Companies are well within their rights to choose who they sell to. I don't see how this is 'privately enforced copyright'.

Also, copyright has always been privately enforced anyway?

▲

ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-]

On the one hand, yes; on the other hand, so much of the training data comes from scraping the web that it feels wrong for them to do what they deny others the right to do.

On the third hand, the settlement Anthropic famously had to pay was for copyright infringement because they didn't actually have the right to even access some of the training data they used, so I can see how this might be compatible with the law.

On the fourth hand, I'm saying that as someone who absolutely isn't a lawyer and sometimes gets surprised when reading about copyright cases that sure sound like they ought to have been trademark cases given my limited understanding.

▲

swader999 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Robots don't even have four hands.

▲

foxglacier a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Companies that didn't give away all their content for free to anyone have actually denied AI companies from training on all their data without paying a fee. Reddit, Associated Press, etc.

For those who chose to give it all away, the ship has sailed, but they did choose to give it away for free to anyone so they can't complain that they succeeded.

	▲	blks 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How exactly other websites “gave it all away”? Also examples you list are websites putting some explicit rule eg in their robots.txt or filtering web crawlers. This is all a reaction to existing situation, so Reddit for sure has been scrapped before Reddit realised what was happening.
	▲	ipython 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		At what point did the authors whose books showed up in the ai companies training data sets “give it all away” as you claim?

▲

kevin_thibedeau 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless you're selling cakes.

▲

oblio a day ago | parent | prev [-]

DMCA? Which is actually an American law enforced globally?

Enforcement ultimately happens through law and the legal system.

▲

oblio 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Downvoters: am I wrong or do you just not like what I'm saying?

▲

dannyw 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I consider publicly enforced to be one where a government agency (e.g. the FDA), or prosecutors make judgements in what cases they file, make the arguments, etc.

Otherwise, it's just a standard case between two private parties resolved through our legal system; e.g. Linkedin vs Hi5.

	▲	cornholio 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> it's just a standard case between two private parties resolved through our legal system This is a gross distortion. Standard contractual rules bind the parties that signed the contract and the remedies are proportional to the damages and bounded. Copyright is tort law, the state binds the world to respect the rights of creators and the damages on infringement are punitive and can far exceed the actual commercial damages - to the point of bankrupting the infringer. The key to torts is that the state is not neutral, there is a social good here it's protecting. Crucially, copyright, like some other torts - securities, antitrust, environmental, battery - also has a criminal enforcement regime, where, for particularly serious offenses, the state actually invests public resources to put the criminal infringer behind bars with little to no involvement from the original rights holders. In the particular case of US, there is an entire state apparatus dedicated to enforcing US copyrights, a foreign affairs policy to shutdown "Notorious markets for counterfeiting and piracy" in other countries, international enforcement of DMCA etc. The idea that a private TOS has the same level of public protection as copyright is downright childish.