I fucked with the title a bit. What i linked to was actually a mastodon post linking to an actual thing. but in my defense, i found it because cory doctorow boosted it, so, in a way, i am providing the original source here.

please argue. please do not remove.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    in the ethical sense, everything is fair use. period.

    in the legal sense, everything is fair use until it’s proven in court not to be.

      • Falcon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If and only if the trained model is accessible without licence.

        E.g. I don’t want Amazon rolling out a Ilm for $100 a month based on freely accessible tutorials written by small developers.

        But yeah duck copyright

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        if anybody gets a copy of it, they have no ethical obligation not to share it, and every ethical justification for sharing it.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            this reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you have an objection to what I said please state it.

            • Batman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                They’ve given you knowledge/ material in their possession free of charge.

                this is a very common human activity

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                You are taking advantage of that good will by using the content for purposes not intended. That is a moral failing.

                only if there were so e sort of agreement about what the acceptable uses are and what is not acceptable.

                • Batman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  That’s exactly what robot.txt is… they spell out that they don’t want you to access this site with an automated system.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    right. so hiring 50 college kids to manually visit every page and cache it for study is fine.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                the assumption has to be they don’t intend this

                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?

                • Batman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                If you aren’t paying them you are being provided a service.

                if you ARE paying them, you’re being provided a service, too

                • Batman@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You think you’re entitled to the fruits of others’ labor.

                    this isn’t what I said. it’s a straw man.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    You’ve already done a fine job of explaining exactly what’s wrong with your 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.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just because a court hasn’t yet deemed that specific action illegal doesn’t mean it’s not illegal when you do it. Doesn’t matter if the crime is theft, rape, murder, etc.

        theft rape and murder are criminal matters. copyright is civil, and, yes, the courts can adjudicate every individual case.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Just like theft, rape and murder…

            except that sometimes those are statutory. fair use claims cannot be statutory.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I have to admit, I did not realize that bare copyright infringement could be criminal, but it also requires criminal intent, so any defense lawyer would argue there was a fair use intent, and even if the civil matter were decided against the defendant, surely the criminal matter would be dropped.

                  • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

                    Criminal copyright laws prohibit the unacknowledged use of another’s intellectual property for the purpose of financial gain. Violation of these laws can lead to fines and jail time. Criminal copyright laws have been a part of U. S. laws since 1897, which added a misdemeanor penalty for unlawful performances if “willful and for profit”.

                    to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about