Comment on Asking ChatGPT to Repeat Words ‘Forever’ Is Now a Terms of Service Violation
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 11 months agoIn reality, what you’re saying makes no sense.
Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it. Exceptions may be if it happens accidentally or if the uploader does not have the necessary permissions. If users had to make sure that everything was correct, they’d basically have to get a written permission via the post before visiting any page.
Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement under US law. Using the web is rarely fair use because there is no copyright infringement. When training data is regurgitated, that is mostly fair use. If the data is public domain/out of copyright, then it is not.
In reality, what you’re saying makes no sense.
Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it. Exceptions may be if it happens accidentally or if the uploader does not have the necessary permissions.
In reality the exceptions are way more widespread than you believe.
Oh. I see. The attempts to extract training data from ChatGPT may be criminal under the CFAA. Not a happy thought.
I did say “making available” to exclude “hacking”.
The point I’m illustrating is that plenty of things reasonable people would assume are fine the law can call hacking.
Making something available on the internet means giving permission to download it.
No permission is given to download it. In particular, no permission is given to copy it.
Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement under US law
Yes, but it’s often unclear what constitutes fair use.
Using the web is rarely fair use because there is no copyright infringement
What are you even talking about.
When training data is regurgitated, that is mostly fair use
You have no idea what fair use is, just admit it.
PugJesus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Literally and explicitly untrue.
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 11 months ago
Sure, you can put something up and explicitly deny permission to visit the link. But courts rarely back up that kind of silliness.