Comment on To buy no longer means anything :(

• 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

      • rutellthesinful@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        you agreed to that too

        you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn't make it legally binding, right?

        hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

        It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it's still being argued

        people continuing to use a bad argument doesn't make it a good one

        I'm not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data

        tell me you haven't followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven't followed anything about this conversation

        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

      • rutellthesinful@kbin.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?

        yes i'm sure they decided to be more specific for no reason other than for the good of their userbase

        source

        • -> View More Comments