> As a content publisher, I am very interested in any proposal that results in me getting residual payments from AI scrapers.

So you use a public resource and presumably like the upside that comes with sharing on it, but you want to limit uses now that someone has found one that you don't like, so you're fine with degrading that public resource?

You could always share things privately or behind a paywall if you don't want them available publicly. But people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

I get why a hosting provider would want to limit crawlers to save bandwidth. The "creator" angle is just greed.

▲

velcrovan 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> So you use a public resource and presumably like the upside that comes with sharing on it, but you want to limit uses now that someone has found one that you don't like, so you're fine with degrading that public resource?

Can you say more? what is the "public resource" I'm using as a content publisher? In that role I see myself more as the provider of a public resource (my content), not a user.

	▲	carlosjobim 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe they mean the alphabet?

▲

pyrale 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your point is that pepole leaving some produce on the side of the road along with a money box should accept that some people loot all the produce in a 100km radius without paying, and resell it?

▲

beambot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can put images up on a public website, but you still retain copyright & can control the images' use. This is no different from any kind of digital content...

▲

isodev 3 days ago | parent [-]

And Cloudflare is trying to legitimise a “business model” resting on the assumption that it’s ok for AI vealers to scrape content in the first place. “Opt-in” is not in Silicon Valley vocabulary.

	▲	acdha 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I read that differently: we’re starting from the current world where anyone publishing online is seeing expensive traffic volumes from companies whose goal is not to send user traffic back. Cloudflare seem to be arguing that site owners should easily be able to charge for agent access independently from regular user access, but since that is always under the control of the site owner it seems like the opposite of your “opt-in” complaint.

▲

computerdork 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As a musician, yeah, don't agree with this. It'd be great to find a way practical way to get content creators compensated, because with the internet, almost all media is becoming free (or near free), and it's hard to survive.

And, the idea being proposed is a version of what you're talking about (paywall). Not allowing crawlers to scrap your site unless they compensate you is a form of paywall, just for crawlers...

...But, I do agree with one aspect you're saying about greed, Cloudflare is probably being self serving in this. An open standard seems like it'd be a better solution than having one company control content payment.