', but if it was Geolocation based on GPS data that Google collected from his phone (rather than cellular data provided by the cellular carrier that was his provider), that's an important distinction (Besides, Neither T-Mobile nor Verizon are mentioned).

Anyway, he's a despicable scumbag to be sure, but did he give permission for Google to sell that information to other parties as a result of Google's consent for him to gain access to Googles services? After all, Google paid for the right to do so (when he sold his soul).

Where the distinction becomes relevant, as I see it, oh.... wait... disclaimer (IANAL). There, let's move along, in lay terms, coz I'm a lay person. Anyway, as I see it, Google didn't actually [legally] sell this information to a third party, namely the FBI and other law enforcement agencies - They provided under the terms of a warrant that was issued demanding that it be provided.

That might be nit-picking to some, but I think that's a HUGE distinction. Further, had the cops come to Google and asked if they would sell his geolocation data to them, I believe that it may have been a perfectly acceptable and legal transaction - after all, he did sell his privacy rights at the cross-roads.

But this was a judicial warrant, and the information was subpoena'd (I'm reaching here with the nomenclature, but you get the gist of what I'm saying here.

For a warrant demanding the information, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the sale of the disclosure of information privacy farmed in his Google account for these very purposes, the sale would have, or rather might have, been perfectly legal.

I dunno. I'm interested in your take on this.

So, did the #InstaSpam users have an expectation of privacy to keep #Signal from publishing their private information? Nope! Because that data was legitimately purchased from #Faceplant (Meta, Whatev).

On the other hand, was the same data that law enforcement could have presumably legally purchased from #Google, but chose instead to acquire by court order, substantively any different due to the method they incorporated to secure that data?

Was this a subtle difference? Because I could buy that data from Google if I wanted to, right? Was it just because it was #law_enforcement?

In closing, again, I reiterate that #IANAL but it seems to me that there sure are a lot of crux in that biscuit.

#tallship #privacy_mining #privacy #industrial_surveillance #Supreme_Court

⛵

Chatrie v. United States

Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cellphone location information.

But is that really the case? Sure, your phone's location data, and (in this country at least) a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that would presumably include cellular data the carriers have.

But does it really include location data that Mr Chatrie sold (bartered, traded in kind for access to network services instead of being charged directly for them) to Google, #Amazon, Faceplant, and other companies who buy ( with the right to resell in exchange for the privilege of utilizing their network services) this data - specifically to sell this privacy mined data to other third party aggregators and.... wait for it.... presumably those who either are, or would sell it to law enforcement agencies on the open market?

Lemme break that down into the crux of the biscuit. Faceplant, InstaSpam, TakToe, Google, Amazon, and others, buy your privacy in a transaction that includes your access to their services - that's the fee for using Faceplant (You know it's not free).

Most of those companies are built wholly, or in part, on this form of legally privacy mining you (in exchange for you using their services). That's how you pay for access to their services. They, in turn, sell that data for operating costs of their business product and hopefully make a profit by doing so.

That sure sounds like consensual sex to me!

So, what's the difference between selling your privacy mined data to other aggregators, for advertising, whatev, and law enforcement?

Don't get me wrong, I think that both notions are atrocious injustices:

- selling your privacy to have access to their network
- Selling that privacy mined data to law enforcement

Let's not church it up here folks - You went to the crossroads, just like Robert Johnson and sold your eternal soul so you could post stupid pictures of yourself on InstaSpam. You literally paid #Meta for network access and the use of their products (InstaSpam and FacePlant and Wassup). You litterally paid google for access to and the use of Google Docs and Gmail and YouTube, gDrive, Etc., (Wait for it...) by giving them permission over the ownership of a certain amount of your personal data (location, posts, private emails, documents saved on Google infra, etc.).

And you wanna know what's wrong with them providing law enforcement with this info.... without a warrant? Umm... Because you sold it to them so they could sell it to others on the open market!!!.

