this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1109 points (99.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54758 readers
311 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It would be great if piracy instances were hosted on I2P and TOR. Then these chucklefucks would have nothing.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Apology for hijacking your comment, but I wanted to ask you a question about the Creative Commons link you put at the end of your comment.
Are you doing that because of people who may use your comments to train AI reasons?
If so, do you think legally that covers it, since it's a link, and not just the text itself?
In other words, would an AI trainer have to drill into the link before your comment is covered by that clause?
That's a good question that I don't have an answer to as I have no legal training. I'm assuming if you can sign a contract online where the legal text is behind a link and the main offer is what you see... maybe? Technically, it wouldn't be too difficult to simply erase any mention of a license in a pre-cleaning phase of the data, but I don't know if the act itself would be an even bigger indication of guilt. There would be no excuse like "oops, I just copied this data into my training set, teehee". But as I said, not a legal expert.
If there are copyright experts that want to weigh in, I'd be interested to hear their opinion. Given that there are running, unanswered cases (most notably again Microsoft's Copilot), and Japan on the verge of drafting into law that AI training data can ignore copyright, it's possible even legal experts would have a hard time answer the question.
I'm putting them here just in case. Only costs me a line carriage and a Ctrl+V.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Myself as well. It's a new frontier, legally.
Seeing that you have done that made me start to think about doing it myself, as I definitely feel there are days when I'm being shadowed by AI training mechanisms.
But if it doesn't make any difference legally as a deterrent, then I wouldn't bother.
Even if it's ruled illegal in the US, there's nothing stopping AI companies from moving their operations to Japan where copyright doesn't apply to training data.
It will definitely be interesting to see how all of the shakes out, legally wise.
Once that's determined, then yeah, I won't bother either. Until then though... CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
What the person using those links does not realize is that a Creative Commons license relaxes restrictions rather than imposing additional ones.
Everything you create is already protected by copyright by default. If you publish an essay and don't append any license to it, nobody may republish or remix that essay without your permission, unless an exception like fair use applies. The exact restrictions will depend on local laws.
By using a Creative Commons license, you choose to forgo some of those copyright protections. Thus the comments of the person you replied to are actually less protected than yours or mine.
Or maybe even a mirror so if you wanted to keep your ip hidden you could.
I should start adding that to my comments too! Buuuut...
CC BY-SA 4.0
Whatever suits your fancy.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0