Judge rules copyright law governs public data scraping, not X’s terms.
  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    71·
    6 months ago

    The judge found that X Corp’s argument exposed a tension between the platform’s desire to control user data while also enjoying the safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows X to avoid liability for third-party content. If X owned the data, it could perhaps argue it has exclusive rights to control the data, but then it wouldn’t have safe harbor.

    “X Corp. wants it both ways: to keep its safe harbors yet exercise a copyright owner’s right to exclude, wresting fees from those who wish to extract and copy X users’ content,” Alsup wrote.

    Seems like a sound judgement. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If Elon Musk wants to own the data, he must also be liable for it.

  • CaptObvious@literature.cafe
    34·
    6 months ago

    Judge Alsup isn’t wrong. Yet Disney routinely writes its own copyright laws and has Congress pass them. Musk is just trying to cut out the middle step.

  • BioDriver@beehaw.orgEnglish
    18·
    6 months ago

    How anyone could support Elon a few years ago baffles me. How anyone can support him today worries me

  • megopie@beehaw.org
    10·
    6 months ago

    The website formally known as twitter runs face first in to the results of chasing another tech hype train built on sound technology being applied way too broadly, and operating in unsustainable and dubiously legal ways.

  • Hirom@beehaw.org
    9·
    6 months ago

    What about users’ copyright? Would Bright Data have to obtain permission from every user to scrap data while following copyright law?

    I guess this wasn’t a question raised during this lawsuit.

    • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
      9·
      6 months ago

      This is a guess since I’m not a lawyer, but since users license their content to Twitter when posting it, Bright Data might have to prove fair use. I don’t think that question has been answered yet in relation to AI model training, but search engines have been doing this for decades for what it’s worth, so I don’t know.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        2·
        6 months ago

        This seems to have been addressed by the judge:

        By attempting to exclude Bright Data from accessing public X posts owned by X users, X also nearly “obliterated” the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Act, “flouting” Congress’ intent in passing the law, Alsup wrote.

      • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        Do they give up the copyright, or license it to the website? They still created the content, and I don’t have a Twitter account, but after briefly reading the ToS, it says they license it to Twitter (which is pretty standard from the other services I use that I’ve read the ToS for).

      • Hirom@beehaw.org
        3·
        6 months ago

        The same ToS which the judge says X cannot enforce because it conflicts with copyright law.

        • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alOP
          2·
          6 months ago

          The copyright law says that Musk cannot claim copyright while also claiming not to be accountable. That has nothing to do with users waiving their copyright, which has been the standard practice for all forum software since practically forever. It’s why prior to GDPR, their was nothing to motivate websites from deleting your posts and even that isn’t about copyright, it’s about privacy.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            3·
            6 months ago

            Copyright can only be waived in the US by dedicating the work to the Public Domain. In most other countries, it can only be assigned or licensed to someone.

            The “standard practice in all forum software since practically forever”, has been to include a very broad use license on the work, without switching the copyright holder, in order to protect the forum owner from liability.

            The GDPR is about a very broad take on “privacy”, where the rights of “access, modification, and removal” get extended to any “personal information”, no matter whether it’s “personally identifiable” or not.

            Kind of a two birds with one stone situation.