7 ms·
I agree. Knowledge should belong to all of humanity. But then also don’t be angry at big corporations when they scrape the entire internet.
by baxtr 1y ago
I agree. Knowledge should belong to all of humanity.
But then also don’t be angry at big corporations when they scrape the entire internet.
- foofoo12 1y agoBig corporations aren't humans.
- exe34 1y agothey are persons under US law.
- JadeNB 1y agoBut US law isn't even the law of the world, let alone the definition of reality.
- JohnFen 1y agoOnly in a couple of very specific and narrow ways. They are not considered persons generally under US law. They are legal fictions that have been granted a subset of rights that people have.
- nobodyandproud 1y agoAnd that subset of rights keeps expanding.
- bossyTeacher 1y agoUS law only applies in the US. Plus, the company in question seems to be based in Canada, so outside the FBI jurisdiction
- adventured 1y agoSo was Kim Dot Com. Biden went after him anyway at the behest of big media.
- vel0city 1y agoI mean, its not like it was just Biden. His extradition proceedings took place during three different US presidential administrations. You might as well include Trump and Obama in there as well.
- exe34 1y agothat's just wishful thinking. US law applies world wide as long as Trump is willing to reach out and nab you. ask the Venezuelan fishermen.
- dashundchen 1y agoThat's not even US law, it's straight up murder outside of the law.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> US law only applies in the US. Where US law applies varies by which law it is; there are US laws that apply only outside of the US [0], as well as US laws which have application both inside and outside the US. [0] e.g., the federal torture statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2340A(a), “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340A
- 1y ago
- mrweasel 1y agoIt would solve a lot if that was taken to the extreme. Sorry Amazon, but your working conditions killed five people. Your business licens is going to jail for 40 years, good luck getting contracts with other companies with murder on your records when you get out.
- hamdingers 1y agoIf you're looking to US law to discern who is a person and who is not you are deeply lost.
- exe34 1y agothe argument really wasn't about human persons, it was about legal persons. the distinction was only brought up to derail the conversation.
- modo_mario 1y agoThen one should be able to put them on death row under US law.
- wartywhoa23 1y agoI imagine there's a whole lot of snarky epitaphs which the remnants of the humankind could place on this civilization's gravestone, but citing this exact law might make for the best one.
- wang_li 1y agoCorporations large and small don't do anything. It's always a person. The question you are answering, even if you don't think you are, is whether a few people can get together and act in concert and still retain their rights.
- capitainenemo 1y agoWhile it's true people are upset at AI companies profiting off of artist creations with no compensation, I know a lot of people are also reacting to how the recent AI companies have been scraping the web. The reason folks are using Anubis and other methods is because unlike Google which did have archiving of sites for a long time (which was actually a great service), these new companies do not respect robots.txt, do not crawl at a reasonable rate (for us, thousands of hits a minute from their botnets - usually baidu/tencent, but also plenty of US IPs), hit the same resource repeatedly, ignoring headers intended to give cache hints, stupidly hitting thousands of variations of a page when crawling search results with no detection that they are getting basically the same thing... And when you ban them, they then switch to residential ranges. It really is malicious.
- gilfoy 1y ago> AI companies profiting Are they?
- johneth 1y agoIf you boil it down to the AI companies are making money (subscriptions, etc.) based on content they did not pay to produce, then they are profiting from someone else's hard work.
- BigTTYGothGF 1y agoRevenue is not profit.
- smarf 1y ago'stealing is fine if you lose money when reselling'
- BigTTYGothGF 1y agoI don't believe I wrote anything of the sort.
- HeinzStuckeIt 1y agoA lot of the outrage isn't at scraping, it is at the disruptive techniques used to do so. Like web-scraping whole websites that already provide convenient images of their content for download.
- pbae 1y agoFeels like now we're just redefining our rules so that the people we don't like are out and the people we like are in. Does the content creator have the right to determine how their work is used or not?
- cestith 1y agoI have a right to my copyrighted work, and I also have a right to set and enforce access rules to a server I operate to grant people access to it.
- wat10000 1y agoIt's not that they're scraping the internet, it's that they're scraping the internet, profiting off the data they take, and still using the copyright regime to go after others who do unto them.
- hooverd 1y agoWell, as long as they pursue a "copyright for me but not for thee" regime, you can.
- dclowd9901 1y agoOne thing is not the other. A corporation is not a human (and no I don't care what Citizens United says). A corporation has no inherent rights.
- TrueDuality 1y agoThis is a false equivalency I'm surprised no one else has brought up. An archive of a site preserves attribution inherently, the scraping and training are not.
- kulahan 1y agoIs it? I thought it was ridiculous at first, but the more I think of it... both are scenarios where a corporation is scraping billions of webpages. We like the reason archive.is does it, but unless it's some kind of charity, I think it's a reasonable comparison.
- didibus 1y agoarchive.is is a charity no? Or at least they take donations, it seems the legal entity behind it is nebulous, but they don't have ads and have no paid product or offering.
