3 ms·

This is not a problem. They will just buy the data in bulk from some third party, what would do scraping for them. I heard many instances of such things.

by galkk 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago
Yes, this (and that I don't trust the bots) is why I've removed my websites from being publicly accessible. It's the only way I can think of to be sure I'm not contributing to these models in any meaningful way.
red_trumpet 3y ago
Regardless of where you stand on the LLM vs Copyright debate, that 3rd party would clearly be violating copyright by selling unlicensed content, though?
- amelius 3y ago
  How clear is it who owns the copyright?
  - johneth 3y ago
    The creator owns the copyright.
    - amelius 3y ago
      Yes but if two websites show the same content, how do you prove you're the creator?
      - lokar 3y ago
        The legal system has this figured out
        amelius 3y ago
        The legal system also figured out that if person A invents X, then person B cannot possibly independently have figured out X, see the patent system.
- drdaeman 3y ago
  If a third party poses themselves as a network operator (basically, acts as a proxy/dumb pipe) or a library (if they have a cache) they aren't liable, are they? I think they aren't because proxy and VPN providers, or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, or The Internet Archive are AFAIK not generally considered liable in any sort of infringement.
  - rascul 3y ago
    > The Internet Archive are AFAIK not generally considered liable in any sort of infringement. Wasn't there a case earlier this year that found the Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement?
    - drdaeman 3y ago
      Oh, I wasn't aware. Thank you for pointing out. From what I've read, even though there's an injunction, IA was going to appeal, so I hope this isn't exactly over yet?
aeurielesn 3y ago
This. I think it's wildly overlooked by people. Isn't this how even government agencies do it?
d3w4s9 3y ago
Even without all those, suppose Washington Post publishes a big exclusive story, there are going to be many websites that paraphrase the article and likely link to it, many of which don't block GPT bot. Even without the exact words, with multiple sources GPT should be able to easily figure out the original story. I don't see blocking helpful in such cases.
barryrandall 3y ago
Most new content is scraped and reposted on dozens of copycat sites within minutes of being posted. Pinterest.com may have blocked gptbot, but MySketchyPinterestClone.net hasn't, and has all the same content.

This is not a problem. They will just buy the data in bulk from some third party, what would do scraping for them. I heard many instances of such things.

by galkk 3y ago

This is not a problem. They will just buy the data in bulk from some third party, what would do scraping for them. I heard many instances of such things.

JohnFen 3y ago

Yes, this (and that I don't trust the bots) is why I've removed my websites from being publicly accessible. It's the only way I can think of to be sure I'm not contributing to these models in any meaningful way.

red_trumpet 3y ago

Regardless of where you stand on the LLM vs Copyright debate, that 3rd party would clearly be violating copyright by selling unlicensed content, though?

amelius 3y ago
How clear is it who owns the copyright?
- johneth 3y ago
  The creator owns the copyright.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Yes but if two websites show the same content, how do you prove you're the creator?
    - lokar 3y ago
      The legal system has this figured out
      - amelius 3y ago
        The legal system also figured out that if person A invents X, then person B cannot possibly independently have figured out X, see the patent system.
drdaeman 3y ago
If a third party poses themselves as a network operator (basically, acts as a proxy/dumb pipe) or a library (if they have a cache) they aren't liable, are they? I think they aren't because proxy and VPN providers, or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, or The Internet Archive are AFAIK not generally considered liable in any sort of infringement.
- rascul 3y ago
  > The Internet Archive are AFAIK not generally considered liable in any sort of infringement. Wasn't there a case earlier this year that found the Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement?
  - drdaeman 3y ago
    Oh, I wasn't aware. Thank you for pointing out. From what I've read, even though there's an injunction, IA was going to appeal, so I hope this isn't exactly over yet?

aeurielesn 3y ago

This. I think it's wildly overlooked by people. Isn't this how even government agencies do it?

d3w4s9 3y ago

Even without all those, suppose Washington Post publishes a big exclusive story, there are going to be many websites that paraphrase the article and likely link to it, many of which don't block GPT bot. Even without the exact words, with multiple sources GPT should be able to easily figure out the original story. I don't see blocking helpful in such cases.

barryrandall 3y ago

Most new content is scraped and reposted on dozens of copycat sites within minutes of being posted. Pinterest.com may have blocked gptbot, but MySketchyPinterestClone.net hasn't, and has all the same content.