Now, I think there could be distinctions between just handing over data without an actual warrant, and selling that data to law enforcement. The former sounds like infringement of rights while the latter sounds perfectly reasonable to me - both resulting in the exact same disclosure of (potentially) your most private secrets.

But the facts of the matter are that you literally sold them the rights to distribute this information about you in the free marketplace!

"You got this ad because you're a teacher, but more importantly you're a Leo (and single). This ad used your location to see you're in Moscow. You like to support sketch comedy, and this ad thinks you do drag,"

Ew that must've stung!

Once upon a time you could just track virtually anyone's location on Faceplant in real time, but when some people started complaining and there were concerns about potential stalkers, they began shoring this up - first, with Opt-out, but eventually, just removing that capability from the platform for all intents and purposes.... sort of.

There are plenty of companies who publish their AUPs and ToS's explaining that under no circumstances will they divulge shit about you without a legally compelling warrant - further, many of these sites/companies often also publish a Warrant Canary. None of these businesses are of the stature that rises to the level of a #Big_Tech stature.

Here's a bit more on the topic of Warrant Canaries. And another #Warrant_Canary example is HERE.

Now, let's not get all upset about an innocent person being persecuted - Okello Chatrie is a fricken' bank robber who walked into and robbed a credit union in Virginia on the 20th of May in 2019.

If you read through that opinion, you may get the impression that the damming information was cellular data - but I don't believe that's the case; rather, I believe it was GPS data that Alphabet (aka Google) collects with your permission, as a condition agreed to so that you can use Google stuffs. You may say 'same difference', but if it was Geolocation based on GPS data that Google collected from his phone (rather than cellular data provided by the cellular carrier that was his provider), that's an important distinction (Besides, Neither T-Mobile nor Verizon are mentioned).

Anyway, he's a despicable scumbag to be sure, but did he give permission for Google to sell that information to other parties as a result of Google's consent for him to gain access to Googles services? After all, Google paid for the right to do so (when he sold his soul).

Where the distinction becomes relevant, as I see it, oh.... wait... disclaimer (IANAL). There, let's move along, in lay terms, coz I'm a lay person. Anyway, as I see it, Google didn't actually [legally] sell this information to a third party, namely the FBI and other law enforcement agencies - They provided under the terms of a warrant that was issued demanding that it be provided.

That might be nit-picking to some, but I think that's a HUGE distinction. Further, had the cops come to Google and asked if they would sell his geolocation data to them, I believe that it may have been a perfectly acceptable and legal transaction - after all, he did sell his privacy rights at the cross-roads.

But this was a judicial warrant, and the information was subpoena'd (I'm reaching here with the nomenclature, but you get the gist of what I'm saying here.

For a warrant demanding the information, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. For the sale of the disclosure of information privacy farmed in his Google account for these very purposes, the sale would have, or rather might have, been perfectly legal.

I dunno. I'm interested in your take on this.

So, did the #InstaSpam users have an expectation of privacy to keep #Signal from publishing their private information? Nope! Because that data was legitimately purchased from #Faceplant (Meta, Whatev).

On the other hand, was the same data that law enforcement could have presumably legally purchased from #Google, but chose instead to acquire by court order, substantively any different due to the method they incorporated to secure that data?

Was this a subtle difference? Because I could buy that data from Google if I wanted to, right? Was it just because it was #law_enforcement?

In closing, again, I reiterate that #IANAL but it seems to me that there sure are a lot of crux in that biscuit.

#tallship #privacy_mining #privacy #industrial_surveillance #Supreme_Court

⛵

@onekind I’d thought a win on indirect discrimination may have been preferable as that meant it reinforces the law towards protecting gender identity, that a finding on direct discrimination is a weaker precedent in the long term. But #IANAL, care to #ELI5?

@onekind I’d thought a win on indirect discrimination may have been preferable as that meant it reinforces the law towards protecting gender identity, that a finding on direct discrimination is a weaker precedent in the long term. But #IANAL, care to #ELI5?

