Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Direct data and derived data: chance for a data GPL?

[Thomas Harding]

(Sorry for top-posting, due to handeld appliance)

Databases are "a set" of informations, and copyright applies on that collection 
as whole, and moreover on its structure.

Just take a look at OpenStreetMap and its licence.

Regarding personal data, it *should* be owned by individuals themselves on 
their own data, but thats not the case.

Just take a look at phone numbers databases, or mail adresses, that are a very 
expensive business.

And, regarding americans, anything reliable to insurance.

Best regards,
TSFH

Le 27 août 2018 15:33:20 GMT+02:00, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> a 
écrit :
>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

-- 
Je suis née pour partager, non la haine, mais l'amour.
Sophocle, /Antigone, 442 av. JC