dumb question... I run a free relay, I accept your rebroadcasted note from a client you never used and you also haven't published to my relay directly (implied agreeing to some tos). Is this a copyright violation? Where in the protocol is this permission to host your content implied? I get this is how this all works, but shouldn't rebroadcast be mentioned somewhere at the protocol level so that's implied by the signature?
Discussion
I agree. Also have discussed not wanting any broadcasts to a relay. Like the ability to allow/block some from broadcasting to it. Or not wanting to be listed on sites that are relay directories without need to block by IPs.
Although that functionality might be cool or useful, I think we do need it, lots of smart people who would be happy to come here from substack if we offered them a paywall and self hosted ownership for some of their content...
I'm mostly just curious about the legal argument that the signature of a document implies the right to reproduction in public. The signature verification seems key and what I was missing, is what gives confidence to a new unorginal recipient.
It's very easy to copy the contents of paid substack articles and publish them elsewhere.
Ease aside. I think civil disobedience to promote open access should be scaled based on the urgency of information. Not everything on substack has societal benefit, some is fictional entertainment or simply of personal expression. To me to distribute personal expression intended for a specific audience, else where, devalues the message of the urgency to information when those who do choose civil disobedience to distribute scientific or journalistic publications illegally, and suggests the belief that personal expression doesn’t hold value be it paywalled or in the form of a zap in an open distribution model.
There are SO many aspects to Nostr where a lawyer’s input would be interesting. That’s just one of them…
I think the signed letter, special intended original for public consumption, works. I do find the fact that neither the description or any nip uses the term “rebroadcast” at all of note, not in a must or should but may sense, might be prudent due notice, but hard to come up with a counter argument.