Yeah this will do absolutely nothing.
-
No that's not how copyright works. Copyright prohibits distribution not copying.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I don't think this is true. While copying might fall under fair use if used for some purpose, you definitely can get in trouble for copying even without distributing those copies.
For example, you can't rent a library book and then photocopy the whole thing for yourself
-
I don't think this is true. While copying might fall under fair use if used for some purpose, you definitely can get in trouble for copying even without distributing those copies.
For example, you can't rent a library book and then photocopy the whole thing for yourself
wrote last edited by [email protected]Those are entirely different laws you're thinking about like DMCA, EUCA, database protection laws (yeah lol it's a real thing) etc. Copyright on its own is about distribution.
That being said data law is really complex and more often than not turns to damage proof rather than explicit protections. Basically its all lawyer speak rather than an actual idealistic framework that aims to protect someone. This is primary argument why copyright is a failed framework because it's always just a battle of lawyers and damages.
-
Those are entirely different laws you're thinking about like DMCA, EUCA, database protection laws (yeah lol it's a real thing) etc. Copyright on its own is about distribution.
That being said data law is really complex and more often than not turns to damage proof rather than explicit protections. Basically its all lawyer speak rather than an actual idealistic framework that aims to protect someone. This is primary argument why copyright is a failed framework because it's always just a battle of lawyers and damages.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I still don't think this is correct for two reasons. 1: I believe the DMCA and friends count as copyright law. 2: just reading the text of the law (#17 U.S. Code § 106):
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
It seems pretty clear that only the copyright owner has the rights to make copies, subject to a number of exemption.
Now IANAL so I could be missing something pretty huge, but my understanding was that this right to make copies (especially physical ones for physical media) is at the core of copyright law. Not just the distribution of those copies (which is captured by right 3)
-
No that's not how copyright works. Copyright prohibits distribution not copying.
Er, yes, my point was copyright very much concerns what you're allowed to do with data. But that goes beyond distribution. Derivative works are a complicated topic.
My point stands, whether you technically can copy stuff has no bearing on whether you're allowed to use it and for what purpose.
-
Er, yes, my point was copyright very much concerns what you're allowed to do with data. But that goes beyond distribution. Derivative works are a complicated topic.
My point stands, whether you technically can copy stuff has no bearing on whether you're allowed to use it and for what purpose.
Well it depends on the use. If its a movie that I copied then I can watch it, if it's a picture I can print it and put it on a wall at my home. Even AI training currently its considered to be entirely legal to train on copyrighted data. You can even parse copyrighted data for analytics which is entirely legal as well.
So you can do a lot with copyrighted data without breaching the copyright, including AI training as it's the article topic.
-
Well it depends on the use. If its a movie that I copied then I can watch it, if it's a picture I can print it and put it on a wall at my home. Even AI training currently its considered to be entirely legal to train on copyrighted data. You can even parse copyrighted data for analytics which is entirely legal as well.
So you can do a lot with copyrighted data without breaching the copyright, including AI training as it's the article topic.
Private use of the copyrighted works is pretty much a separate topic entirely.
And while the law isn't settled on the topic, it's wrong to argue AI training is something that happens entirely in a private setting, especially when that work is made available publicly in some form or another.
Sure, there's a problem with the current copyright laws that has to be addressed. It's quite similar to the "TiVo loophole" in OSS licenses. It was addressed, and certainly not in favour of the loophole exploiters. That one could be fixed on licence level because it was ultimately a licence question, but the AI training question, however, needs to be taken to the legislation level. Internationally, too.
-
No it doesn't because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.
Mastodon could only argue damages but that would be impossible to litigate in any extent due to decentralized and free nature of Mastodon and Fediverse. Except for some backward countries like China or Japan where there's no information freedom protections and any corporation can sue you for damages for any information infringement (even if it's not yours).
This is a good thing. Mastodon shouldn't control anything related to the legality of data flowing in the fediverse - that's the entire point.
No it doesn't because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.
ToS are legalese bullshit. They mean next to nothing since most stuff if it comes to court, gets annuled.
ToS kind of does protect you, but holding tge service hostage or not (as in you can't watch one little youtube video without selling your soul to Google) doesn't make a big difference - rrasonable expectations are that users own their content (as is the case in youtube's case - youtube doesn't ponce on your videos afaik), although they do own rights to distributing it (obviously), and using sane technological measures to prevent what they don't want. In youtube's case that's watching e.g. privated videos, and in another case it can be AI scrapers.
