Remix.run Logo
jsnell 3 days ago

The headline seems pretty aspirational.

The licensing standard they're talking about will achieve nothing.

Anti-bot companies selling scraping protections will run out of runway: there's a limited set of signals, and none of them are robust. As the signals get used, they're also getting burned. And it's politically impossible to expand the web platform to have robust counter-abuse capabilities.

Putting the content behind a login wall can work for large sites, but not small ones.

The free-for-all will not end until adversarial scraping becomes illegal.

atm3ga 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

As AI companies like Perplexity introduce AI enabled browsers like Comet, they will scrape web sites through the interaction of end-users with whatever site they are using. Therefore, indeed anti-bot companies are absolutely running out of runway.

thelittleone 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Wow hadn't even considered this... so say I have a members only section of my site where I share high value content, one of the members browses using Comet, and that scrapes the private content and sends to perplexity?

kanemcgrath 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure if its still an issue, but companies were buying popular web extensions, then auto updating malware/spyware into them. I haven't heard much about this in a while, but I think chrome still forces auto updates for extensions, so I would expect this to be the biggest vector for scraping walled data now.

datadrivenangel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any user could manually download your data anyways. Access is access.

tempodox 2 days ago | parent [-]

And a browser can do it automated and behind user’s back.

lupire 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This also happens with covert botnets running secretly on user machines.

Incipient 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Surely that's highly illegal, and no one would actually use a browser that sent your entire browsing DATA not just history, to a third party?

zbentley 2 days ago | parent [-]

I would hope so as well, but doubt it: if the user consents to their communications being MITM’d by the browser, basically, then I’m not sure there’s currently a legal basis for forbidding that behavior. Many sites/applications accessed by the browsing user may have terms that forbid that kind of data sharing though.

cwmoore 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Gross. Terminate TOSs. We all need legal agents: perhaps they would (technically) time-travel back to when these kinds of intrusions began and retroactively disaggregate the prolonged and massive data theft from human beings' individual choicemaking efforts.

ec109685 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The way comet browses the web is weird enough that it’s easily detectable.

atm3ga 2 days ago | parent [-]

Does detectability matter? Are we now entering an era of forced browser compliance? That is, if I use Comet exclusively as my browser; is my bank, insurance company, or news site going to force me to stop and use a "normal" browser and what will that look like as every browser also has AI capabilities? Maybe certain resources will only be available via apps? Seems like a very slippery slope and very user hostile.

orbisvicis 2 days ago | parent [-]

I really don't want AI to be able to produce my bank account balance and routing number on demand.

Aerroon 2 days ago | parent [-]

Great, but it won't stop there. You will use Chrome or else.

Well, with one alternative: Edge.

gdulli 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you stop getting non-compliant spam when that became illegal?

Gigachad 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s pretty easy. Most sites will get locked behind accounts, likely with phone number verification. Then they will be able to easily spot automated scraping.

chrsw 2 days ago | parent [-]

Every time I think the web is finally dead, it somehow gets deader.

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Putting the content behind a login wall can work for large sites, but not small ones.

Syndication is the answer. Small artists are on Spotify, small video makers are on YouTube.

salawat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes. Conglomeration and centralization. More, more, more!

See the problem?

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

You don't have to syndicate a million small creators to have a product worthwhile for consumers, it could be a thousand, a hundred, ten thousand creators in a syndicate. You can have a huge number of syndicates, which benefits creators and consumers.

orbisvicis 2 days ago | parent [-]

But in such an environment syndicates will have an incentive to centralize.

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't see why. In general, there are competing syndicates and businesses of every size in most sectors of the economy.

em-bee 2 days ago | parent [-]

which sectors would that be? not the tech sector, not the oil sector, not the car sector. i see companies buying up properties in real state, i hear about companies buying up retirement homes (or some other kind of care facilities). retail? online retail? fast food? processed food, everywhere i see massive dominating brands. music labels? movies are consolidating in major studios. although they recently got some new players with netfix, apple and amazon. but those are still dominating companies.

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

It is clear that no matter which examples I would give you, you would not acknowledge that there are any sectors with competition. Anybody can look at any sector of their interest and see that there is competition, and it is trivially easy to do so. Including in the sectors you gave as examples. If you don't believe there is competition within fast food, then please list all the fast food companies in your country below.

em-bee 2 days ago | parent [-]

i am not denying that there is competition. the problem is that you reject that there is an incentive to centralize. if that was true, then none of the consolidations we have seen would have happened.

