Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
I mean, if someone lets me into their house, points me to a whiteboard with a pen and tells me to write whatever I want so the other people in the house can read it...
Do I own the whiteboard? Or the pen? Or have control over any of it?
No. The owner of the house can lock me out and wipe off or change what I wrote at their leisure.
You do have some control, in the form of copyright. Also the analogy doesn’t hold up well since you’re not using their “pen” and they only let you reach inside through the window. And the audience is outside the house.
And to continue that analogy- Twitter didn't assign the name, the user created it so they hold copyright on the name.
Except when you enter the home, you accepted the TOS that transfers copyright to the owner of the home.
Nope.
https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/tweets-protected-copyright/
Really ? I think you'll find that clause means you do not own copyright to anything you post on X.
Find some pedos posting bad stuff and they'll backtrack real fast
Really? How do you get that from "you retain your rights and give Twitter a license to use your content"? Retaining rights literally means not giving them up.
Congratulations on reading the twitter TOS. Now tell me if it is legal for a company to lay claim on copyright via a TOS.
We were talking about twitter. Stay with the program please.
I thought we were talking about who legally can lay claim on copyrights in the hypothetically house with a whiteboard? i'm not the one lost with the program.
You see, x is the pen, Infowars is the ink and we're the contents of the water bowl all along
Skibidi dibidi bop
A better analogy is i hand you a bullhorn and you shout at randos.
Do i own your words, even though it's my bullhorn? No.
Depends, actually.
If you lend it to me privately, no. If you hand it to me on a stage, kinda yes.
No but somebody else can own the creator of what was written on the board. That might be a bit weird in today's terms if it's a person, but if it's a company that wrote that stuff it can legally become somebody else's, which is what is happening with Infowars.
Twitter has always allowed a company to own their own account, and even transfer it and be used by multiple people. For example how Biden's account is used by his staff. But now X starts meddling with this specific case, which is very questionable.
And if you're going to say that "it's his own account"; lawyers were saying that his "personal brand" is too heavily intertwined with Infowars and that it should be part of the Infowars brand.