243
A lot of Redditors hate the Reddit IPO
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
243 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37208 readers
224 users here now
Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You mean, how you waive your rights to what you post on a website? That makes them public domain.
Posting something on a website does not make it public domain. Typically, the website's Terms of Service will require that you grant the website operator a license to use any content that you post on the site (so that they can display it to other users). That license does not extend to other visitors of the same website.
Of course, in practice, it's very unlikely that someone would take you to court over copying a website comment. But if someone posts, say, an original work of art or a short story in a comment thread, you should be aware that it is still protected by copyright.
It depends on the website hosting location. TOS,, users location and relevant international copyright treaties.
It's not a one-size-fits-all.
As a UK citizen I can't claim my (US) first amendment right to call you a "cunt".
It's against the website TOS and I'm not American.
Putting a license at the bottom clears any ambiguity.
Funnily enough you're only highlighting your own "Zoomer" naivety of law by making your "Boomer" comment.
And the license means fuck all on any public website where you waive your right to privacy by using. Esp by federating across other websites, where rules are different across every place it's federated to.
So, expecting to apply a CC license to comments made publicly, is like expecting to not be recorded or photographed when in a public place.
And nice try on the zoomer comment, but way wrong. People trying to license their comments has happened for quite a while and it's always been shown as not binding. Trying to impose your licensing on a public website is laughable.
Also, the 1st amendment has nothing to do with what you can or can't say to a private person. So, please don't speak and try to compare things you obviously don't understand.
So am I understanding you correctly? When I develop open-source software and put it on GitHub, the license, which GitHub offers you to set, is actually irrelevant because since the code is on a public website, it's somehow automatically public domain?
Please refrain from name calling on Beehaw. Our one rule is "Be(e) Nice" and I'd like to ask you to reconsider how you are engaging in this discussion.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Tacking a license to the end of a comment posted to just about any website does not actually change how the sites content is licensed.
If any publisher (in this case, a lemmy instance) does not require the author to consciously consent to assigning the copyright of the comments to the publisher or some other entity, then by default the copyright of the comment is retained by the author who is allowed to write literally whatever licenses they like and as many licenses as they like for however many people they want.
https://gizmodo.com/who-actually-owns-your-content-when-you-post-it-to-the-1819953868