4 ms·

If you put it out in the open – someone might read it. If they read it – they may remember it and retell it later or use it in their works. That someone may or

If you put it out in the open – someone might read it. If they read it – they may remember it and retell it later or use it in their works. That someone may or may not be a human person. If you want to get paid for the work – don't put it out in the open.

gumballindie 4y ago
Yes, and that's by mutual agreement. I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. That doesn't mean open ai, a company building a product, has the right to use my work word by word to train their model without my constent and then monetise it - that's theft. Where's the option to remove my content or to stop open ai from using it?
- drstewart 4y ago
  > I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. Hold on, when did I consent to you monetizing my traffic? I just want to read your content. Pay me a share of the money and then we'll see if I want to allow you to use my traffic to make money.
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    An excellent point. That's why we have GDPR in europe to prevent me from using you as a source of income without your consent.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Or, knowingly/unknowingly allowing someone else to. Really GDPR is the implementation of an actual legal requirement around the old concept of professional discretion. I.e. my business records with a European Citizen are not valid targets of subsequent unrelated transactions without consent; something which is importantly defined as not being granted by default, or invalidated when obtained through deceptive means. That the rest of the tech world was so enraptured by the fact that suddenly, handing off people's business records to somebody else no longer involved literally moving boxes of paper, and threw professional discretion to the winds is more an indictment of the state of mind and sense of entitlement of the typical tech-enabled business class as a whole than a condemnation of the allegedly "backward" European Union. t. American Technologist actually proud of the EU for standing up for common decency, and recognizing exploitive behavior when they see it.
jfk13 4y ago
> If they read it – they may remember it and retell it later or use it in their works And if their remembering-and-retelling constitutes a "derivative work" (or, perhaps, a "public performance"), they may be in trouble, despite the original work being openly published.
lm28469 4y ago
So I can copy any patented machine as long as it's been commercialized right ? Same for medicine, open source software can be pillaged without regard to licenses I assume, since they're available on the open
xdennis 4y ago
Your argument applies just as well to copying any book and selling it. But that's considered piracy and illegal. But when American tech giants copy it's legal. It should be the same for everyone.

gumballindie 4y ago

Yes, and that's by mutual agreement. I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. That doesn't mean open ai, a company building a product, has the right to use my work word by word to train their model without my constent and then monetise it - that's theft. Where's the option to remove my content or to stop open ai from using it?

drstewart 4y ago
> I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. Hold on, when did I consent to you monetizing my traffic? I just want to read your content. Pay me a share of the money and then we'll see if I want to allow you to use my traffic to make money.
- gumballindie 4y ago
  An excellent point. That's why we have GDPR in europe to prevent me from using you as a source of income without your consent.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Or, knowingly/unknowingly allowing someone else to. Really GDPR is the implementation of an actual legal requirement around the old concept of professional discretion. I.e. my business records with a European Citizen are not valid targets of subsequent unrelated transactions without consent; something which is importantly defined as not being granted by default, or invalidated when obtained through deceptive means. That the rest of the tech world was so enraptured by the fact that suddenly, handing off people's business records to somebody else no longer involved literally moving boxes of paper, and threw professional discretion to the winds is more an indictment of the state of mind and sense of entitlement of the typical tech-enabled business class as a whole than a condemnation of the allegedly "backward" European Union. t. American Technologist actually proud of the EU for standing up for common decency, and recognizing exploitive behavior when they see it.

jfk13 4y ago

> If they read it – they may remember it and retell it later or use it in their works And if their remembering-and-retelling constitutes a "derivative work" (or, perhaps, a "public performance"), they may be in trouble, despite the original work being openly published.

lm28469 4y ago

So I can copy any patented machine as long as it's been commercialized right ? Same for medicine, open source software can be pillaged without regard to licenses I assume, since they're available on the open

xdennis 4y ago

Your argument applies just as well to copying any book and selling it. But that's considered piracy and illegal. But when American tech giants copy it's legal. It should be the same for everyone.