17 ms·

> many are happy to contribute without caring about the end use of the information Would we really call this "informed consent"? ... or it more likely that c

> many are happy to contribute without caring about the end use of the information Would we really call this "informed consent"? ... or it more likely that contributors either haven't read the licence agreement or have read it but haven't properly understand what it actually means? > This is sharing, under very open terms [..] Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take?

barbs 3y ago
> Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take? Yes. There are plenty of examples of people sharing knowledge on the internet without expecting anything in return. Wikipedia, StackOverflow, and most open-source projects come to mind.
- logifail 3y ago
  > people sharing knowledge on the internet without expecting anything in return Imagine: creative person shares their output with friendly-apparently-non-profit website X, then behind the scenes company Y scrapes and uses it, then sells a closed-source product based on it to Big Corps Z1 - Z100. Y and Z both get rich. The original creator? Gets nothing, and they may not even know what's happened. Maybe I'm getting too old for this, but "sharing knowledge on the internet" isn't what it used to be. Neither are licence agreements :/
  - dspillett 3y ago
    This is exactly what it used to be. Check the history of IMDB for the best known example. We are just more aware of the issue these days because of cases like that in the past. At least on this occasion the site is explicit about a licince it expects user submitted content to be covered by rather than the user just assuming (unless they've not bothered to check).
dspillett 3y ago
> Would we really call this "informed consent"? I would. It isn't at all hidden. It is presented front-and-center in the terms page, right after the introductory paragraphs. This isn't like IMDB when content which had been given over to public domain, hosted on shared/donated resources for the first half of the 90s, suddenly had IMDB Inc.'s copyright notices all over it. > contributors either haven't read the licence agreement or have read it but haven't properly understand what it actually means? That might be a valid arguement for complex clauses hidden deep within pages of legalise, especially in the past when we were all a lot more naive about IP issues, but to miss this (or just not bother checking) in today's world you need to be wilfully ignorant rather than just unaware. > Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take? Sharing with the public via CC0, with them as a middleman. They aren't claiming ownership of anything, they aren't restricting other distribution of what the user has submitted, they aren't hoovering up stuff published elsewhere to power/train a commercial AI. There are a few things I think might be valid to take issue with¹², the use of CC0 for provided content that you can just not provide if you disagree is not one of them IMO. -- [1] “We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time.” is rather far reaching, though pretty standard and can't affect the license of the user provided content. [2] “By accessing … the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms.” - just reading a page, or even just loading a page, should not be considered an act of consent in that manner IMO, and is likely not legally enforceable in most places.

barbs 3y ago

> Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take? Yes. There are plenty of examples of people sharing knowledge on the internet without expecting anything in return. Wikipedia, StackOverflow, and most open-source projects come to mind.

logifail 3y ago
> people sharing knowledge on the internet without expecting anything in return Imagine: creative person shares their output with friendly-apparently-non-profit website X, then behind the scenes company Y scrapes and uses it, then sells a closed-source product based on it to Big Corps Z1 - Z100. Y and Z both get rich. The original creator? Gets nothing, and they may not even know what's happened. Maybe I'm getting too old for this, but "sharing knowledge on the internet" isn't what it used to be. Neither are licence agreements :/
- dspillett 3y ago
  This is exactly what it used to be. Check the history of IMDB for the best known example. We are just more aware of the issue these days because of cases like that in the past. At least on this occasion the site is explicit about a licince it expects user submitted content to be covered by rather than the user just assuming (unless they've not bothered to check).

dspillett 3y ago

> Would we really call this "informed consent"? I would. It isn't at all hidden. It is presented front-and-center in the terms page, right after the introductory paragraphs. This isn't like IMDB when content which had been given over to public domain, hosted on shared/donated resources for the first half of the 90s, suddenly had IMDB Inc.'s copyright notices all over it. > contributors either haven't read the licence agreement or have read it but haven't properly understand what it actually means? That might be a valid arguement for complex clauses hidden deep within pages of legalise, especially in the past when we were all a lot more naive about IP issues, but to miss this (or just not bother checking) in today's world you need to be wilfully ignorant rather than just unaware. > Kind of like one way sharing? You give, they take? Sharing with the public via CC0, with them as a middleman. They aren't claiming ownership of anything, they aren't restricting other distribution of what the user has submitted, they aren't hoovering up stuff published elsewhere to power/train a commercial AI. There are a few things I think might be valid to take issue with¹², the use of CC0 for provided content that you can just not provide if you disagree is not one of them IMO. -- [1] “We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to modify or replace these Terms at any time.” is rather far reaching, though pretty standard and can't affect the license of the user provided content. [2] “By accessing … the Service you agree to be bound by these Terms.” - just reading a page, or even just loading a page, should not be considered an act of consent in that manner IMO, and is likely not legally enforceable in most places.