A Conceit
There is a conceit among those who make platforms or networks, or networks on platforms. That conceit is that the data on the platform is theirs to do with as they wish. Sometimes this is true with regard to data on operating systems too. It is a wrong-headed belief.
Copyright
For one thing, if I write something, I own the copyright automatically. A platform can create some kind of EULA saying whatever data you put in it now legally belongs to it. Fine. I still haven’t waived my copyright. Rather, the platform is asserting that a pre-condition of its use is that it owns whatever is put into it. Thing is, if nobody uses a platform, it just sits there, empty and probably value-less.
Imagine a Stage
Imagine I own a stage. Plays are performed on it, and speeches are made. What I own is the venue where the speech is made. If I want to sell a copy of the speech, I am going to have to pay the person who owns the copyright on the words, since the person owns the speech. It is an absurd precondition to make anyone who wants to be on the stage sign some kind of document stating that whatever is said on the stage is now owned by the stage. No writer is going to consent to that. No speaker will either. Further, what if the speech is actually in the Public Domain like some manner of Presidential address? Does the platform’s assertion to owning whatever is put in it supersede the laws concerning Public Domain?
Twitter (X) Policy
A quick glance on the legalities of how X handles this can be found here.
Here is a screenshot for faster grokking:
You own the content, here, but then a license is granted to X. Fine. Does that license extend into using all the data to train an AI model? Why does a platform that is digital get to do more in terms of owning content than a physical stage can? Why isn’t the physical stage analogy applicable to a platform? A stage can’t “store” the spoken word on its own, this is certain. However, if someone makes a digital recording of a speech, the copyight of the speech still belongs to the speaker, although the one recording the speech has a copyright to that recording. Permission might have to be asked both of the speaker and recorder if someone wanted to use the work.
Natural Rights Trump Derivative Rights
The U.S. Constitution has the clause concerning the “pursuit of happiness” and how certain rights are granted relative to that endeavour. A natural right as a creator is to be able to, hypothetically, have the creation valued and sold so as to support the creator. While a platform has the right to say how it might be used, it cannot also double dip and say that it owns all the content created by creators to do with it how it sees fit. What incentive would a creator have to create? Wouldn’t a creator just put their mind to creating platforms instead to make another walled garden that benefits them?
Public Platforms…
The data on public platforms, if it is going to be owned by anyone, should be owned by “The People” and not the platform. While it is true a creator loses certain amounts of creative control in a crowd, it is also true that they do not lose control of their creation. If I, as a platform, decide to make an AI model using all the data on a platform I own, I am using the minds of all the creators on the platform. I did not, of course, ask for permission to do this–and I am not also going to compensate anyone for it since the platform has a “permissive license” on the content of its users. Furthermore,the matter is compounded if an AI crawler comes onto my website and slurps up all the content. It does not own the copyright, but yet, it is going to integrate the data and speak as though it does. That’s a huge problem, in my book, since if a person does that we generally call them a fraud.
It’s Possible…
It might be possible that, in the digital domain, Freedom of Speech has become one large defrauding operation since the digital domain has some characteristics the physical does not. Of course, the thing about the digital domain is that it ends when you unplug it…