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, there are incentives to centralize. But since customers are such an incredibly diverse group, it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators. And if that happens, then great.

em-bee a day ago | parent [-]

it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators.

not true. all they need to do is to buy up their competitors if they have any and remove them from the market, so that you end up with no choice. or take microsoft. they never had any competitors for a long time, and they defend their marketshare with all tricks they can think of.

here are just a few articles about this issue. they focus on tech companies, but the same is happening in every industry:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/wave-of-acquisitions-...

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rep-ken-buck-big-tech-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54443188

https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/how-big-compan...

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22550608/how-big-business-expl...

https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-gove...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-fair-share-how-compan...

carlosjobim a day ago | parent [-]

It was as I said. You would never acknowledge that competition exists or has at any time existed within any sector. So to keep arguing against you is like arguing against somebody who claims that everybody in town wears a hat.

You're only doing yourself a disservice by refusing to acknowledge reality, when it's right in front of your face.

em-bee a day ago | parent [-]

well, we apparently see two different realities.

i do acknowledge that competition exists, but i also argue that this is being overshadowed by big companies who may compete amongst themselves but use their power to prevent competition by smaller companies.

you seem to say it doesn't matter, people wouldn't buy from big companies if their products weren't good. and i disagree with that. people buy from big companies because they are cheaper, because their marketing is overwhelming, and because they are lured with free products that small companies can't afford to offer. creators are forced to be on youtube because the audience is on youtube. competition exists, but it doesn't matter. same goes for publishing books on amazon. i know one author who stated that he can't afford not to be exclusive on amazon because it would significantly reduce his revenue.

besides a few exceptions, small companies can not compete against big ones. it is not a fair playing field.

and i really don't understand why you keep arguing about competition, and claim that i don't acknowledge that competition exists. i didn't make such a claim.

the thing i am claiming is that competition does not counteract centralization.

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
observationist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Copyright law perpetuating the institutions that are no longer providing value to the commons means copyright law has completely and utterly failed.

We don't need these institutions. We don't need these publishing platforms.

It's ok for them to die. They no longer provide value.

Adversarial scraping is not a thing, and it can't hurt you.

Fair use, however, is a thing, and what we need to be doing is totally overhauling copyright law such that it maximizes protections for individual creative types, and does away with the exploitable corporatized loopholes and bureaucracy.

99% of all sales for nearly all copyrighted products are done within the first 4 years of a work hitting the market. Give ironclad copyright to the creator for 5 years. The creator can assign their rights, explicitly, in writing, to a third party, for any particular work, or any particular fraction of their work, but each and every assignment of rights has to be explicitly documented and notarized.

No more DMCA automated bullshit. The creator can submit a copyright claim. They need to provide evidence. If the evidence of wrongdoing is false, they should be fined. If a third party files a claim, they should be fined, zero exceptions, even if they have assigned rights.

Artists and creators and writers should get the recognition - if someone creates a thing, they attach a name to it, and they can lease rights to corporations or the like.

After 5 years, extend fair use to something liberal and generous, requiring both acknowledgments of source works and royalties, no more than 15%, paid to the creator/s. If multiple post-5 year "fair use" creators are involved, the 15% is split between them. From 5-15 years, you have to give credit and pay a fair use royalty. If you're a trillion dollar company, you're shelling out a lot of royalties. If you're an artist reusing other art, or writing fanfic for profit, or whatever, you're buying other artists a coffee in tribute.

After 15 years, it becomes public domain.

Anything older than 5 years becomes fair game for training AI or otherwise using in software. You set aside 15% for distribution and reimbursement once a year, and notify any creator of your use of their material.

We need something sane, that scales, that doesn't hand power to corrupt cadres of lawyers and middle men who do nothing but leach from creatives and ruin innocent people's lives.

AI is here to stay. Let's set up a system in which they contribute back to the commons in a significant way, that doesn't favor byzantine licensing and gatekeeping schemes designed to keep lawyers fat and happy off the efforts of people actually contributing to the common good. Let's allow the corporate media platforms and publishing outfits to die off. We have much better ways of doing things and better ways of rewarding people for their work. We don't need lawyers sucking up 80% of the profits for "facilitating deals" or whatever it is they tell themselves to sleep at night.

Raze the old system and salt the ground. Simplify everything for the practical and creative people to maximize on the value all around, get people the credit and profit they deserve, and foster a vibrant public good. It doesn't need to be thousands of pages of technicalities and byzantine law and legal tradecraft. That game was built for the lawyers, and we should stop playing it.

freejazz a day ago | parent [-]

Yawn.