> If you want to place downstream restrictions on your content then you have to license it (and get someone to agree to your license)
That's not how copyright works like... at all. HN needs a license to display your comment right now (see here: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou). Copyright works by default (in the US) of being the most restricted. The first sale doctrine applies but online when you distribute something you're not making 1 copy.
I understand how copyright works. I'm arguing it's silly to try and apply it to a public forum in the way it's implemented. And all the centralized social platforms agree as you've pointed out because they require users to forfeit their copyright to posts made on their platform, or at least force them to licenses the content for redistribution on/within their network.
Like, by quoting me on HN you're actually violating the content license and terms of use agreement (you're only allowed to use your "user content" not mine). You'd argue fair use, and you'd probably win. But nevertheless you'd have to argue it.
I think we're in the weeds with copyright. What's the problem we're trying to solve? A federated public communication protocol/system. What do centralized platforms do in the face of copyright? Require users essentially forfeit their copyright over the content they post (if they're nice limited to the scope of the content traversing their network). Why? Because it doesn't work any other way. What is the expectation I have when reading a public post? I expect I am allowed to read it, quote it, remix it, etc. because it's been posted publicly. Nobody asks permission to quote each other even though they technically should in accordance with US copyright law. How would a discussion transpire without a shared understanding of how the content is allowed to be used on any network?
---
And I mean if you really want to get into the weeds, copyright prevents you from e.g. playing a digital music file on your computer since the bytes need to be copied over the network, into memory, onto output devices, etc. This was the original observation: copyright basically prevents you from doing anything digital with any digital media. That's why everyone needs a license and we're in license hell. In digital it's copying all the way down so hit it with the copyright hammer.
Imagine if we applied our digital understanding of copyright to traditional artwork. I have a painting. You visit. By shining light on the painting I'm reproducing the image on your retinas. You say copyright violation? I say preposterous! What if I take a picture of the painting that I own and show you? Uh oh.
Copyright just doesn't make sense when applied to a public social network. At all. And it doesn't make any sense because a social network isn't about artists trying to make money off their works, it's about anons trying to win internet points for the day.
> I have a painting. You visit. By shining light on the painting I'm reproducing the image on your retinas. You say copyright violation? I say preposterous! What if I take a picture of the painting that I own and show you? Uh oh.
Those are all fair use. The definition of fair use is intentionally somewhat vague, leaving a lot of room for courts to exercise discretion, but showing an artwork to a guest and taking a photo of a copyrighted work for noncommercial purposes are clearly protected by precedent.
Two of the key factors a court will look at in deciding whether a use is fair is the use's purpose and character and what effect (if any) the use will have on the market for the used work[0]. Threads is an ad-supported, commercial endeavor, so I don't foresee them winning on a fair use argument when they republish a post from another site in order to sell ads next to it. If you have your own mastodon instance and you sell a single ad on it, then Threads would, by republishing your post, be depriving you of revenue for your creative work in order to increase the value of their own ad real estate via exhibition of your copyrighted content.
I'm not disagreeing with them. I'm just a little confused why people are bringing up that you don't need to explicitly attach a notice to content you create to retain the copyright (since 1988 in the US). Of course that's objectively correct. I never argued otherwise. And to add, I pointed out that by the letter of the law, quoting my post on HN is a violation because I never granted you a license to do that (you'd have to argue fair use before a court if I sued you). I'm not disagreeing I'm just continuing the discussion.
My argument is that it's not implicitly fair use for a social network to copy user content to which they don't have the copyright and distribute it across a network. And that that's crazy because a (distributed nontheless) social network doesn't work if there isn't a shared understanding that when users post publicly that they're granting the public a license to copy, re-share, remix, etc. their content. Which is de facto releasing it to the public domain.
That's not how copyright works like... at all. HN needs a license to display your comment right now (see here: https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou). Copyright works by default (in the US) of being the most restricted. The first sale doctrine applies but online when you distribute something you're not making 1 copy.