What they should've done is to separate the MIT, which only covers the source code, and their "Personal License" that governs the compiled product or software. The compiled release is for Personal use only. But the source code is MIT. #IANAL #TINLA

#WASM / #WASI based #plugin architectures vs #AGPL?

I assume this is valid, but #IANAL and unsure if it is indeed the case:

- If the core system is AGPL-licensed and integrates a Wasm WASI runtime.
- Then 3rd-party WASI Components can have different licenses.
- Esp. when they are downloaded and installed at run-time.

OTOH perhaps not.. and it depends on who designed the #WIT #RPC interface, and what its #license is.

#Socialcoding topic (2024, all fedi links rotted)..

https://discuss.coding.social/t/sx-licensing-of-plugin-architecture-vs-agpl/506

#WASM / #WASI based #plugin architectures vs #AGPL?

I assume this is valid, but #IANAL and unsure if it is indeed the case:

- If the core system is AGPL-licensed and integrates a Wasm WASI runtime.
- Then 3rd-party WASI Components can have different licenses.
- Esp. when they are downloaded and installed at run-time.

OTOH perhaps not.. and it depends on who designed the #WIT #RPC interface, and what its #license is.

#Socialcoding topic (2024, all fedi links rotted)..

https://discuss.coding.social/t/sx-licensing-of-plugin-architecture-vs-agpl/506

Otherwise, would you put your trust on someone you haven't truly vetted yourself personally that they truly won't exercise their Moral Rights in case they came from a country were Moral Rights are heavily guarded by their Copyright Law? #IANAL and #TINLA

I still don't understand how NFT "ownership" works as far as #Copyright laws are concerned. First thing we need to understand is that most countries do not allow relinquishing/transferring an author's Moral Rights. So, if you buy NFT arts, the author still have complete Moral Rights. #IANAL #TINLA

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mf5dzzqkp7fnmby6blfeljwj/post/3m3pepajo622l

BONUS!

"Contribution to Collective Work. - When an author contributes to a collective work, his right to have his contribution attributed to him is deemed waived unless he expressly reserves it."

Like in open-source projects where the author is a contributor.

For example. If I contribute to an open-source project, eomy right to be attributed for that contribution is deemed waived in the absence of a License notice. It's just automatic. If I mention that my contribution is under a FLOSS/FOSS license, then the license's attribution requirement is followed.

This is different if the author is literally the creator and the one who chose the license for that project. So, if I choose a public domain equivalent license for my project, and later there were other contributors, since I am the creator, I cannot waive my Moral Right to be attributed since it's an inalienable right under Philippine law. In short, I am not a contributor even though it is a collective work, I am the creator of that collective work.

Again! 👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

BONUS!

"Contribution to Collective Work. - When an author contributes to a collective work, his right to have his contribution attributed to him is deemed waived unless he expressly reserves it."

Like in open-source projects where the author is a contributor.

For example. If I contribute to an open-source project, eomy right to be attributed for that contribution is deemed waived in the absence of a License notice. It's just automatic. If I mention that my contribution is under a FLOSS/FOSS license, then the license's attribution requirement is followed.

This is different if the author is literally the creator and the one who chose the license for that project. So, if I choose a public domain equivalent license for my project, and later there were other contributors, since I am the creator, I cannot waive my Moral Right to be attributed since it's an inalienable right under Philippine law. In short, I am not a contributor even though it is a collective work, I am the creator of that collective work.

Again! 👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

In addition, I learned this a few days ago:

1. since Attribution is under Moral Rights, and
2. only the Author/Creator is granted Moral Rights, and
3. an Author/Creator is defined as a natural person, then

it is mandatory for works to be Attributed to the Author/Creator. If one gives attribution to a legal entity, it is considered misattribution and a violation of the Philippine Intellectual Property Law.

Unlike the US, the Philippines doesn't give an Attribution/Moral Rights to a legal entity. The legal entity can only receive Economic Rights, either through work-for-hire or transfer.

