3 ms·

My "position" is the law, whether you like it or not. Clickwrap agreements are enforceable, and legally enforceable agreements can place more restrictions on t

My "position" is the law, whether you like it or not. Clickwrap agreements are enforceable, and legally enforceable agreements can place more restrictions on the use of a piece of software than copyright law alone can. As a result, software that, for ideological reasons, does not restrict use will always have fewer protections than software with more restrictive terms. Your off-topic rant about Shakespeare is irrelevant.

danShumway 3y ago
> My "position" is the law, whether you like it or not. > Clickwrap agreements are enforceable, and legally enforceable agreements can place more restrictions on the use of a piece of software than copyright law alone can. To take a page from your earlier comment, literally no one here is denying the existence of clickwrap agreements. Clickwrap agreements are completely irrelevant to the current conversation. > Your off-topic rant about Shakespeare is irrelevant. You can not enforce a EULA on someone interacting with a piece of work you do not own IP rights to if they did not agree to that EULA in some way. I'm sorry, but agreement is part of contract law. If you think you can force a EULA on a piece of content you don't own that will bind people who got the content from a 3rd-party and who never agreed to your EULA under any legal definition of agreement, then by all means, slap a EULA on Shakespeare. It makes just as much sense as what you're suggesting.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  >> If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. > literally no one here is denying the existence of clickwrap agreements. You denied the enforceability of clickwrap agreements. You were wrong. LLaMA uses a clickwrap agreement. "By clicking 'I Accept' below or by using or distributing any portion or element of the Llama Materials, you agree to be bound by this Agreement." That agreement covers its output: "You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof)." Your hypotheticals about third parties are off-topic and have zero bearing on this conversation. The topic under discussion is whether it is logically "inconsistent" for Meta to claim its output is protected while other content is not. Those two positions are perfectly consistent in light of the fact that LLaMA output is protected by the terms of a clickwrap agreement.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    Facebook absolutely factually does not have a clickwrap agreement over 3rd-party content generated with LLaMA; restrictions of users do not magically mean that output has its own universally enforceable EULA applied to everyone else. There is no interpretation of US contract law that says that 3rd-party data generated with LLaMA would be subject to LLaMA's license. There is no clickwrap agreement over LLaMA's output, and no legal precedent that argues that any restriction of LLaMA's usage would apply to 3rd-parties accessing that output. The output is not protected in the way you claim, and I fully stand by the fact that a clickwrap agreement over downloading LLaMA from Facebook would not be enforceable over people who did not download LLaMA and are merely using 3rd-party LLaMA output.

danShumway 3y ago

> My "position" is the law, whether you like it or not. > Clickwrap agreements are enforceable, and legally enforceable agreements can place more restrictions on the use of a piece of software than copyright law alone can. To take a page from your earlier comment, literally no one here is denying the existence of clickwrap agreements. Clickwrap agreements are completely irrelevant to the current conversation. > Your off-topic rant about Shakespeare is irrelevant. You can not enforce a EULA on someone interacting with a piece of work you do not own IP rights to if they did not agree to that EULA in some way. I'm sorry, but agreement is part of contract law. If you think you can force a EULA on a piece of content you don't own that will bind people who got the content from a 3rd-party and who never agreed to your EULA under any legal definition of agreement, then by all means, slap a EULA on Shakespeare. It makes just as much sense as what you're suggesting.

torstenvl 3y ago
>> If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. > literally no one here is denying the existence of clickwrap agreements. You denied the enforceability of clickwrap agreements. You were wrong. LLaMA uses a clickwrap agreement. "By clicking 'I Accept' below or by using or distributing any portion or element of the Llama Materials, you agree to be bound by this Agreement." That agreement covers its output: "You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof)." Your hypotheticals about third parties are off-topic and have zero bearing on this conversation. The topic under discussion is whether it is logically "inconsistent" for Meta to claim its output is protected while other content is not. Those two positions are perfectly consistent in light of the fact that LLaMA output is protected by the terms of a clickwrap agreement.
- danShumway 3y ago
  Facebook absolutely factually does not have a clickwrap agreement over 3rd-party content generated with LLaMA; restrictions of users do not magically mean that output has its own universally enforceable EULA applied to everyone else. There is no interpretation of US contract law that says that 3rd-party data generated with LLaMA would be subject to LLaMA's license. There is no clickwrap agreement over LLaMA's output, and no legal precedent that argues that any restriction of LLaMA's usage would apply to 3rd-parties accessing that output. The output is not protected in the way you claim, and I fully stand by the fact that a clickwrap agreement over downloading LLaMA from Facebook would not be enforceable over people who did not download LLaMA and are merely using 3rd-party LLaMA output.