Take any media publicly uploaded by a major artist on X and repost it to YouTube unaltered. You should be able to defend any copyright strikes because of your "publicly available" argument, right?

Allowing public broadcast once doesn't void the rights of the creator to control when and where that content gets broadcast again.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Again, false equivalence, and I don't think you understood what @Crackhappy meant when they said it.

You are trying to equate the concept of whether you can do something with whether a civil lawsuit would rule that you are liable for damages for it.

Of course you can copy something someone uploaded to the internet. They made it publicly available, it's trivial to copy. Disney or so might take you to court for it, and here we get to the crux of the matter: Assuming you were to post all your posts here under an "all rights reserved" license and the instance you're doing that on confirm you in writing that they'll comply with orders for data in case you need it for a lawsuit, you'd absolutely be able to go after someone creating a bridge copying your data to Threads in a civil lawsuit.

Are you going to do that over any comment you post here? Probably not, plus, honestly, good luck showing that you have been materially damaged by the copy.

But again, false equivalence. You can trivially copy anything on the web. Whether you are liable for it is a wholly different thing nobody was talking about.