Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
I don’t think it’s equivalent to sovereign citizens. OP is the author of their comment and therefore has the copyrights. As the author one can license their work as all rights reserved or other permissive licenses.
OP chooses to license their work as Creative Commons.
They’re not forcing you to accept the license, it’s your local government that enforces copyright.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
It’s a hard problem in the fediverse. It makes for a ticking time bomb of an issue. Imagine I am on a “everything is your own, we don’t sell your stuff” instance while another instance just copy pasted metas ToS. By posting a response to my instance, which then in turn is federated to the meta style instance I create something hard to solve. I can foresee other issues too.
I see your point. I just think it’s a difficult problem.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
Actually, Safe Harbor laws would encompass social media sites as well, so it would work there as well.
Either corporations own the content you post and are responsible for it, or they just host your content you post that you own and are immune from harm for the content. The law is currently the latter, and not the former.
I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.
The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”
You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.
TOS can’t change Law, can’t strip away rights that you have.
Law always trumps TOS.
In fact, if a company tries to via their TOS they are opening themselves up for big risks/lawsuits, as they are trying to gain ownership of your content, voiding their Safe Harbor law protections.
They can’t have it both ways, thats not how the Law works. Either they have the protection, or they own the content.
No, it doesn’t matter if the book is at a library or on my friend’s bookshelf, copyright law is literally the right to copy the thing. So if I make an illegal copy, I’m breaking copyright law. The “ToS” I’ve “agreed” to is the law of the country I’m in.
I am getting annoyed on your behalf lol. Why do people feel the need to screech at others doing something harmless when they could just shut up and ignore it is beyond me. Not a fair comparison but it does feel like republicans shouting at trans people.
It’s amazing how bent out of shape some people get about this, both currently, as well as about tenish months ago when I last was on Lemmy (check out my comment history from that time period if you really want to get annoyed).
I got to imagine that its people who want to farm the comments for their LLMs training, that are trying to prevent the popular usage of people licensing their content.
Honestly I don’t believe it would help myself but who am I to tell you what to do. As someone else mentioned, it’s probably people who simply have to correct others when they don’t share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
It would help if the companies that are training their LLMs honor content creators licenses. If they ignore the law in that, then it would in theory need to be policed.
In either case, its a quick copy/paste on my part, so /shrug.
As someone else mentioned, it’s probably people who simply have to correct others when they don’t share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
I don’t know. It would behoove those who need our content to train their LLMs to intimidate/redirect people away from licensing their content. And I can’t imagine regular people getting so caught up to spend so much time on this issue. If you look through my comment history, starting 9-10 months ago, and see how many replies I’ve gotten, and even how posts talk about this issue (https://lemmy.world/post/14942506), I can’t imagine a single link would cause all of that. Theres got to be something more to it than that.
I was around when that was an active topic back then so I am aware. It’s just I don’t trust any or most companies to respect it anyway. Also as someone else suggested, look into automation lol, I thought you had something like an email signature that gets added automatically.
I comment on both my phone and PC. As a sofware developer, its not a big deal for me to copy/paste, I do it all the time (even read the O’Reilly book on the subject 😜 ).
Maybe, I wouldn’t doubt it, if true. We live in the age of “ask for forgiveness and not permission”. But the law is the law, and forgiveness may cost them some $$$ down the road. At the very least it leaves them exposed vis-a-vis ‘Safe Harbor’ laws-wise, when some other powerful entity wants to go to war with them.
In either case, I’m not going to give up my rights just because currently laws are not enforced. Like most things with humans, things move back-and-forth throughout time, and what may be overlooked today may be scrutinized thoroughly tomorrow.
(And for the record, you’re the bazillionish person to tell me that. The repetition is real.)
Well, I’d enjoy it more if people (in general) stopped bothering me about using a license for my content, than I actually do using a license for my content. 😜
Do you spend a lot of time arguing with people over it?
Allot more than I wish, I really try not to. Even today, I keep asking people to not rehash it, and lets just talk about the topic my comment was posted in. But for some strange reason people just won’t let it go, and push to talk about it.
Well like it or not, your footer is just a part of your comments, and so people are invited to respond however they wish when you post it on lemmy. If you don’t like people making the same replies, you can simply stop posting the same content in every comment.
Well like it or not, your footer is just a part of your comments, and so people are invited to respond however they wish when you post it on lemmy.
That logic doesn’t track though, as that content is just a footer, it is not the actual content of what’s being discussed in the post, which is what people should be responding to.
It would be the same as if for every comment I made on a subject it opposed people instead started asking me questions about my username, and not discussing the subject of the post.
If you don’t like people making the same replies, you can simply stop posting the same content in every comment.
You really shouldn’t be “blaming the victim” on this one.
Even if what you said previously is true, when a person has been directed to a location where an answer to their question has already been given, and they refuse to do so, but instead continue to badger the person directly, that’s detrimental to the conversation being had (by derailing it), as well as I would argue to Lemmy itself. And if done enough times on purpose could be considered harassment.
People should not be able to dictate what other people put in their comments, and should definitely not harass them continuously over what they have in their comments.
It sounds like your client is not supporting that. You should speak with the devs of your client about that. Here’s the actual formatting string being used by me…
It looks like the Eternity client doesn’t support subscript?
Don’t know what to say, my account is on Lemmy.World, and that’s their instructions on how to format one’s comments. /shrug
In the past (tenish months ago) I heard this same issue, and I tried removing the subscripting, which made the footer text the same size of the rest of the text, and then I was getting people complaining about my footer text being too large for a footer. My hope was that ten months later, all clients would support subscript fonts/text.
Honestly, at this point I’d suggest you talk to the devs of your client, to support subscript font/text.
That license does nothing.
Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
Especially since the comment itself in question is so short that it would be public domain in practically every jurisdiction.
I don’t think it’s equivalent to sovereign citizens. OP is the author of their comment and therefore has the copyrights. As the author one can license their work as all rights reserved or other permissive licenses.
OP chooses to license their work as Creative Commons.
They’re not forcing you to accept the license, it’s your local government that enforces copyright.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
This would vary by instance. I don’t see that lemmy.world specifies the terms for user content, which really should be fixed.
It’s a hard problem in the fediverse. It makes for a ticking time bomb of an issue. Imagine I am on a “everything is your own, we don’t sell your stuff” instance while another instance just copy pasted metas ToS. By posting a response to my instance, which then in turn is federated to the meta style instance I create something hard to solve. I can foresee other issues too.
I see your point. I just think it’s a difficult problem.
Actually, Safe Harbor laws would encompass social media sites as well, so it would work there as well.
Either corporations own the content you post and are responsible for it, or they just host your content you post that you own and are immune from harm for the content. The law is currently the latter, and not the former.
Also, law trumps ToS’s.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.
The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”
You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.
They just host it and are safe.
TOS can’t change Law, can’t strip away rights that you have.
Law always trumps TOS.
In fact, if a company tries to via their TOS they are opening themselves up for big risks/lawsuits, as they are trying to gain ownership of your content, voiding their Safe Harbor law protections.
They can’t have it both ways, thats not how the Law works. Either they have the protection, or they own the content.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
So, if I go to a library, pick a book and start reading it, I am then free to completely copy it because I didn’t agree to any licensing?
You agreed to the ToS given by the library.
Hence why you have to get a library card to check out a book.
No, it doesn’t matter if the book is at a library or on my friend’s bookshelf, copyright law is literally the right to copy the thing. So if I make an illegal copy, I’m breaking copyright law. The “ToS” I’ve “agreed” to is the law of the country I’m in.
Okay, and if I find the book on the street?
It makes me feel good. That’s something.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I am getting annoyed on your behalf lol. Why do people feel the need to screech at others doing something harmless when they could just shut up and ignore it is beyond me. Not a fair comparison but it does feel like republicans shouting at trans people.
I feel like it somehow relates to Cunningham’s Law but i can’t figure out how to articulate it.
Thanks, appreciate the support!
It’s amazing how bent out of shape some people get about this, both currently, as well as about tenish months ago when I last was on Lemmy (check out my comment history from that time period if you really want to get annoyed).
I got to imagine that its people who want to farm the comments for their LLMs training, that are trying to prevent the popular usage of people licensing their content.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Honestly I don’t believe it would help myself but who am I to tell you what to do. As someone else mentioned, it’s probably people who simply have to correct others when they don’t share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
It would help if the companies that are training their LLMs honor content creators licenses. If they ignore the law in that, then it would in theory need to be policed.
In either case, its a quick copy/paste on my part, so /shrug.
I don’t know. It would behoove those who need our content to train their LLMs to intimidate/redirect people away from licensing their content. And I can’t imagine regular people getting so caught up to spend so much time on this issue. If you look through my comment history, starting 9-10 months ago, and see how many replies I’ve gotten, and even how posts talk about this issue (https://lemmy.world/post/14942506), I can’t imagine a single link would cause all of that. Theres got to be something more to it than that.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I was around when that was an active topic back then so I am aware. It’s just I don’t trust any or most companies to respect it anyway. Also as someone else suggested, look into automation lol, I thought you had something like an email signature that gets added automatically.
Just so I don’t repeat myself…
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I was thinking “okay this somewhat unconventional but whatever” until I read this. Use greasemonkey or something for the love of Christ!
I comment on both my phone and PC. As a sofware developer, its not a big deal for me to copy/paste, I do it all the time (even read the O’Reilly book on the subject 😜 ).
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
And I’m assuming just having “all content licesed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0” in your bio wouldn’t work?
I’m not sure if I understand your question.
I believe it does work. Or at least it should, and I shouldn’t give up my right to license my own content just because enforcement of laws is lax.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Well, scrapers probably would ignore it.
Maybe, I wouldn’t doubt it, if true. We live in the age of “ask for forgiveness and not permission”. But the law is the law, and forgiveness may cost them some $$$ down the road. At the very least it leaves them exposed vis-a-vis ‘Safe Harbor’ laws-wise, when some other powerful entity wants to go to war with them.
In either case, I’m not going to give up my rights just because currently laws are not enforced. Like most things with humans, things move back-and-forth throughout time, and what may be overlooked today may be scrutinized thoroughly tomorrow.
(And for the record, you’re the bazillionish person to tell me that. The repetition is real.)
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Can’t argue with that. I’m glad you’ve found something that you enjoy.
Well, I’d enjoy it more if people (in general) stopped bothering me about using a license for my content, than I actually do using a license for my content. 😜
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Do you spend a lot of time arguing with people over it?
Allot more than I wish, I really try not to. Even today, I keep asking people to not rehash it, and lets just talk about the topic my comment was posted in. But for some strange reason people just won’t let it go, and push to talk about it.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Well like it or not, your footer is just a part of your comments, and so people are invited to respond however they wish when you post it on lemmy. If you don’t like people making the same replies, you can simply stop posting the same content in every comment.
That logic doesn’t track though, as that content is just a footer, it is not the actual content of what’s being discussed in the post, which is what people should be responding to.
It would be the same as if for every comment I made on a subject it opposed people instead started asking me questions about my username, and not discussing the subject of the post.
You really shouldn’t be “blaming the victim” on this one.
Even if what you said previously is true, when a person has been directed to a location where an answer to their question has already been given, and they refuse to do so, but instead continue to badger the person directly, that’s detrimental to the conversation being had (by derailing it), as well as I would argue to Lemmy itself. And if done enough times on purpose could be considered harassment.
People should not be able to dictate what other people put in their comments, and should definitely not harass them continuously over what they have in their comments.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
woosh
In case you want your license declaration to look the same as mine (instead of just being a quote), you can copy and paste in the following text …
[~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Why all the tilde symbols? That’s what makes it quite distracting and hard to read for me tbh.
I’m using the Lemmy.World formatting (https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/02-media.html). I’m subscripting the text/link to make it smaller/footer.
It sounds like your client is not supporting that. You should speak with the devs of your client about that. Here’s the actual formatting string being used by me…
[~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I am using eternity. There, it’s just a link but every word is surrounded by ~.
Unfortunately, I don’t think lemmy.world is authoritative in regards to formatting and Lemmy itself – iirc – does not suggest formatting guidelines.
Spoiler formatting is also a pain because of that :/
It looks like the Eternity client doesn’t support subscript?
Don’t know what to say, my account is on Lemmy.World, and that’s their instructions on how to format one’s comments. /shrug
In the past (tenish months ago) I heard this same issue, and I tried removing the subscripting, which made the footer text the same size of the rest of the text, and then I was getting people complaining about my footer text being too large for a footer. My hope was that ten months later, all clients would support subscript fonts/text.
Honestly, at this point I’d suggest you talk to the devs of your client, to support subscript font/text.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0