• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    And suddenly the Internet is gung-ho in favor of EULAs being enforceable simply by reading the content the website has already provided.

    Recent major court cases have held that the training of an AI model is fair use and doesn’t involve copyright violation, so I don’t think licensing actually matters in this case. They’d have to put the content behind a paywall to stop the trainer from seeing it in the first place.

    • ccunning@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I guess that’s a different court case than the one where Anthropic offered to pay $1.5 billion?

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nope, this was one of them. The case had two parts, one about the training and one about the downloading of pirated books. The judge issued a preliminary judgment about the training part, that was declared fair use without any further need to address it in trial. The downloading was what was proceeding to trial and what the settlement offer was about.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Is it hypocrisy to be for EULA enforcement on reading when it’s machines, but not when it’s humans? Crawlers “read” on a massive scale that doesn’t compare to humans.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think so, or not always. humans need to find the EULA on the website by first loading the main page or another they found a link to. but if the path of that document was standardized, it could be enforced that way for robots