In other words:
- Attribution always belong to the Author/Creator and it is mandatory. (Moral Rights)
- Copyright ownership can be transferred or owned by a legal entity. (Economic Rights)

Strictly speaking:
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Legal-entity · Created/made by Author(s).
✅ © YEAR Author(s) · Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Author(s).

It is also incorrect to write: © YEAR Group/Team. Because a group/team is not a natural person. It's better to write it as: © YEAR named authors and contributors. (Which then links to a page with names of authors and contributors.)

Wait?! These are wrong?
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
❌ © YEAR Group/Team.

Strictly speaking. Since Authors/Creators are not suing anyone for not giving them proper Attributions, the practice continues.

It is only in the US where a Legal-entity is granted the Moral Right to be Attributed as an Author/Creator despite them not a "natural person". 🤷🏽

(Which probably is the reason why those two formats are common, because everyone is trying to copy the USA without being aware it is only valid there.)

Again, don't confuse Moral Rights and Economic Rights.

Attribution is part of Moral Rights. Moral Rights are only granted to Authors/Creators. An Author/Creator is a "natural person", not an entity.

Economic Rights is transferrable (for example, Copyright and Licensing groups like FILSCAP) , and can also be acquired through work-for-hire (your employer). They are generally called the Rightsholder. They can be the Copyright owner but not the Author/Creator.

👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

In addition, I learned this a few days ago:

1. since Attribution is under Moral Rights, and
2. only the Author/Creator is granted Moral Rights, and
3. an Author/Creator is defined as a natural person, then

it is mandatory for works to be Attributed to the Author/Creator. If one gives attribution to a legal entity, it is considered misattribution and a violation of the Philippine Intellectual Property Law.

Unlike the US, the Philippines doesn't give an Attribution/Moral Rights to a legal entity. The legal entity can only receive Economic Rights, either through work-for-hire or transfer.

In other words:
- Attribution always belong to the Author/Creator and it is mandatory. (Moral Rights)
- Copyright ownership can be transferred or owned by a legal entity. (Economic Rights)

Strictly speaking:
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Legal-entity · Created/made by Author(s).
✅ © YEAR Author(s) · Legal-entity.
✅ © YEAR Author(s).

It is also incorrect to write: © YEAR Group/Team. Because a group/team is not a natural person. It's better to write it as: © YEAR named authors and contributors. (Which then links to a page with names of authors and contributors.)

Wait?! These are wrong?
❌ © YEAR Legal-entity.
❌ © YEAR Group/Team.

Strictly speaking. Since Authors/Creators are not suing anyone for not giving them proper Attributions, the practice continues.

It is only in the US where a Legal-entity is granted the Moral Right to be Attributed as an Author/Creator despite them not a "natural person". 🤷🏽

(Which probably is the reason why those two formats are common, because everyone is trying to copy the USA without being aware it is only valid there.)

Again, don't confuse Moral Rights and Economic Rights.

Attribution is part of Moral Rights. Moral Rights are only granted to Authors/Creators. An Author/Creator is a "natural person", not an entity.

Economic Rights is transferrable (for example, Copyright and Licensing groups like FILSCAP) , and can also be acquired through work-for-hire (your employer). They are generally called the Rightsholder. They can be the Copyright owner but not the Author/Creator.

👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

I learned today that because of the strong Moral Rights protection in the #Philippines , it is not possible for Authors/Creators (defined as "natural persons" by law) to dedicate/release their work to the #PublicDomain .

And even if we use 0BSD, MIT-0, CC0, and other similar public-domain-equivalent licenses, we can still sue anyone who:

1. Misused our name
2. Misrepresented us
3. Misused our work (downstream)

All under Moral Rights because we can never waived it under Philippine law. Even with a promise not to sue anyone is not a guarantee.

