From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.0.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC4AF1F404 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:34503 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuLOs-0003tU-MA for e@80x24.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:34:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36745) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuLOY-0003tO-6w for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:33:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuLOT-0008V8-5T for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:33:42 -0400 Received: from sub5.mail.dreamhost.com ([208.113.200.129]:40769 helo=homiemail-a59.g.dreamhost.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fuLOS-0008UK-Pe for libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:33:37 -0400 Received: from homiemail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AD6E000903 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=peers.community; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=peers.community; bh=3 1bKpYQkvHnbAQzr7teszb4WVoM=; b=VmlKNcoxAtgWcV3da8HM7iRLOZKtZwFPR T8/eKIIb4zYjvZwnmfAuYSJsjd17U8ghTHy9bwzlK08TY2XwyewFM+sHbKtHFJNu /xkoFfdWhv9qVefs/SM+j8sF3djnYAV7hdVXYoMnWQSsFp2x6Wfc9AJh1Rm56rOY OpUnzuB3mg= Received: from localhost (75-138-187-221.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com [75.138.187.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bill-auger@peers.community) by homiemail-a59.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97672E000901 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:33:20 +0000 From: bill-auger To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org Message-ID: <20180827133320.3f0525f5@peers.community> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: peers.community X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] X-Received-From: 208.113.200.129 Subject: Re: Direct data and derived data: chance for a data GPL? X-BeenThere: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: libreplanet-discuss-bounces+e=80x24.org@libreplanet.org Sender: "libreplanet-discuss" 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 libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss