47
Training Generative AI Models on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use - Change My Mind
(mastodon.lawprofs.org)
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
47 points (66.7% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
3290 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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
if anybody gets a copy of it, they have no ethical obligation not to share it, and every ethical justification for sharing it.
Wow.
this reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you have an objection to what I said please state it.
Every web request costs someone money. If you aren't paying them you are being provided a service. They've given you knowledge/ material in their possession free of charge. You are taking advantage of that good will by using the content for purposes not intended. That is a moral failing.
To be clear the ownership of the material is not important, just the access is immoral, as the harm is already done.
Ill add the caveat that it can be moral if they've specifically told you you can via the websites robot.txt file which websites of consequence all have. But the assumption has to be they don't intend this because that is how consent works.
this is a very common human activity
You asked if it's moral, this is irrelevant
I did not
The original post in this chain talked about ethics, I was continuing that conversation.
In terms of free use, I feel the collection/aggregation of the data is a work in itself. You are taking a greater portion than the author specified you can take. Courts have ruled this does not constitute free use when people used yahoo's market data. How is it any different now when people are using orders of magnitudes more data.
only if there were so e sort of agreement about what the acceptable uses are and what is not acceptable.
That's exactly what robot.txt is... they spell out that they don't want you to access this site with an automated system.
right. so hiring 50 college kids to manually visit every page and cache it for study is fine.
That would probably be more expensive than just paying companies. But it is morally different because a human did visit their website so their good will was not violated as they expressed this consent when they published the website.
why? if someone publishes something on port 80, why should I ever assume they mean anything but for me to have and use that data?
Because there is a standard way for people to make their consent known. Just because you ignore someone withholding you consent doesn't mean you are free morally.
I'd say it is immoral not to share useful information with other people.
if you ARE paying them, you're being provided a service, too
Yes I agree your use style could be immoral based on the agreement your transaction specifies. But if you've agreed your payment is to access their material then you have consent.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Speak plainly.
I don't even know where or how to begin arguing against a position that's flawed on such a basic level.
an appeal to ridicule is also called a horse laugh fallacy. it's like writing lol instead of actually explaining what's wrong with the position to which your objecting. this response also reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you can't explain what's wrong with my position, maybe you shouldn't be speaking about my position.
You've already done a fine job of explaining exactly what's wrong with your position. You think you're entitled to the fruits of others' labor. It's as simple as that.
this isn't what I said. it's a straw man.
My guy, you think you can just write off everyone's argument by just assigning it some words you read on Wikipedia.
It's literally exactly what you said. You're moving the goal posts.
it's not what I said. I'm not relying on Wikipedia: I'm relying on my degree.
Oh okay so now you're just appealing to authority?
no.
this response also reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you can't explain what's wrong with my position, maybe you shouldn't be speaking about my position.
I've only stated my position. I haven't actually provided any justification one way or the other. your suggestion that I have sounds like gas lighting.
Your argument that you haven't explained yourself sounds like an argument ad absurdum.
what do you think argument ad absurdum is?