Quote Sharing vs Boosting. Is there a copyright problem?

Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:48:15 +0200 last edited: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:46:07 +0200

Grischa

grischa@hub.brockha.us

I was wondering (a lot) why hubzilla did not implement boosting posts. I still think it is an essential feature in the fediverse, at least when it comes to AP services.

@mike, the creator of #Hubzilla, #Friendica and what not wrote an explanation to me, I do understand. Boosting really could(*) become a copyright problem. I never thought about that..

*) To be more precise: it is always a copyright problem, that could be sued.

mike wrote the following post Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:34:26 +0200

Maybe you'll understand someday when millions of Mastodon users get sued individually for copyright violation. The "Announce" or "boost" mechanism has no opportunity to add commentary, which provides a defense known as "the Fair Use defense" against copyright infringement such as newspapers quoting a page from a book and adding criticism or praise. Without the commentary, it is indefensible in court and you can be ordered to pay restitution/damages for your copying of copyrighted material. I was sued in 2006 for copying a post from another site without adding commentary. I spoke to a very good lawyer and he recommended I settle. He couldn't realistically defend me. The creators of Mastodon are currently ignorant about copyright law and put everybody at risk. In any case, this is the reason. Several projects have come up with workarounds and provide "quoted posts" and there is now a common method for sharing these - as about 7-8 different projects had completely incompatible implementations.

I'm currently working on a way to push comments back to the original creator (if desired), but have more important priorities at the moment and haven't made much progress.

fediverse

show all 6 comments

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:46:38 +0200

Scott M. Stolz

scott@authorship.studio

@mike

In all honesty, the entire premise of federated networks poses a number of copyright issues. The fact that the author transmitted you a copy of their work might provide a reasonable defense; though I don't know if there is legal precedent to support this.

In most countries, there is a distinction between the person posting content (i.e. the author or speaker) and the network it is posted on.

The person who posted the content is typically the one in trouble for violating someone's copyright. A recipient can be in trouble if they requested it or downloaded it knowing it was an illegal copy. But the network can claim they are not the author and therefore are not liable.

It's the same concept that the phone company is not the author of what you say on a phone call, or a web host is not the author of what you say in your email or website, or Facebook is not the author of what you say in a post. Since they are not the author or speaker, they have a level of protection against copyright claims.

But a network has a duty to remove illegally posted copyrighted content if they know about it or are told about it. Laws vary widely, but typically the network is not in violation of copyright laws if they have a policy against posting illegal content, and they remove such content when they are aware of its existence.

There are other factors as well, such as whether a post is public or private, whether the content was requested by someone, and which country the website is in.

And, as you mentioned, resending someone else's work without commentary would make you the author of the post, and therefore could make you liable for copyright infringement.

If the operator of a public hub operates it as a network, they would have a level of protection as long as they enforce the Terms of Service against unauthorized posting of copyrighted content, and follow their country's takedown laws.

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:16:45 +0200

Grischa

grischa@hub.brockha.us

@Scott M. Stolz As I understand it, the problem is a little bit different.

If you put an image you don't own on your website (or your facebook stream or whatever), this is a copyright problem. The same goes with a post you don't own that is added to your stream (.. boosted). This is part of your stream then, but not owned by you.

I personally think, this is not a big problem, as most senders of public posts have no problem with boosting there posts, but it could be sued as copyright violation if you boost the wrong sender.

So it is not the problem of the service owner but the user having a stream posting content not owned by him / her.

.. so my understanding of that copyright problem.

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:17:52 +0200

Waitman Gobble

wago@libertious.com

It depends, a lot of times a photographer or contenh author puffs up their chests and threatens a copyright lawsuit but they aren't going to pony up 20k to get an attorney to file the case. But if its like a gang of attorneys like the RIAA, for example, and they tell you they are suing you there is a good chance they will and they will win.

If it's like a small time person theatening them maybe offer them $50 or something as a licensing fee with a link to their site. A lot of photographer dont get paid doodley and would go for that deal.

Sat, 22 Oct 2022 01:55:33 +0200

Waitman Gobble

wago@libertious.com

There is a new 'small claims' court which launched a few months ago. Not sure how it works but it supposedly makes it easier for rights holders to get like 500 bucks or something (30k is the limit guess, but i wouldn't count on seeing that kind of litigation). Thing is I think i read that the defendant can say its bs and force the plaintiff to go to 'real' court. So it's risky.

Copyright Claims Board

Copyright Claims Board Homepage

Sat, 22 Oct 2022 02:04:17 +0200

Waitman Gobble

wago@libertious.com

It's the 'respond or opt-out option i think. So a defendant can opt out of small claims and force the plaintiff to file a real lawsuit

Sun, 23 Oct 2022 04:24:16 +0200 last edited: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 04:25:33 +0200

Scott M. Stolz

scott@authorship.studio

@mike

The DMCA (Digital Millennial Communications Act) was a way for corporations to avoid legal responsibility and did so by putting all responsibility on end users. All the corps had to do was respond to takedown requests. You could still be sued, but the corp was immune. Funny how that works.

The DMCA is meant to protect networks and platforms and web hosts, so, luckily it also applies to forums and public hubs too. So if an end-user on our website violates copyright, we get immunity too, even if we are not a corporation.

And corporations (or forums or public hubs) are not protected under the DMCA if they post the infringing content themselves. They are only immune if an end-user posts infringing content. It shifts liability to the person who actually posted the infringing content, not innocent third-parties.

(As a side note, anyone who runs a public hub should form a corporation, or a public benefit corporation (PBC), or an LLC for the limited liability protection it gives. That way if you get sued, they can't take your personal assets like your home, vehicle, and bank accounts. They can only touch what is in the LLC, PBC, or corporation. That is how the game is played, so someone who runs a website with end-users (such as a forum or public hub) should take advantage of those rules.)

The question was raised "Why does Hubzilla not support "boost?" and I answered because I'm the one who made that decision..

It makes a lot of sense. Most people don't think about the legal issues involved, and I am glad that you are.