3 ms·

So? You can't sign a contract to sell your liver either. A broad license like that should not be obtainable by merely having the user click a checkbox.

by quonn 2y ago

quectophoton 2y ago
Repeating myself, that's the status quo. Companies already are doing what they say they are doing, even if it's unenforceable. The profit from doing so is more than the liabilities from any lawsuit might be receiving. History shows that creating more legalese text won't add any more teeth. A specific example is how 90% of websites[1] are in violation[2] of the GDPR already. The manifesto raises a good point about data not protected by copyright; but one can argue that models created from copyrighted content, what most artists I see are complaining about, are already in violation of copyright due to being derivative works (IANAL), yet already-existing copyright laws aren't helping[3]. So they way I understand this manifesto is, they are not adding anything new for copyrighted works (AFAIK, IANAL), but they are taking away rights from public domain works (let's see how that plays out with Disney, for example). Hopefully this additional context clarifies where I'm coming from. [1]: I'm making up that number but I'm probably lowballing it anyway. [2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev https://pkg.go.dev [3]: But I bet if someone made a model from TV shows, now suddenly the already-existing copyright law would magically work for those specific cases. So basically, these randos without power are making a law that will only be enforced by those with power.
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago
  > [1]: I'm making up that number but I'm probably lowballing it anyway. uhhh, the popular "I don't know what I'm saying, but I'm sure I'm right, because it's me saying it" But even if it was true, most of the violations of traffic laws go unpunished, for obvious reasons, does it mean traffic laws are useless? > [2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev https://pkg.go.dev did you report it?
  - quectophoton 2y ago
    Oof my bad. I should have added "websites I visit", or "website I've seen". I don't keep track of them, but if I try to think of any websites that I've visited e.g. since last month that are not in violation, only ~4 come to mind. And since I don't have any exact numbers, I have no choice but to give a conservative estimate. I'm usually careful with wording since not everyone tries to read in good faith, but I was probably too tired at the time to notice. I apologize for any offense that my comment might have caused.
    - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
      No offense, I simply wanted to show that, even if what you say it's true, there is no "police state" trying to monitor and eventually shut down the Internet, like many are suggesting here and that there is a lot of leeway for the smaller actors. Nobody is really worried if the website for Go packages doesn't fully respect GDPR, except maybe Go it's a Google product, but the best they can infer it's the demographics of Go developers, which they probably already know. What is important is that the data collectors can be held responsible for the infringements. Same objective I imagine for EIGAR (I know some of the founders), it is not to stop generative art using AI, but to stop pretending that massive data scraping of copyrighted material is fair use when Disney or Amazon or Netflix or any other tech mogul profits from them. Hollywood writers and the actors' guild have already gone on strike over this, this is nothing new or unexpected, it was simply waiting to happen, it's Newton's third law of motion applied to humans.

So? You can't sign a contract to sell your liver either. A broad license like that should not be obtainable by merely having the user click a checkbox.

by quonn 2y ago

So? You can't sign a contract to sell your liver either. A broad license like that should not be obtainable by merely having the user click a checkbox.

quectophoton 2y ago

Repeating myself, that's the status quo. Companies already are doing what they say they are doing, even if it's unenforceable. The profit from doing so is more than the liabilities from any lawsuit might be receiving. History shows that creating more legalese text won't add any more teeth. A specific example is how 90% of websites[1] are in violation[2] of the GDPR already. The manifesto raises a good point about data not protected by copyright; but one can argue that models created from copyrighted content, what most artists I see are complaining about, are already in violation of copyright due to being derivative works (IANAL), yet already-existing copyright laws aren't helping[3]. So they way I understand this manifesto is, they are not adding anything new for copyrighted works (AFAIK, IANAL), but they are taking away rights from public domain works (let's see how that plays out with Disney, for example). Hopefully this additional context clarifies where I'm coming from. [1]: I'm making up that number but I'm probably lowballing it anyway. [2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev https://pkg.go.dev [3]: But I bet if someone made a model from TV shows, now suddenly the already-existing copyright law would magically work for those specific cases. So basically, these randos without power are making a law that will only be enforced by those with power.

peoplefromibiza 2y ago
> [1]: I'm making up that number but I'm probably lowballing it anyway. uhhh, the popular "I don't know what I'm saying, but I'm sure I'm right, because it's me saying it" But even if it was true, most of the violations of traffic laws go unpunished, for obvious reasons, does it mean traffic laws are useless? > [2]: Example: https://pkg.go.dev https://pkg.go.dev did you report it?
- quectophoton 2y ago
  Oof my bad. I should have added "websites I visit", or "website I've seen". I don't keep track of them, but if I try to think of any websites that I've visited e.g. since last month that are not in violation, only ~4 come to mind. And since I don't have any exact numbers, I have no choice but to give a conservative estimate. I'm usually careful with wording since not everyone tries to read in good faith, but I was probably too tired at the time to notice. I apologize for any offense that my comment might have caused.
  - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
    No offense, I simply wanted to show that, even if what you say it's true, there is no "police state" trying to monitor and eventually shut down the Internet, like many are suggesting here and that there is a lot of leeway for the smaller actors. Nobody is really worried if the website for Go packages doesn't fully respect GDPR, except maybe Go it's a Google product, but the best they can infer it's the demographics of Go developers, which they probably already know. What is important is that the data collectors can be held responsible for the infringements. Same objective I imagine for EIGAR (I know some of the founders), it is not to stop generative art using AI, but to stop pretending that massive data scraping of copyrighted material is fair use when Disney or Amazon or Netflix or any other tech mogul profits from them. Hollywood writers and the actors' guild have already gone on strike over this, this is nothing new or unexpected, it was simply waiting to happen, it's Newton's third law of motion applied to humans.