25 ms·
All web "content" is freeware
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sublinear 2y agoIn a world where physical media is no longer relevant and everything is on the internet, what the hell is "web content"?
- semanticc 2y agoInternet != Web. E.g., an ebook downloaded from Apple Books is not web content, even if it comes from the Internet.
- jsheard 2y agoUntil that eBook inevitably gets uploaded to a piracy site. The implication is that if a web crawler can find it anywhere then it's fair game, regardless of provenance.
- the_other 2y ago> In a world where physical media is no longer relevant Debatable. IMO print is the best medium for long-form written and grapgical narative work. Streaming media can’t be lent and is locked up by excessive and arbitrary (from the consumer’s PoV) rights leveraging. Given physical media is declining, yet more functional for its archive potential, Imd say it was now more relevant than ever.
- latexr 2y agoI think you may be interpreting the word “relevant” in a different light than the person you’re replying to. It reads to me as if you’re saying physical media is important for humanity as a whole and the preservation of knowledge, while your parent comment is saying physical media is no longer significant to individual consumers because it’s not their preferred method of consumption. Both connotations can be true at the same time.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoLiterally everything isn't, and will never be, but I agree with your gist. Also note how 'content' is corporate-speak (they especially like owning the platforms hosting it) : https://craphound.com/content/Cory_Doctorow_-_Content.html#1 https://craphound.com/content/Cory_Doctorow_-_Content.html#1
- croes 2y agoI bet if any other company did it instead of MS they would sue the hell out of them for using their data.
- enumjorge 2y agoI bet if Microsoft were not extracting value from someone else's content, but instead had their content being used to power someone else's business, they'd be singing a very different tune.
- wang_li 2y agoThis already happened and MS sent a cease and desist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
- edent 2y agoI like the fact that I can now reproduce any Microsoft content without paying for it. Cheers! Incidentally, some AI chatbots do link to their sources. And it is a good idea to make that an explicit prompt if you're using one that doesn't. It's also worth prompting for how recent their information is.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoGood when they do, but depending on what we are discussing, linking to all their sources might be completely impractical.
- greyman 2y agoI would argue that if I ask ChatGPT something, it doesnt "reproduce" what was written on certain website (or at least it shouldn', without attribution). It takes what it scrapped before and re-tell it in its own words. That isn't reproducing, looks like a grey area not yet addressed in copyright laws. I would partially agree with the guy, that yes, that was a social contract since 90's, but before the AI era. Back then this use case wasn't anticipated.
- Retric 2y agoThere’s nothing ambiguous from a copyright perspective, it’s a derivative work. People seem to confuse plagiarism in an academic environment from copyright. Simply using your own words doesn’t mean you’re free from copyright. However even when something infringes copyright that doesn’t mean anything necessarily happens. Just look at YouTube’s early history or the mountains of fan fiction out there.
- codetrotter 2y ago> Just look at YouTube’s early history But something did happen. Viacom and others sued them, and then YouTube introduced their Content ID system so that they could pay copyright holders for content that others uploaded, as well as to take down videos belonging to copyright holders that did not agree to other people uploading their content.
- ralferoo 2y agoMore discussion on similar article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40828438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40828438
- hl6 2y ago[flagged]
- charonn0 2y ago> Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it He seems to be confusing "freeware", which is basically a license for copyrighted work, with "public domain", which is the absence of a copyright.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago> the absence of a copyright Ain't no such thing. Copyright exists, immediately upon creation (not publication) of a work. It's different from trademark, in that practical applications, enforcement, registration, etc., does not invalidate the copyright. Copyright can expire, which then becomes, effectively, "public domain." Registering a copyright doesn't create the copyright. It simply makes it easier to go after those that disrespect it. I'm pretty sure that the only way to truly transfer the ownership of copyright of a work, is to have agreements in place, before it is created (like "work for hire" contracts).
- throwaway211 2y agoOntologically, copyright doesn't exist. Copyright is an epistemology. If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down. This is not nitpicking. Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is. Saying copyright exists is as laughable as saying intellectual property is as non rivalrous as the chair you sit in.
- lucianbr 2y agoMan, this is some weapons-grade hair-splitting. I tip my hat to you, sir. Still. People have gone to jail for copyright infringement, so I doubt at least they would feel like laughing at the idea that copyright exists.
- outofpaper 2y agoWho has gotten jail or prison time for copyright violations in recent times? I’m aware of recent cases in Canada where defendants chose to ignore a court ruling and attempt to republish very similar material as what the court had originally found them to be in copyright violation for. They were then found to be in contempt of the court which is a criminal offence and then ordered to complete jail time and pay substantial fines. Copyright violations are not criminal offences in countries I’m aware of. Please tell me of any cases where a copyright violator faced jail time for the copyright violation and not for related criminal offences.
