Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: William Alsup Strikes Again
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 01:00:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <v1mful$1lg4d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 03:00:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="35cd064a09c147145ba6425e37519214";
	logging-data="1753229"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NtuXCfPTfNDRj91kfxkwG"
User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/4vudmi0HwU7Y6aAjZDCVou5//c=
Bytes: 1864

Judge Alsup dismisses Xwitter’s lawsuit against a company scraping and
selling data off its service
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/elon-musks-x-tried-and-failed-to-make-its-own-copyright-system-judge-says/>.
Love this bit:

    The judge found that X Corp's argument exposed a tension between
    the platform's desire to control user data while also enjoying the
    safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
    which allows X to avoid liability for third-party content. If X
    owned the data, it could perhaps argue it has exclusive rights to
    control the data, but then it wouldn't have safe harbor.

If the judge’s name sounds familiar, he was the one who ruled that
software APIs were not copyrightable in the Oracle v Google case. Or
tried to: he was overruled by the notoriously IP-friendly CAFC appeals
court; but then on retrial he found Google’s use of those
“copyrighted” APIs was fair use anyway.