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
      15
      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
          13
          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
              11
              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
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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
                  5
                  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
                  5
                  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
                    2
                    ·
                    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
                  3
                  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
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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
                  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
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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
                  11
                  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
          5
          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.