- bdcravens 2y ago> Perhaps that’s why he bookended his claims with “since the 90s” No, it's because the web has existed since 1991. (Though for the puritans, the paper was written in 1989 and the first browser was developed in 1990) https://www.npr.org/2021/08/06/1025554426/a-look-back-at-the-very-first-website-ever-launched-30-years-later https://www.npr.org/2021/08/06/1025554426/a-look-back-at-the...
- kkfx 2y agoI agree, so please Microsoft shut you mouth if I grab your maps, wrap your services and so on, because they are web-based so I am free to do whatever I like with them, relevant licenses does not count.
- scotty79 2y ago> But that means torrents of Windows are freeware! For many, many years now, if you need Windows you can just download it from Microsoft and run simple, non-intrusive activation procedure (not from Microsoft) after installation. No cracks needed. As much security as hip high front porch gate. So even for MS the understanding was that these things are de facto freeware for anyone that wants them at all.
- lucianbr 2y agoConveniently ignoring that you may be sued into oblivion if you have enough money to make it worth it for them. Come on. Windows is only free for people not making significant amounts of money with it. If you do make money... surprise: https://www.bsa.org/ https://www.bsa.org/
- scotty79 2y agoWhy would I care about rich people problems that try to get ahead without paying others they use to get ahead? Laws are never the same for the rich and the poor. And if they are to differ then it's the better direction for them to differ.
- lucianbr 2y agoYour assertion that Microsoft allows everyone to use Windows for free is false. What you care or not care about is irrelevant in this context. I have no clue why you brought it up. Now if you wish to assert that Microsoft allows peons to use Windows for free, as long as it is convenient for them, I can agree with that. They're still a bunch of hypocrites. Allowing Microsoft to selectively apply the law as it benefits them is not a good thing, you're confused.
- scotty79 2y agoIf you do not allow people to do something and yet hundreds of millions of people on Earth do it and you do as much as I described to prevent it then you are de facto allowing it. Same thing the MS guy said. Whatever's published on a website is de facto freeware. "no copyright infringement intended". That's how it works outside of lawyers offices. Commercial policy is not the law so MS can be as hypocritical as they want. I'm happy that their hypocrisy is going in the right direction this time.
- boesboes 2y agoWithout trying to take a stance on this, I do have to say I like the FastGPT feature that comes with Kagi. It basically does a search and uses those results to answer questions. Now I'd just want it to have a better UI with history and some sort of notebook mode instead of chat. I'm not sure how, but I don't want to chat with AI, I want a different way to 'instruct' it.
- prima-facie 2y ago> search engines link to their sources! Chatbots don’t. Actually Copilot does provide links to its sources, which adds credibility and promotes further exploration.
- Sophira 2y agoHas everyone forgotten the furore that was Cook's Source Magazine stealing a recipe that was published online? https://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/04/1940257/cooks-magazine-claims-web-is-public-domain https://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/04/1940257/cooks-magazi...
- tjpnz 2y agoI intend to use Mustafa Suleyman's likeness and name for my next project. It's part comic book/part novel and tells the story of a socially awkward tech CEO getting way out of his comfort zone by moonlighting as a male porn star. It ends with an OJ Simpson style police chase when it's discovered that Mustafa has been embezzling funds to support a drug habit and addiction to plastic surgery.
- Almondsetat 2y agoCopilot links to its sources. The author should reconsider having this blatantly false and easily verifiable article up on their website
- aflag 2y agoI think saying it links its sources is a bit of a stretch. It links related articles which may or may not be the source for what it just said (also, may or may not be related :P)
- Zambyte 2y agoWhat tools are you thinking of? I think saying it links its sources is absolutely not a stretch. My experience is with Kagi and with Perplexity; both of which it has even returned messages saying something along the lines of the source documents not being able to answer the question.
- pseudalopex 2y agoThey were thinking of the tool the 1st comment named probably.
- aflag 2y agoCopilot doesn't link to the sources. It doesn't really know what their sources are. It links to article that may be related to what it just said. Many times the sources even contradict what was said. So definitely not a source in that case
- scotty79 2y ago> Don’t blame us, the Torment Nexus is established practice! Well, it is. And I for one, am absolutely delighted that some people with money finally have an incentive to accept that after three decades of copyright death throes.
- namds 2y agoNow that we have established that Microsoft information wants to be free, my next project is wget.ai: wget.ai is a sophisticated real time LLM that trains itself while downloading "content". Like any LLM, it predicts the next output token (byte in this case) based on the statistical training. wget.ai is run at temperature zero. In this revolutionary setting it has arrived at the conclusion that the most likely output byte equals the input byte! Armed with this theorem, wget.ai can transform and replicate a Windows 11 download in real time. No copying is involved, the advanced algorithms happen to arrive at input == output. Users of Windows 11 can download activation keys (freeware) from the Internet.
- meiraleal 2y agoIs anyone paying for Windows 11 in 2024?
- AshamedCaptain 2y agoIs anyone able to _not_ pay for Windows 11 in 2024? It's called the "Microsoft Tax" for a reason.
- lye 2y agoYes, laptops without a windows license are pretty popular in at least some poorer countries. Most buyers install windows anyway and activate it via massgrave and friends, which lets you save 40 to 100 USD, which is a pretty big deal.
- pxeger1 2y agoLenovo offers its laptops (at the least the customisable models) with your choice of No OS, Windows Home, or Windows Pro.
- Zambyte 2y agoGNU/Linux, ChromeOS (Google GNU/Linux), Android (Google Linux), MacOS, iOS (and iPadOS is a different thing, right?) Are almost certainly collectively more popular than Windows. Even as a primary / exclusive computer. I think a lot of people are able to not pay for Windows 11 in $CURRENT_YEAR, probably most.
- jampekka 2y agoI find it good that the concept of IP is collapsing, but this shows clearly the corporate dishonesty around it. For decades corporate sites and APIs have pushed all sorts of illegal EULAs and ToSs in attempt to e.g. ban scraping. Now suddenly all of this is scrapped, with of course no explanations given as to why.
- rchaud 2y agoIP isn't collapsing for anyone with the means and connections to enforce the law. Microsoft is essentially pickpocketing the peasantry, while steering clear of the feudal lords like Netflix and Google, who can hit back.
- prmoustache 2y agoSo basically I can create a whinedows website with microsoft windows logo on it right?
- bdw5204 2y agoThis statement from Microsoft is just asking for a copyright infringement lawsuit because the courts have been very clear that web "content" is copyrighted unless it is explicitly placed in the public domain or old enough to no longer be under copyright. Authors of open source code should consider adding explicit restrictions to their license barring the use of their code to train AI. This would make it easier to file lawsuits against Microsoft and others of their ilk who think they can train their AI with other people's work without fair compensation.
- creativeSlumber 2y agoDoes GPL does this already? Doesn't it already say that code derived from GPL code should be GPLed? So does that include any code produced by an LLM based on GPL code ?
- bdw5204 2y agoThat would seem to be a logical implication assuming courts reject claims that "everything on the internet is public domain" or that training an LLM on copyrighted material constitutes "fair use" of the copyrighted material. I suspect it would technically be infringement even for MIT licensed code because the original author's copyright notice would presumably be missing.
- chrismorgan 2y ago> Authors of open source code should consider adding explicit restrictions to their license barring the use of their code to train AI. This would make it easier to file lawsuits against Microsoft and others of their ilk who think they can train their AI with other people's work without fair compensation. I see no reason to expect that this would alter or achieve anything. The wide-scale machine learning that’s been happening is entirely dependent on fair use exemptions from copyright. They’re not using it under your license—in fact can’t, current machine learning techniques and open source licenses already make it fundamentally impossible for them to comply—so what you put in it should be completely irrelevant. No, if the fair use exemption is ever struck down, the entire field is dead in the water until (a) a change in the legal system, or (b) services like GitHub start demanding an additional license as part of their terms of service for the purpose.
- fundad 2y agoHow did they train auto-completers or classifiers if they didn’t train on the open web? How did Pandora train if not on copyrighted music?
- rchaud 2y agoPandora can train on anything, but they can only stream music that they have paid to license. Microsoft isn't paying anything to anybody.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rchaud 2y agoDRM and paywalls for thee, industrial-scale scraping for me. /s It's time for us to build our own miniature versions of Internet Archive with the content that is personally important to us . The powers that be will take it down under the guise of defending copyright, while the bigcos continue to suck up every letter of every page that has a publicly available URL.
- commeytommy 2y ago[dead]
- seoulmetro 2y agoIt's true. People don't like it, but it's true. If you provide content you created online for free, that content is now freeware. If someone provides content that they didn't create that still has copyright restrictions in real life, that isn't freeware. It's like all the photos uploaded to Facebook and Instagram are now free to use however the downloader wants (and Meta as well of course). It's true. But people don't like it.
- oswaldreign438 2y ago[dead]