Robots.txt is, just like a ToS, a contract. It just isn't legalese as it isn't meant to scare people, but be useful to programmers making the site and those using the scraper. They're programmers, not marketers or lawyers, of course they won't deal with legalese if they csn avoid it.
Again, law is not leagese.
A robots.txt file is a contract by use,like when you park in a charge zone - entering the zone, you accept the obigation to pay.
When you scrape a site you first check for robots.txt in all the reasonable places it should be, look for its terms, and follow them... If you don't want to riskgetting sued.
Similarily, entering a store, you are expected to pay for what you take. There is no entry machine like on a metro where you, instead if swiping a card, read the store's T&C's, but know that it's common sense security will come after you, if not the police. Yet you clicked no "I agree"? How come you don't just take what you want?
And robots.txt is a mature technology and easily a "standard". Any competent lawyer will point that out to the jury and judge, who will most likely rule appropristely. The Internet is not the Wild West anymore.
-
Yeah this will do absolutely nothing.
Gives them legal standing against scraping for if it is needed in the future.
-
No it doesn't because all mastodon data is public and does not require ToS agreement to be collected.
ToS are legalese bullshit. They mean next to nothing since most stuff if it comes to court, gets annuled.
ToS kind of does protect you, but holding tge service hostage or not (as in you can't watch one little youtube video without selling your soul to Google) doesn't make a big difference - rrasonable expectations are that users own their content (as is the case in youtube's case - youtube doesn't ponce on your videos afaik), although they do own rights to distributing it (obviously), and using sane technological measures to prevent what they don't want. In youtube's case that's watching e.g. privated videos, and in another case it can be AI scrapers.
Robots.txt is, just like a ToS, a contract. It just isn't legalese as it isn't meant to scare people, but be useful to programmers making the site and those using the scraper. They're programmers, not marketers or lawyers, of course they won't deal with legalese if they csn avoid it.
Again, law is not leagese.
A robots.txt file is a contract by use,like when you park in a charge zone - entering the zone, you accept the obigation to pay.
When you scrape a site you first check for robots.txt in all the reasonable places it should be, look for its terms, and follow them... If you don't want to riskgetting sued.
Similarily, entering a store, you are expected to pay for what you take. There is no entry machine like on a metro where you, instead if swiping a card, read the store's T&C's, but know that it's common sense security will come after you, if not the police. Yet you clicked no "I agree"? How come you don't just take what you want?
And robots.txt is a mature technology and easily a "standard". Any competent lawyer will point that out to the jury and judge, who will most likely rule appropristely. The Internet is not the Wild West anymore.
Listen man I've been working with web scraping for years though now I do the exact opposite (anti bot tech) and robots.txt is absolutely meaningless and there's zero precedent in the US or elsewhere of it doing anything but providing web crawlers a map of your web site.
I can tell you the thing we tell to all of our clients - the only way to sue bots is to sue for direct damages not for automation. This has always been true and will continue to be true for foreseeable future in the US because you its impossible to set a precedent here as there are just too many players involved that benefit from web automation.
You can actually check out:
- Meta v. Bright Data
- hiq labs v. inkedIn
These cases are very recent and huge in web automation community and went all the way to the Ninth Circuit and settled at Supreme Court in favor of bots.
I'm telling you man copyright is so ruined that it's really just a machine for feeding middle managers and lawyers. But hey it gives me a great job security and I can afford to work on actual free software which as you might know is invredibly hard to fund otherwise!
-
Private use of the copyrighted works is pretty much a separate topic entirely.
And while the law isn't settled on the topic, it's wrong to argue AI training is something that happens entirely in a private setting, especially when that work is made available publicly in some form or another.
Sure, there's a problem with the current copyright laws that has to be addressed. It's quite similar to the "TiVo loophole" in OSS licenses. It was addressed, and certainly not in favour of the loophole exploiters. That one could be fixed on licence level because it was ultimately a licence question, but the AI training question, however, needs to be taken to the legislation level. Internationally, too.
I don't think this precedence will ever get set because we don't have universal global IP protections. The west will never set it due to fear of China winning the AI race.
In their opinion (which I agree with) this is the greater good and someone's mastodon posts or similar being fed to AI training machine is a lesser evil compared to losing technological advantage to the biggest authoritarian state in the world.