So, saying, "This work is under 0BSD/MIT-0/CC0 and I will never sue anyone for whatever reason", won't work under Philippine law. The Creator/Author will always have their Moral Rights as the creator/author of the work. It's completely up to you to trust that they will fulfill their promise. 🤪

#Copyright #Copyleft #Licenses #ShareAlike #FreeCulture

👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

I learned today that because of the strong Moral Rights protection in the #Philippines , it is not possible for Authors/Creators (defined as "natural persons" by law) to dedicate/release their work to the #PublicDomain .

And even if we use 0BSD, MIT-0, CC0, and other similar public-domain-equivalent licenses, we can still sue anyone who:

1. Misused our name
2. Misrepresented us
3. Misused our work (downstream)

All under Moral Rights because we can never waived it under Philippine law. Even with a promise not to sue anyone is not a guarantee.

So, saying, "This work is under 0BSD/MIT-0/CC0 and I will never sue anyone for whatever reason", won't work under Philippine law. The Creator/Author will always have their Moral Rights as the creator/author of the work. It's completely up to you to trust that they will fulfill their promise. 🤪

#Copyright #Copyleft #Licenses #ShareAlike #FreeCulture

👉🏽 #IANAL #TINLA

Only the Copyright owner (or Rightsholder) can do that because they're the original. They're the ones who licensed it under an open license. Dedicating a work to the Public Domain is the only one where the Copyright owner legally relinquish all their Rights. Then again, #IANAL & #TINLA.

Additional information not mentioned. 1. Annulment must be filed before the 10th year marriage anniversary, otherwise, it's no longer available. 2. Not all muslims can divorce under Islamic Sharia Law. If a muslim couple (actually, even if only one is a Muslim) … (NOTE: #IANAL & #TINLA)

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:uivc5p7uhbo3sicndtcaog5b/post/3lfu4x2v52m2h

Thinking more about #Nintendo's #PalWorld #lawsuit, which claims that many of the mechanics, such as the #PalBall, are too similar to #Pokemon's mechanics, like the #PokeBall.

Wondering if it would be a good idea for #PocketPair to take a cue from #BugSnax, and replace the "ball" with a cyllindrical "trap". Perhaps they can take inspiration from #GhostBusters, and have some sort of energy based trap which opens at the top and sucks the magic monsters in. They should definitely be leaning hard into the #MonsterCollecting genre's roots of #Yokai, #Spirit entities, and #mythological #cryptids.

They might be able to avoid some damages if they lose this or have to settle in a few years by just changing up a few aesthetics, and I think the game itself would benefit from this: I personally think the Pal Ball looks odd and out of place as a mechanic, like it's just there to copy Pokemon.

Then again, changing things might be an admission of guilt? I'm not a lawyer.

#IANAL #law #legal

Thinking more about #Nintendo's #PalWorld #lawsuit, which claims that many of the mechanics, such as the #PalBall, are too similar to #Pokemon's mechanics, like the #PokeBall.

Wondering if it would be a good idea for #PocketPair to take a cue from #BugSnax, and replace the "ball" with a cyllindrical "trap". Perhaps they can take inspiration from #GhostBusters, and have some sort of energy based trap which opens at the top and sucks the magic monsters in. They should definitely be leaning hard into the #MonsterCollecting genre's roots of #Yokai, #Spirit entities, and #mythological #cryptids.

They might be able to avoid some damages if they lose this or have to settle in a few years by just changing up a few aesthetics, and I think the game itself would benefit from this: I personally think the Pal Ball looks odd and out of place as a mechanic, like it's just there to copy Pokemon.

Then again, changing things might be an admission of guilt? I'm not a lawyer.

#IANAL #law #legal

Thinking more about #Nintendo's #PalWorld #lawsuit, which claims that many of the mechanics, such as the #PalBall, are too similar to #Pokemon's mechanics, like the #PokeBall.

Wondering if it would be a good idea for #PocketPair to take a cue from #BugSnax, and replace the "ball" with a cyllindrical "trap". Perhaps they can take inspiration from #GhostBusters, and have some sort of energy based trap which opens at the top and sucks the magic monsters in. They should definitely be leaning hard into the #MonsterCollecting genre's roots of #Yokai, #Spirit entities, and #mythological #cryptids.

