(Sorry for top-posting, due to handeld appliance) Databases are "a set" of informations, and copyright applies on that collection as whole, and moreover on its structure.
Just take a look at OpenStreetMap and its licence. Regarding personal data, it *should* be owned by individuals themselves on their own data, but thats not the case. Just take a look at phone numbers databases, or mail adresses, that are a very expensive business. And, regarding americans, anything reliable to insurance. Best regards, TSFH Le 27 août 2018 15:33:20 GMT+02:00, bill-auger <[email protected]> a écrit : >ah what a topic - so ideally suited for bike-shedding - i could do that >too but i will refrain and instead just answer with some cold facts > >to address the OP's question directly, the GPL derives its authority >from copyright law; not from the author of the license, nor the author >of the work that uses the GPL - unless it can be shown that your tweet >to grandma saying: "mmm, i love these @nestle(TM) brand cupcakes" is a >copyright-able work of art then there are no rights that can be >retained from it, and therefore no copyleft-like principle can be >derived or enforced > >furthermore, even if it were such that the data mined from these >so called "social" interactions (<190 characters? each) was >copyright-able (highly doubtful); that still would not imply that the >author has any rights to the thoughts that exists in the mind of the >reader - so there goes any claim to what emergent meta-relations or >correlations that have merely been "learned" or derived from a >collection of these things which were all voluntarily offered as public >knowledge, and offered for no purpose other than to become public >knowledge > >that would be like publishing a book and then demanding that anyone who >weighs that book for the purpose of calculating the average weight of a >book, must share their result - swell idea, but i dont see where you >are going to attach it's feet nor it's teeth - the author has no >exclusive rights to the information content of the book's mass, >the person measuring it would not be breaking any existing law, and >there is no defensible moral objection to the activity either > >lets say i ask every "social" website i ever ever used to delete me and >evey digital bit i have ever published to their service - yay - then >some unrelated third-party data-miner-bot "learns" through the public >APIs those services expose of the conspicuous holes i left in the >membership rosters and it "derives" a new correlation: that i am the >type of person who is likely to delete all my "social" accounts - so, >where exactly would i request that new "derived" information be deleted >from? - i would presumably not even know that this happened; but i >should be fully aware that anyone (or robot) with a computer can do it >- >now lets say it was not a lone data-miner but 100 of them over the >course of several years; and they are not even interested in my >information anymore, because they had already milked it for everything >it was worth years ago - then they deleted it themselves after >exhausting it of value - yay, it got deleted, just like i wanted - >right? - clearly, the notion of data harvesting being restricted to an >opt-in/opt-out basis is ridiculously naive > >some nice ugly facts for the skeptical: > >1 ) the internet is public and decentralized > >2 ) the information you post on the internet is mostly public > >3 ) the information you post on the internet is mostly trivial > >4 ) anything trivial is generally not copyright-able > >5 ) the information that you choose to post publicly is widely >available > >6 ) people who are interested in any public information will get it > >7 ) people who collect sets of similar information will collect it > >8 ) people who get paid to analyze correlations > across such similar collected data sets will do that too > >9 ) people do get paid very well to do that too > >10) all of the above is perfectly legal and actively encouraged > by the very services that publish your data on your behalf > >11) you are not required to use any of those services > >12) you are not required to publish any data to the public internet > >13) you are not required to use the internet > >14) you are not required to use any computer > >so, what else other than that are people actually complaining about? - >where exactly is the perceived problem there? - which one of those >points do people want to regulate or legislate? - are any of those >points incorrect? - did i omit something important? > >let me give an example - i can say with 100% certainty that no one >is harvesting any information that i have posted on the 'twitter' >service - can anyone guess from which one of the above points that i >can >conclude such certainty? - this is not rocket science, people > >furthermore, being aware of #5 alone, allows me no excuse to complain >about where the words i type into the internet end up - once those >bits and bytes leave my machine, they are forever out of my hands; and >i >really do not want to take them back, nor to prevent anyone else from >reading them - if that were the case then, i would not have typed them >in the first place > >_______________________________________________ >libreplanet-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss -- Je suis née pour partager, non la haine, mais l'amour. Sophocle, /Antigone, 442 av. JC _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
