Comment on Stack Overflow bans users en masse for rebelling against OpenAI partnership — users banned for deleting answers to prevent them being used to train ChatGPT

stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Everything you submit to StackOverflow is licensed under either MIT or CC depending on when you submitted it.

  source

  • lauha@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Regardless of the license (apart perhaps from public domain) it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.

    source

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      But those two licenses give everyone an irrevocable right to do certain things with your content forever and displaying it on a website is one of those things (assuming they follow the other requirements of the license).

      source

      • pseudo@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        If StackOverflow teach me something, that is that legal jargon about copyright isn’t very efficient again ctrl+C/ctrl+V

        source
    • FJW@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.

      They absolutely can, you gave them an explicit (under most circumstances irrevocable) permission to do so. That’s how contracts work.

      source

      • lauha@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Unlike in US, and I cannot speak for all of EU, but at least in Finland a contract cannot take away your legal rights.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    So does that mean anyone is allowed to use said content for whatever purposes they’d like? That’d include AI stuff too I think? Interesting twist there, hadn’t thought about it like this yet. Essentially posters would be agreeing to share that data/info publically. No different than someone learning how to code from looking at examples made by their professors or someone else doing the teaching/talking I suppose. Hmm.

    source

    • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      CC (not sure about MIT) virtually always requires attribution, but as GitHub Copilot showed right now open-“media” authors have basically no way of enforcing their rights.

      source

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Probably cuz they gave them away when they open licensed…you know…how it’s supposed to work

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      For super permissible licenses like MIT then it’s probably fine. Maybe folks would need to list the training data and all the licenses (since a common requirement of many of even the most permissible licenses is to include a copy of the license).

      As far as I know, a court hasn’t ruled on whether clauses like “share alike” or “copy left” (think CC BY-SA or GPL) would require anything special or not allow models. Anyone saying otherwise is just making a best guess. My best guess is (pessimistically) that it won’t do any good because things produced by a machine cannot be copyrighted. But I haven’t done much of a deep dive. I got really interested in the differences between many software licenses a few years back and did some reading but I’m far from an expert.

      source
  • bitwolf@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    So they have to carefully only source the MIT data?

    source

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It hasn’t been tested in court so any answer anyone gives is only a best guess.

      source
• matjoeman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  They can. It’s in the TOS when you make your account. They own everything you post to the site.

  source

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Well I suppose in that case, protesting via removal is fine IMO. I think the constructive, next-step would be to create a site where you, the user, own what you post. Does Reddit claim ownership over posts? I wonder what lemmy’s “policies” are and if this would be a good grounds (here) to start building something better than what SO was doing.

    source

    • Aux@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

      source

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        question

        Couldn’t these owners dictate how their creations are used? If you don’t own it, you don’t even get a say.

        source

        • -> View More Comments