3 ms·

It is like adding a clause in the license that you are not allowed to read the license. The moment you share your creation/work to someone/the world, you are t

It is like adding a clause in the license that you are not allowed to read the license. The moment you share your creation/work to someone/the world, you are training their nn. You can not share something publicly and then demand "xyz" can not view it. Viewing is training. You are free to keep your creation under lock & key and only share with nn (of people and/or AI) of your choice.

lelanthran 4y ago
> You can not share something publicly and then demand "xyz" can not view it. That's nonsense. Licenses have clauses on how the content may be used. Clauses along the lines of "The content may not be used for ..." are common. I dunno where you heard that once you release something the license clauses no longer apply, but it's wrong.
- kragen 4y ago
  many of these clauses are legally unenforceable because you can violate them without infringing on any of the rights that copyright law grants exclusively to the copyright holder (who can license them)
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > many of these clauses are legally unenforceable because you can violate them without infringing on any of the rights that copyright law grants exclusively to the copyright holder (who can license them) That's news to Microsoft[1], who's shared source and various NDA licenses for the source code already has clauses restricting what you can do with it. [1] I think the problem is that the pro-AI arguments are coming from people who are not aware that clauses in licenses restricting how the content is used is quite common. For example, you were obviously not aware that they were so common that almost every big tech and/or software company of the past and the present already have those clauses in, and those clauses have already been found to be enforceable!
    - kragen 4y ago
      of course people who agree to a contract are bound by its terms under common law; the question in the original article is what copyright law does or doesn't allow people to do without any sort of contract unfortunately you have descended from simply making vaguely ignorant comments to attacking me, which indicates that further engagement with you is unlikely to be useful to anyone
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        The license is the contract. Literally. And every nonFLOSS license and I've seen has restrictions on what the licensee can do with the material. Can you find one nonFLOSS license that doesn't have restrictions or limitations? I mean, you lead with obnoxious, then descended into condenscension, all while not realising that the whole point of the license is to restrict the licensee.
        throwaway675309 4y ago
        Until such a time as a license containing a clause about not being used for "training purposes", whatever the hell that means, actually shows up in court, then adding this to your license has all the legal teeth of saying that you must sacrifice your first born.

lelanthran 4y ago

> You can not share something publicly and then demand "xyz" can not view it. That's nonsense. Licenses have clauses on how the content may be used. Clauses along the lines of "The content may not be used for ..." are common. I dunno where you heard that once you release something the license clauses no longer apply, but it's wrong.

kragen 4y ago
many of these clauses are legally unenforceable because you can violate them without infringing on any of the rights that copyright law grants exclusively to the copyright holder (who can license them)
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > many of these clauses are legally unenforceable because you can violate them without infringing on any of the rights that copyright law grants exclusively to the copyright holder (who can license them) That's news to Microsoft[1], who's shared source and various NDA licenses for the source code already has clauses restricting what you can do with it. [1] I think the problem is that the pro-AI arguments are coming from people who are not aware that clauses in licenses restricting how the content is used is quite common. For example, you were obviously not aware that they were so common that almost every big tech and/or software company of the past and the present already have those clauses in, and those clauses have already been found to be enforceable!
  - kragen 4y ago
    of course people who agree to a contract are bound by its terms under common law; the question in the original article is what copyright law does or doesn't allow people to do without any sort of contract unfortunately you have descended from simply making vaguely ignorant comments to attacking me, which indicates that further engagement with you is unlikely to be useful to anyone
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      The license is the contract. Literally. And every nonFLOSS license and I've seen has restrictions on what the licensee can do with the material. Can you find one nonFLOSS license that doesn't have restrictions or limitations? I mean, you lead with obnoxious, then descended into condenscension, all while not realising that the whole point of the license is to restrict the licensee.
      - throwaway675309 4y ago
        Until such a time as a license containing a clause about not being used for "training purposes", whatever the hell that means, actually shows up in court, then adding this to your license has all the legal teeth of saying that you must sacrifice your first born.