They might be able to avoid some damages if they lose this or have to settle in a few years by just changing up a few aesthetics, and I think the game itself would benefit from this: I personally think the Pal Ball looks odd and out of place as a mechanic, like it's just there to copy Pokemon.

Then again, changing things might be an admission of guilt? I'm not a lawyer.

#IANAL #law #legal

Thinking more about #Nintendo's #PalWorld #lawsuit, which claims that many of the mechanics, such as the #PalBall, are too similar to #Pokemon's mechanics, like the #PokeBall.

Wondering if it would be a good idea for #PocketPair to take a cue from #BugSnax, and replace the "ball" with a cyllindrical "trap". Perhaps they can take inspiration from #GhostBusters, and have some sort of energy based trap which opens at the top and sucks the magic monsters in. They should definitely be leaning hard into the #MonsterCollecting genre's roots of #Yokai, #Spirit entities, and #mythological #cryptids.

They might be able to avoid some damages if they lose this or have to settle in a few years by just changing up a few aesthetics, and I think the game itself would benefit from this: I personally think the Pal Ball looks odd and out of place as a mechanic, like it's just there to copy Pokemon.

Then again, changing things might be an admission of guilt? I'm not a lawyer.

#IANAL #law #legal

Thinking more about #Nintendo's #PalWorld #lawsuit, which claims that many of the mechanics, such as the #PalBall, are too similar to #Pokemon's mechanics, like the #PokeBall.

Wondering if it would be a good idea for #PocketPair to take a cue from #BugSnax, and replace the "ball" with a cyllindrical "trap". Perhaps they can take inspiration from #GhostBusters, and have some sort of energy based trap which opens at the top and sucks the magic monsters in. They should definitely be leaning hard into the #MonsterCollecting genre's roots of #Yokai, #Spirit entities, and #mythological #cryptids.

They might be able to avoid some damages if they lose this or have to settle in a few years by just changing up a few aesthetics, and I think the game itself would benefit from this: I personally think the Pal Ball looks odd and out of place as a mechanic, like it's just there to copy Pokemon.

Then again, changing things might be an admission of guilt? I'm not a lawyer.

#IANAL #law #legal

New Episode: hpr4168 :: Beyond Economic Recovery

Hosted by Trixter on 2024-07-24 is flagged as Clean and is released under a CC-BY-SA license.

Tags: #archiving, #archivist, #legal, #TINLA, #IANAL

https://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr4168/index.html

@trashheap Using a built-in software feature, like “reshare”/“boost”, is not a #Copyright infringement. I can't remember which case it was, but a high court in the USA explained the different between re-uploading/redistribution vs. using a platform's built-in “reshare” feature.

What can be considered as infringement are:
* Re-uploading / redistributing an image/photo/art/fiction/ebook/story. Since these are automatically Copyrighted to the author/creator/writer.
* Creating a derivative, or a reproduction, work without permission or a license.

On screenshots, it is case-by-case:
* Was it a screenshot of a scene from an animation or live-action production? It is infringement, however, in countries where there is Fair Use, or similar, they can get away with it depending on usage. (Example, in an article or review, it falls under Fair Use. [But if you overdo it, you still might get in trouble.])
* Was it a screenshot of a post where a Copyrighted work was included? If the subject is clearly about the post and not the Copyrighted material, it is fine. Otherwise, it's a grey area. If the owner of the Copyrighted material that was included in that screenshot, can prove their Rights were infringed, they can potentially win in court. (But using a platform's “reshare” feature is, again, fine as you simply re-shared it, not re-uploaded.)

How about text-only posts?
* Generally, text-only posts in microblogging platforms, are not Copyrighted as those do not fall under any conditions of the Copyright Law. If the post owner can prove their post was a creative work, then they can try it in court.

Of course, the Copyright landscape is constantly changing in our fast evolving cyberspace. For example, in many platforms today, they allow threading of a post. In some, even though the platform doesn't have any threading feature, mobile apps can add such features (example, Trunks can display a Mastodon thread properly even though Mastodon's web and mobile interface don't support threading).

