3 ms·

Copyright law is pretty clear that copyright automatically belongs to the creator from the moment they create something. People can choose to transfer those rig

Copyright law is pretty clear that copyright automatically belongs to the creator from the moment they create something. People can choose to transfer those rights to another party, e.g. assigning the copyright to an employer or selling the rights, or by licensing rights to someone else to use the content. But it cannot be assumed that everything is "free" in the absence of a copyright notice, on the contrary one must assume that everything is copyrighted in the absence of a notice saying it's free. The following rules are agreed upon by pretty much every country that has an interest in copyright: https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html

rvnx 2y ago
In practice it's not the case, you can see Google Search or Microsoft Bing, they are reproducing copyrighted content without asking prior permission, and for commercial use. This is called a search engine.
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  One of the reasons Google Image Search is so neutered is because it was sued and lost. Small extracts or low quality assets are usually permissible, full on scraping is not.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Tell that to all the StackOverflow clones out there. It's really crazy. If I search for any of the things I have posted on SO, for the last dozen years, I get multiple hits. There are quite a number of sites that just full-on scrape SO, strip out the attributions, then republish, wrapped in their branding. I suspect that this is done for many, many other content-rich sites.
    - lupire 2y ago
      Example?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bmacho 2y ago
        I think for some people when they search a question, a stack overflow mirror comes up as the first result. I've seen it too, ~once, some years ago. I was totally ready to change to it if it can provide /text/ (without javascript) faster and leaner, but that did not happen.
    - Kye 2y ago
      They probably do the attribution in a way that just barely complies with the wording of the CC license without being too visible.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I hate to be assumptuous, but odds are those clones are in countries that do not respect copyright anyway. You'll see tons of shameless clones from Chinese sites or companies and there's not much you can do about it outside of maybe asking the server host to intervene.
EnigmaFlare 2y ago
This misunderstanding is getting out of hand. That's not what he was saying at all! He was talking about sites that say things like "you're not allowed to even scrape our content unless it's for search engine indexing". Without any such restriction, they are giving implied permission to download/scrape their content. That doesn't mean you have the right to redistribute it though, or that it's free, and that's not what he said. "anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it" are his words. Those "with"s are important!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- moritzwarhier 2y ago
  MS "reproducing with" all available content? No thanks. So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? That behavior is a lot more aggressive and unethical than what Google does on its news aggregator (although that has become unusable for me on mobile since the latest redesign, whatever). sure, Google would probably like to anonymize all "content creators" too, and drive the value of arts and information to zero. I don't buy the constant equation of linking to external sources (search engine, link aggregator) with the automated mass-production of uncredited copycat content. That's what I consider an important difference. It feels weird when link aggregators link to MS Start, which itself seems to be an AI text generator paraphrasing other's content. Not sure because I tend to leave early. Guess they have some licensed content as well. When people don't value content, it's cynical to complain about the decline of journalism.
  - EnigmaFlare 2y ago
    > So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? Existing copyright law already covers that. It's the same rules.

rvnx 2y ago

In practice it's not the case, you can see Google Search or Microsoft Bing, they are reproducing copyrighted content without asking prior permission, and for commercial use. This is called a search engine.

Mindwipe 2y ago
One of the reasons Google Image Search is so neutered is because it was sued and lost. Small extracts or low quality assets are usually permissible, full on scraping is not.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Tell that to all the StackOverflow clones out there. It's really crazy. If I search for any of the things I have posted on SO, for the last dozen years, I get multiple hits. There are quite a number of sites that just full-on scrape SO, strip out the attributions, then republish, wrapped in their branding. I suspect that this is done for many, many other content-rich sites.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Example?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmacho 2y ago
      I think for some people when they search a question, a stack overflow mirror comes up as the first result. I've seen it too, ~once, some years ago. I was totally ready to change to it if it can provide /text/ (without javascript) faster and leaner, but that did not happen.
  - Kye 2y ago
    They probably do the attribution in a way that just barely complies with the wording of the CC license without being too visible.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I hate to be assumptuous, but odds are those clones are in countries that do not respect copyright anyway. You'll see tons of shameless clones from Chinese sites or companies and there's not much you can do about it outside of maybe asking the server host to intervene.

EnigmaFlare 2y ago

This misunderstanding is getting out of hand. That's not what he was saying at all! He was talking about sites that say things like "you're not allowed to even scrape our content unless it's for search engine indexing". Without any such restriction, they are giving implied permission to download/scrape their content. That doesn't mean you have the right to redistribute it though, or that it's free, and that's not what he said. "anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it" are his words. Those "with"s are important!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
moritzwarhier 2y ago
MS "reproducing with" all available content? No thanks. So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? That behavior is a lot more aggressive and unethical than what Google does on its news aggregator (although that has become unusable for me on mobile since the latest redesign, whatever). sure, Google would probably like to anonymize all "content creators" too, and drive the value of arts and information to zero. I don't buy the constant equation of linking to external sources (search engine, link aggregator) with the automated mass-production of uncredited copycat content. That's what I consider an important difference. It feels weird when link aggregators link to MS Start, which itself seems to be an AI text generator paraphrasing other's content. Not sure because I tend to leave early. Guess they have some licensed content as well. When people don't value content, it's cynical to complain about the decline of journalism.
- EnigmaFlare 2y ago
  > So if you publish, say, a novel or some expensively researched reporting online, you are now to assume it's legal to have an "AI" paraphrase it and sell it on Kindle? Or MS monetize it on their scummy "Microsoft Start"? Existing copyright law already covers that. It's the same rules.