Comment on To buy no longer means anything :(

• rutellthesinful@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  in this case, microsoft just decided that they didn't have to bother supporting legacy accounts because they didn't feel like it, so they pulled them without consent or compensation

  in the case of ai generated media, companies just decided that they just had the rights to use existing published media, so they harvested it without consent or compensation

  both complaints are the same complaints: that businesses are just deciding on contracts unilaterally and then imposing them on people without the need for consent

  source

  • aev@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Microsoft has a history of doing so, both with Minecraft customers and others. They just don’t care.

    source
  • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    in the case of ai generated media, companies just decided that they just had the rights to use existing published media, so they harvested it without consent or compensation

    Have you read the ToS of your favourite social media site lately?

    In any event, it might well be that companies (and you yourself) have the rights to use existing published media to train AIs. Copyright doesn't cover the analysis of public data. I suspect that people wouldn't like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

    source

    • rutellthesinful@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren't before?

      And in either case, you're missing the key point, which is that legality doesn't matter in either case. You can't fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don't.

      I suspect that people wouldn't like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

      Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

      Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.

      source

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies?

        The ToSes would generally have a blanket permission in them to license the data to third-party companies and whatnot. I went back through historical Reddit ToS versions a little while back and that was in there from the start.

        Also in there was a clause allowing them to update their ToS, so even if the blanket permission wasn't there then it is now and you agreed to that too.

        Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

        It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it's still being argued. There are some legal cases before the courts that will clarify this in various jurisdictions but I'm not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before?

        Being more specific is not the same as changing something from illegal to legal.

        source

        • -> View More Comments