- hoistbypetard 1y agoThey sure as shit do have ads. Have you ever accidentally followed a link using a browser profile that has no ad blocking enabled? I only rarely browse without some form of content blocking (usually privacy-focused... that takes care of enough ads for me, most of the time). I keep a browser profile that's got no customizations at all, though, for verifying that bugs I see/want to report are not related to one of my extensions. Every once in a while, I'll accidentally open a link to a news site (or to an archive of such a site) in that vanilla profile. I'm shocked at how many ads you see if you don't take some counter measures. I just confirmed in that profile: archive.is definitely puts ads around the sites they've archived.
- didibus 1y agoI stand corrected, maybe it's because I have ad-blocks that I never noticed. And arguably I used to think it was the Internet Archive. It does make this case seem problematic now that I know the details.
- phantasmish 1y agoThere's no contradiction in wanting an abolition (or at least substantial curtailment) of copyright while also being upset that mass violations of copyright magically become legal if you've got enough money. Enforcement being unjustly balanced in favor of the rich & powerful is a separate issue from whether there should be enforcement in the first place—"if we must do this, it should at least be fair, and if it's not going to be fair, it at least shouldn't be unfair in favor of the already-powerful" is a totally valid position to hold, while also believing, "however, ideally, we should just not do this in the first place".
- warkdarrior 1y ago> There's no contradiction in wanting an abolition (or at least substantial curtailment) of copyright while also being upset that mass violations of copyright magically become legal if you've got enough money. Why can't you just be happy for those few who are lucky enough to be able to violate copyright with no consequences? Yes, I know you'd want everyone to be able to violate copyright, but we're not there yet.
- mindslight 1y agoYou're assuming way too much with "not there yet". The point is the corpos will violate copyright with impunity today, and then in a few years sign a bunch of settlement agreements and pull the ladder up behind them. I'd love to see copyright slowly become irrelevant, but even with that goal we should expect to see large corpos being the last to stop respecting it.
- collinmcnulty 1y agoBecause we’d like the powerful to feel the crunch from bad law rather than get a backdoor, so they have to use their power to change things for everyone instead of just getting it changed for themselves.
- mothballed 1y agoMore often than not the rich just codify the "backdoor" for themselves in such case. A rich man can buy the $30,000 registered machinegun and pay the $200 NFA stamp and be 100% legal, the poor man who 3d prints a $0.50 of plastic to do the same thing goes to jail for 15 years.
- didibus 1y agoThat's a bad take, just like open source code is available to all, it's not the case you can always resell it or repackage it for your own profit. Information can be made available to all, and at the same time, we can make it so others cannot resell or repackage it for profit like what AI companies are doing.
- pkilgore 1y agoHot take here, I know, but some of us believe the law should treat large corporations differently than it treats individuals when it comes to their rights and privileges.
- FractalParadigm 1y agoThis seems like an incredible disingenuous take. There's a marked difference between collecting information to freely share with the rest of humanity, and collecting information to feed into algorithms under the guise of "artificial intelligence" with the pretense of enriching their finances and putting others out of work.
- baxtr 1y agoAnyone on this planet can access ChatGPT (and other for profit LLMs) for free to answer any question they might have. This is true knowledge socialism.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y agowe (all of us) do not own chatgpt; we (all of us) do not share in the profit from chatgpt; this is not what socialism is.
- watwut 1y ago- ChatGPT is not about knowledge. - ChatGPT is in the "bait" phase of "bait and switch" plan. It is trying to make us dependent on it, so that it can extract maximum profit later.
- scotty79 1y ago> But then also don’t be angry at big corporations when they scrape the entire internet. I'm only angry with them when they pay hush money to IP extortionists.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoI don't care that they scrape my website. I DO care that nearly 2M different IPs are used to try to pull 42k commits out of a git repo one by one when they could just git clone it ...
- macintux 1y agoI wish the companies would just pay a few technically-competent companies to do the scraping. Pay two so you can check their work, maybe, but let's get past the point in time when dozens (or more?) of companies are all simultaneously hammering the web.
- nehal3m 1y agoThere’s perfectly good LLM’s built specifically to shit out swaths of mediocre code to do that, why would you pay anyone?
- tpmoney 1y agoMy pie in the sky pitch is the US Government (and others) should solve this, the legality and the compensation problems in a single swoop. Make submission of your work to a federal model data set a requirement for obtaining copyright protection. License the data set (and heck maybe even charge for making custom models) for nominal fees to anyone who want it, with indemnification against copyright lawsuits for works deriving from the licensed model. Pay copyright owners a limited time royalty from these licensing fees. Everyone wins and we can stop needing a billion bots scraping a billion sites billion times a day.
- econ 1y agoWhile I would like to see it abolished entirely (including patents) I do have to compliment how you've described a formula that is actually possible to implement. To deny people access to things is one thing, wanting to do it by impossible means is quite something else. Who even has time to scavage the universe looking for possible infringement on their works and also the money to deal with it?
- mapontosevenths 1y agoCopyright exists to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Anything which does that should be legal, and anything that stifles those advances should not.