So, if a user can prove that it is a “thread”, then there is a chance it can be Copyrightable. But, again, largely, “no”.

---

Anyway, it's the simplest way I can explain it. Also, #IANAL and #TINLA.

@downey

@trashheap Using a built-in software feature, like “reshare”/“boost”, is not a #Copyright infringement. I can't remember which case it was, but a high court in the USA explained the different between re-uploading/redistribution vs. using a platform's built-in “reshare” feature.

What can be considered as infringement are:
* Re-uploading / redistributing an image/photo/art/fiction/ebook/story. Since these are automatically Copyrighted to the author/creator/writer.
* Creating a derivative, or a reproduction, work without permission or a license.

On screenshots, it is case-by-case:
* Was it a screenshot of a scene from an animation or live-action production? It is infringement, however, in countries where there is Fair Use, or similar, they can get away with it depending on usage. (Example, in an article or review, it falls under Fair Use. [But if you overdo it, you still might get in trouble.])
* Was it a screenshot of a post where a Copyrighted work was included? If the subject is clearly about the post and not the Copyrighted material, it is fine. Otherwise, it's a grey area. If the owner of the Copyrighted material that was included in that screenshot, can prove their Rights were infringed, they can potentially win in court. (But using a platform's “reshare” feature is, again, fine as you simply re-shared it, not re-uploaded.)

How about text-only posts?
* Generally, text-only posts in microblogging platforms, are not Copyrighted as those do not fall under any conditions of the Copyright Law. If the post owner can prove their post was a creative work, then they can try it in court.

Of course, the Copyright landscape is constantly changing in our fast evolving cyberspace. For example, in many platforms today, they allow threading of a post. In some, even though the platform doesn't have any threading feature, mobile apps can add such features (example, Trunks can display a Mastodon thread properly even though Mastodon's web and mobile interface don't support threading).

So, if a user can prove that it is a “thread”, then there is a chance it can be Copyrightable. But, again, largely, “no”.

---

Anyway, it's the simplest way I can explain it. Also, #IANAL and #TINLA.

@downey

@drewdevault

Shouldn’t you mention that if anybody distributes a product based on the UNMODIFIED #Redict they can satisfy all requirements just by pointing to https://codeberg.org/redict/redict to make it clear they don’t have to be burdened too much?

#IANAL

@drewdevault

Shouldn’t you mention that if anybody distributes a product based on the UNMODIFIED #Redict they can satisfy all requirements just by pointing to https://codeberg.org/redict/redict to make it clear they don’t have to be burdened too much?

#IANAL

By the way, don't be confused between #Copyright and #Trademark. These two are totally different.

Let's use Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

While the earliest versions of Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse are now in the #PublicDomain it does not mean you can freely create and sell your own merchandise with them on it. That falls under Trademark.

Copyright covers works of art like the character, the stories, literary works, music. In the Mickey and Minnie Mouse case, the images and stories, and the character art itself, are now in the Public Domain.

However, using these characters as in a merchandise like mugs and t-shirts is not under Copyright, it is under Trademark. Disney still holds the Trademark rights for these characters.

You can draw Mickey and Minnie. You can create new stories for them. Not only that, but you can write a new literary work, say a novel or a children's book or a film, based on the earliest versions of these characters. Just not anything that falls under Trademark.

If you are going to do something that you think might fall under Trademark law, the best course of action is to ask #Disney. If they say it doesn't fall under Trademark law, then keep that reply, as it is your proof they gave you permission. Otherwise, try to negotiate if you really need it.

So, again, Copyright (and in this case Public Domain) is totally different from Trademark. Many countries choose to call these two as #IntellectualPropertyRights. While it is correct (and confusing), they are different and there is no overlap between them. They have completely separate uses/coverage.

#IANAL and #TINLA, however, it doesn't mean you can't study Copyright and Trademark laws.

