David CarrollJun 9, 2023
in a weird way i think the existence of Bluesky suddenly made Mastodon better I can’t explain it and now it might be time for Mastodon to make Bluesky better; pre-cross-federated social is gonna be a ride; and then cross-federation; whooosh
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023

@profcarroll Bridging content to Bluesky without consent violates users copyright to their content because Bluesky extracts a broad license to all content posted on their platform and transfered over their protocol. Bridge builders do not have the right to grant these wholesale licenses, so any such bridge is illegal. Just because you can technically do something does not make it legal or ethical.

#DataProtection

Show threadJonathan Kamens 86 47Jun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll You seem awfully sure about things which are not at all as well-established as you seem to think they are.
The most glaring flaw in your reasoning is your mistaken belief that Bluesky can "extract" IP rights from content they didn't create, created by people who didn't consent to their terms of use, merely by virtue of that content being bridged onto their platform by a third party (not the content creator).
Show threadJonathan Kamens 86 47Jun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll Can Bluesky use people's content in ways they didn't consent to? Legally, no. Practically abso-fucking-lutely. Will they? You betcha. Does that suck? Yup, it does.
Is that the same as saying that the Fediverse can't bridge with Bluesky because bridging would "grant" Bluesky the "right" to "extract" IP rights from that content? No, absolutely not.
If a content creator didn't agree to Bluesky's Terms of Service, nothing in it is binding on their content.
Show threadJonathan Kamens 86 47Jun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll The way someone agrees for the content they create to be bound by Bluesky's Terms of Service is to sign up for Bluesky and create the content on Bluesky. That's it. Content created anywhere else, whether it's bridged to Bluesky or not, does not fall under Bluesky's Terms of Service.
Show threadJonathan Kamens 86 47Jun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll The argument you are advancing here would, if true, imply that if I take someone else's content and post it to Bluesky without their consent, Bluesky suddenly has IP rights in that content merely because it appeared on their platform. That's poppycock.
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@jik @profcarroll You are correct that if someone illegally posts content to #Bluesky without authorization of the content owner that Bluesky's license to the content can be challenged. The person that does the posting did not have the right to do so, so they can also be subjected to copyright infringement claims. And the person that post unauthorized content can also be pursued by Bluesky for violating their ToS wherein they assert they have rights to any data they post.
Show threadMatthieuJun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @jik @profcarroll

Bluesky is going to be federated using the AT protocol. The "bluesky" ToS is actually only "bsky.social’s" ToS. Bluesky can only apply their terms on their own server and to users who signed the ToS when creating their account. The terms apply to people who created an account not to the usage of their network API. And they have the technical means to know if a post is local or remote because they know the PDS associated to a username/DID. If you didn’t provide an email and password, you’re simply not a bsky.social users, there is no way they cannot know that you are a remote user.

Their terms does not and cannot apply to posts that are not local, if they assume they have a sub licence to IP, it’s their fault not the other server/bridge’s fault.

The same will apply to meta with their barcelona/project 92/Threads. In the leaked screenshots, we can see a "@ mastodon.social" user, they KNOW it’s a remote user. There is a possibility that they’ll try to monetize remote users, but it’s really asking for a class-action suit.

Bsky knows your PDS server, barcelona knows your home server. ToS only applies to local users.
Show threadMastodon Migration
@matthieu_xyz @profcarroll @jik The current Bluesky ToS includes everything transfered over their AT protocol as part of the "Services" which subject the content to their license.
Jun 9, 2023 at 3:32pmWeb
Show threadMatthieuJun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll @jik

Are they even allowed to bind users to their terms when they can’t be identified by a registered account on their service nor any kind of API key. Usually when you want to apply terms to a network service, you at least ask users to authenticate in some way.
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@matthieu_xyz @profcarroll @jik The fact that they would have a hard time enforcing a license is immaterial. It's like say we can do it because we won't get caught.
Show threadMatthieuJun 9, 2023
@mastodonmigration @profcarroll @jik

The bsky team is a bit amateurish and making things as they go. I wouldn’t be surprise if those ToS were invalid and changing in the near future.

When they start to actually serve ads and monetize data, I doubt they’ll be able to monetize remote users, especially not in Europe.
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@matthieu_xyz @profcarroll @jik Agreed
Show threadMastodon MigrationJun 9, 2023
@matthieu_xyz @profcarroll @jik The user they can identify is the bridgebuilder who is posting content without consent.