Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Space_Pirate_R t1_jeb7vmw wrote

In a shocking twist, posting data on social media constitutes implied permission for other users to process it in their browsers in order to read it .

However, in a second shocking twist, posting doesn't constitute implied permission for corporations to train AI with the contents of posts.


ThrillShow t1_jebdn9g wrote

I'm shocked by how many people unquestioningly accept the idea that AI should be entitled to the same rights as humans, as if a machine that scrapes huge portions of the internet for content is exactly the same as one person browsing.


NLwino t1_jeblcee wrote

What do you think search engines need to do to give you the results?


Space_Pirate_R t1_jebrw1m wrote

People making copyright work available on the internet are granting an implied permission for search engines to index their work, because that's pursuant to the normal purposes of posting on the internet. People make work available on the internet for the purpose of allowing others to find it using search engines and view it using browsers.

However, making copyright work available on the internet does not constitute an implied permission or license to do literally anything with the posted work. People don't usually post work on the internet for the purpose of helping corporations train commercial AIs, and therefore no implied permission to do so is granted by the act of making copyright work available on the internet.