Timeline for answer to A Terms of Service update restricting companies that scrape your profile information without your permission by user136089
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 22, 2016 at 19:40 | comment | added | user136089 | @Magisch, "The only thing [Stack Exchange, Inc.] cant put terms on is the data itself." If that's your view, then you should join me in complaining, because SE is putting terms on the data itself (i.e. on how the data can be used by recipients of the data). Read the last 2 paragraphs of Jaydles's post at the top of this page, for example. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:11 | comment | added | Magisch | @sampablokuper StackExchange can obviously do that. The only thing it cant put terms on is the data itself. Putting terms on who is and isn't allowed to access it from the Site is acceptable and permissible. They can block anybody they want to, at any time, for any reason. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 17:04 | comment | added | user136089 | @Magisch, I am aware that the license and the site are not the same thing. I am aware that the license has anti-DRM clauses. However, I am concerned that Stack Exchange, Inc., appears to be attempting to impose terms, upon recipients of user-contributed CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed Stack Exchange network site content, that are inconsistent with the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0. I am concerned about this not because I support spamming (I absolutely don't), but because I value Free Cultural Works and don't wish the associated freedoms to be eroded. | |
| Apr 22, 2016 at 8:55 | comment | added | Magisch | @sampablokuper I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between the licensing and the site. It says in the license that you cannot take technical limitations to the data to restrict access, that pertains to things like associated DRM. What the site is hosting themselfes and who they permit to see it is entirely their business in this instance. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 10:54 | comment | added | user136089 | @Mitar, I am not redefining anything. You might be interested in this? | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 6:33 | comment | added | Mitar | But profile data is more like "white pages phone books" than "literary works, music, art, and film". You can of course try to redefine what data means. But putting your name into a form is not "original creative expression". | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 1:10 | comment | added | user136089 | @Mitar, that U. Mich. page is using a narrow meaning of the word "data". In general, some data are copyrightable in the USA (e.g. as the U. Mich. page says, "literary works, music, art, and film") and some data might not be (e.g. as the U. Mich. page says, the content of "white pages phone books"). I have been using the general meaning, but you apparently thought I was using the narrow meaning. I hope this addresses your concern. | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 23:33 | comment | added | Mitar | Just Google "data cannot be copyrighted". One of first results: lib.umich.edu/copyright/facts-and-data | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 15:10 | history | edited | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Apr 20, 2016 at 11:55 | comment | added | user136089 | @Mitar, "Data cannot be copyrighted, at least not in USA." Citation needed ;) | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 1:13 | comment | added | Mitar | Data cannot be copyrighted, at least not in USA. Most of the content on profiles is data. So it is not under CC-BY-SA license. I think that is the content SE wants to protect from spammers. Your free-form essays about yourself probably they can leave to be scrapped, if that is what you care about? | |
| Apr 20, 2016 at 0:15 | comment | added | user136089 | @Wildcard, "If they already got the data, they're welcome to it." I don't think that this view is universally shared. In particular, I think KalleMP disagrees with it. KalleMP seemed to think that deleting a contribution from SE would rightly render it inaccessible to everyone, unless it was re-created by its original contributor: hence the example of burning a painting. (N.B. My perspective is different to KalleMP's.) "[The] original author of a work can create a new copy under any license he likes." Yes, of course. I've never suggested otherwise. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 23:38 | comment | added | Wildcard | @sampablokuper, regarding point (2) in the above comment—who really cares? If they already got the data, they're welcome to it. That doesn't allow them to run a scraping business anyway, because for that they need fresh data. Regarding license changes, regardless of the license, the original author of a work can create a new copy under any license he likes. He may not be able to prevent people from using the older copy under the terms of the original license, but he doesn't have to give them access to the new copy, even if it's identical. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 22:57 | comment | added | user136089 | "What I am trying to say is that delete the users data..." There are two things wrong with this. (1) It would mean starting (those parts of) all Stack Exchange sites over from scratch, which I don't think (m)any users would tolerate. (2) Anyone who had already legitimately received copies of the data under the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0 would still be able to retain that data and to re-use and redistribute it according to the terms of that license, in perpetuity. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 21:29 | comment | added | KalleMP - CoDidact fan | What I am trying to say is that delete the users data and have them republish under new licence. Change the field captions and variables if it will help but I don't think it is possible to CC a user name and as such I don't think CC can waive decency limits on the use of personal data that is displayed on a web form (laid out page) unless it is a published collection perhaps. Not a lawyer, just irritated by need for so much hoo haa. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 21:24 | comment | added | KalleMP - CoDidact fan | @sampablokuper All copyright licences provide protection for the specific embodiment of the idea. If you burn a painting and the artist paints a new one different in even the smallest detail he gets to pick the new licence type he wants to use for the new painting. The same will hold for member data. Adding some forced capitals or punctuation might be enough. Also copyrighting data is contentious enough and I think a users name cannot be directly equated with a posting (his bio might be) and as such should be afforded personal privacy measures unless user means otherwise and not CC BY-SA. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:53 | comment | added | user136089 | @KalleMP, "SO/SE can work around it if it becomes contested by turning off all personal data and asking users to republish it under more restrictive licence." This would not be a successful workaround. The act of legitimately licensing a work under a Creative Commons license cannot be revoked. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | KalleMP - CoDidact fan | ..... Perhaps this is the correct way to complete the goals as it would then let members select (private, CC BY-SA, CC BY-SA-NC) terms for each data field they care to re-publish. It could result in a lot of good data updates and a pretty good way to find out who uses the system by hiding user data (from members and scrapers) until it is republished. Make checking the boxes required before voting, posting and most active members will eventually get on the new program of having private data private. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 20:05 | comment | added | KalleMP - CoDidact fan | I offer +1 for "vicarious licensor remorse" It is a bit of a sad situation for people concerned. SO/SE can work around it if it becomes contested by turning off all personal data and asking users to republish it under more restrictive licence. ..... | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 6:38 | comment | added | Nemo | My other question is: what license will the dumps be under? Will the profiles be dumped at all? | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:36 | comment | added | user136089 | @Robotnik, here's your profile page, which contains information that you, as a user of the Stack Exchange service, have contributed. At the bottom of that page, you will find the text "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required". | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 17:22 | comment | added | Robotnik | @sampablokuper - Are you certain that user profile data & personal information is published under CC-BY-SA? | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 19:18 | comment | added | user136089 | @Jaydles, I'm not sure what CC-SA is, but I assume you mean CC BY-SA 3.0. The terms of CC BY-SA 3.0 are pretty clear about what licensees are allowed to do in relation to material they receive under that license. If you want to speculate on the licence's implications for "no photos" policies in libraries, then you're welcome to, but I'm also not going to participate in your reasoning by analogy, because the analogy is irrelevant. My "answer" isn't about libraries or "no photo" policies, it's about SE and the licenses and terms applicable therein. | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @sampablokuper, okay, let's stick with CC-SA then. Are you suggesting that if the library contains CC-SA materials, they couldn't enforce the rules above? | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 18:49 | comment | added | user136089 | @Jaydles, I don't think that's a valid analogy, primarily because the material under contention isn't public domain, it's under CC BY-SA 3.0, which has very different effects. See the CC BY-SA 3.0 human-readable summary: "You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." | |
| Apr 4, 2016 at 12:51 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @sampablokuper, you've misunderstood. The terms apply legal requirements to use of the site, not the content. Think of it like this: If a book is in the public domain, you can reasonably copy it, reproduce its words, take photos of every page in it and sell them as art, etc. And a library that has that book can't change the books license. But it can have a "no photographs" policy that visitors must agree to. And if you violate it by taking photos of public domain books, they can pretty surely stop you from profiting by selling those photos, charging others to see them etc. | |
| Apr 3, 2016 at 19:27 | history | edited | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
SE is of course a licensee not the licensor, so cannot directly express licensor remorse
|
| Apr 3, 2016 at 1:33 | comment | added | user136089 | @404, thanks for this. The new ToS should definitely be clearer about precisely which kinds of (new) contributions will be covered by the new provisions, so that SE users will be able to tell in advance which licensing terms any new content they license to SE will fall under. The new ToS should also be far clearer that published content pre-dating the new ToS remains under its existing license, regardless of whether it SE makes it available via the API or the websites or any other means. | |
| Apr 3, 2016 at 0:28 | history | edited | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Apr 2, 2016 at 17:02 | history | edited | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 143 characters in body
|
| Apr 2, 2016 at 16:53 | history | answered | user136089 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |