Comment on Reddit sues Anthropic, alleging its bots accessed Reddit more than 100,000 times since last July

Leet@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  yes to both regardless of this lawsuit

  The wiggle room for large businesses is that they remove content that violates local laws when notified of it

  source
• Almacca@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  The content’s theirs whether they win or not, isn’t it? It’s in the EULA when you sign up.

  source

  • JonsJava@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    non-exclusive

    That means we can license all our content to another company, and Reddit would be forced to allow them to fetch it, as we still own it, right?

    source

    • Almacca@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It certainly reads that way. Gonna start a Reddit User Collective?

      source

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        That would be legally possible, though, obviously, you would have to pay for your own servers.

        In practice, it wouldn’t be worth anyone’s time.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Non-exclusive just means you’re free to give a copy of your content to whoever you want. It doesn’t mean Reddit is obligated to distribute it for you.

      source
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      No. Just because you own a copyright, doesn’t mean that you are entitled to free network services. If you owned the copyright to a movie, would you expect free tickets for any cinema showing it?

      source
• General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  No. I am not aware of any law that makes you liable by holding or claiming the copyright to some content. EG you may have to pay damages for libel, but not because you have copyright to the libelous statement.

  source

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Doesn’t quite make sense.

    You’re telling me that someone can get popped for mistakenly visiting the dark side of the internet and having whatever-the-fuck horrible shit put on their machine, but owning the content and hosting it on your servers results in nothing?

    source

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Not quite.

      Generally, sites aren’t liable for user generated content as long as they follow some rules. They need to take down illegal content and provide some way of reporting such content. In the US, that’s the whole DMCA takedown thing. The whole content ID thing, that YouTube does, might not be strictly necessary, but it was rolled out in response to a high-stakes lawsuit. The EU is, as always, more strict in these matters.

      People are not punished for things beyond their control (but mind that a fine is not the same as damages). If you are sent illegal content, that you have not requested, you shouldn’t expect formal punishment, though the investigation may be punishing in itself. If you simply don’t know how caching works, you’re probably in trouble.

      But this was about copyright. I don’t think you get punished anywhere for holding some copyright. Say some Japanese Manga artist travels to some European state where some of their works are illegal. They’re not going to get arrested for that. Anyone who brings such illegal works into the country will not be so lucky, regardless of copyright.

      source

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Copyright law is messy. Thank you for the elaboration.

        source