By the way, don't be confused between #Copyright and #Trademark. These two are totally different.

Let's use Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

While the earliest versions of Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse are now in the #PublicDomain it does not mean you can freely create and sell your own merchandise with them on it. That falls under Trademark.

Copyright covers works of art like the character, the stories, literary works, music. In the Mickey and Minnie Mouse case, the images and stories, and the character art itself, are now in the Public Domain.

However, using these characters as in a merchandise like mugs and t-shirts is not under Copyright, it is under Trademark. Disney still holds the Trademark rights for these characters.

You can draw Mickey and Minnie. You can create new stories for them. Not only that, but you can write a new literary work, say a novel or a children's book or a film, based on the earliest versions of these characters. Just not anything that falls under Trademark.

If you are going to do something that you think might fall under Trademark law, the best course of action is to ask #Disney. If they say it doesn't fall under Trademark law, then keep that reply, as it is your proof they gave you permission. Otherwise, try to negotiate if you really need it.

So, again, Copyright (and in this case Public Domain) is totally different from Trademark. Many countries choose to call these two as #IntellectualPropertyRights. While it is correct (and confusing), they are different and there is no overlap between them. They have completely separate uses/coverage.

#IANAL and #TINLA, however, it doesn't mean you can't study Copyright and Trademark laws.

Gotta wonder why Microsoft and OpenAI are willing to indemnify you legally against copyright lawsuits. Maybe they know they can’t function w/o other people’s stolen content and they have no plan B now that they’ve convinced everyone what is possible. Gotta prop up that share $$.

Also, fun fact: Even though you can be sued for plagiarism with these models, what you produce is not copyrightable. I sure hope you weren’t planning on legal protection of your generated assets. #ianal #butstill

Gotta wonder why Microsoft and OpenAI are willing to indemnify you legally against copyright lawsuits. Maybe they know they can’t function w/o other people’s stolen content and they have no plan B now that they’ve convinced everyone what is possible. Gotta prop up that share $$.

Also, fun fact: Even though you can be sued for plagiarism with these models, what you produce is not copyrightable. I sure hope you weren’t planning on legal protection of your generated assets. #ianal #butstill

When is a lawyer not your legal counsel?

WHEN THEY ARE YOUR CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR

#MastodonAmateurLawSchool101

#TINLA #IANAL

When is a lawyer not your legal counsel?

WHEN THEY ARE YOUR CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR

#MastodonAmateurLawSchool101

#TINLA #IANAL

Trump's lawyers claim that Biden is making fun of TFG in their filing today. Seriously.
Buffoonish lawyers! h/t Lawfare
#TrumpDefense #TrumpThinSkin #IANAL
But it's A-OK for Trump to vilify Biden every time he feels like it

Trump's lawyers claim that Biden is making fun of TFG in their filing today. Seriously.
Buffoonish lawyers! h/t Lawfare
#TrumpDefense #TrumpThinSkin #IANAL
But it's A-OK for Trump to vilify Biden every time he feels like it

Trump's lawyers claim that Biden is making fun of TFG in their filing today. Seriously.
Buffoonish lawyers! h/t Lawfare
#TrumpDefense #TrumpThinSkin #IANAL
But it's A-OK for Trump to vilify Biden every time he feels like it

Trump's lawyers claim that Biden is making fun of TFG in their filing today. Seriously.
Buffoonish lawyers! h/t Lawfare
#TrumpDefense #TrumpThinSkin #IANAL
But it's A-OK for Trump to vilify Biden every time he feels like it

Unrelated question: Does anyone else still giggle at the acronym used to indicate you are not currently practicing law?
#IANAL #Trump #CriminalJusticeSystem #LawAndOrder #DunDun

@VPS_Reports
#IANAL #IAmNotALawyer
I am, however, the person responsible for #Compliance on my team.
The last 4 of your social, combined with other things, is #PersonalData
I don't know if that helps much. Laws vary in regards to this. If it was in any way #medical, that's #HIPAA violation.

.