It is a bit ironic that a paywalled article like this will have a top level comment with the archive link, which can then be easily scraped by AI (along with the comments)
Biased TL;DR: Reddit (notable for having a high stock value from their "selling data" business [1]), Medium, Quora, and Cloudflare competitor Fastly created a standard to restrict what the reader can do with the data users created, called Really Simple Licensing (RSL). Basically robots.txt but with more details, notably with details on how much you should pay Reddit/Medium/Quora.
While this likely has no legal weight (except for EU TDM for commercial use, where the law does take into account opt-outs), they are betting on using services like CloudFlare and Fastly to enforce this.
Does that have any implications on liability for content? They're no longer just a provider, they are re-licensing and marketing content. Are they losing protection?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> There was for years an experimental period, when ethical and legal considerations about where and how to acquire training data for hungry experimental models were treated as afterthoughts.
Those things were afterthoughts because for the most part the experimental methods sucked compared to the real thing. If we were in mid 2016 and your LSTM was barely stringing together coherent sentences, it was a curiosity but not a serious competitor to StackOverflow.
I say this not because I don’t think law/ethics are important in the abstract, but because they only became relevant after significant technological improvement.
Sites containing original content will adopt active measures against LLM scraper bots. Unlike search indexing bots, there's much less upside to allowing scraping for LLM training material. Openly adversarial actions like serving up poisoned text that would induce LLMs to hallucinate is much more defensible.
I can see how the AI companies would work around this though:
user queries "static" training data in LLM; LLM guesses something, then searches internet in real-time for data to support the guesses. This would be classified as "browsing" rather than trawling.
(the searched data then get added back into the corpus, thus sadly sidestepping all the anti-AI trawling mechanisms)
Kind of like the way a normal user would.
The problem is, as others have already mentioned, how would the LLMs know what is a good answer versus a bad, when a "normal" user also has this issue?
What a lot of these journalists don't realize is ai tools are the internet funnels of the future. People use ChatGPT not Google to source info. The way you get results is begging these tools to search for specific bits of info in order to get visibility.
Free-for-All was a natural assumption in the early internet, but in the age of AI, alignment with contracts and governance becomes essential. Technical capability alone is not enough — without mechanisms like licensing or audits to ensure legitimacy, such practices may prove socially unsustainable.
21 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 48.6 ms ] threadWhile this likely has no legal weight (except for EU TDM for commercial use, where the law does take into account opt-outs), they are betting on using services like CloudFlare and Fastly to enforce this.
[1] https://www.investors.com/research/the-new-america/reddit-st...
The right thing would be for the end users to receive the compensation Reddit is getting from AI companies.
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.
Syndication is the answer. Small artists are on Spotify, small video makers are on YouTube.
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.
Those things were afterthoughts because for the most part the experimental methods sucked compared to the real thing. If we were in mid 2016 and your LSTM was barely stringing together coherent sentences, it was a curiosity but not a serious competitor to StackOverflow.
I say this not because I don’t think law/ethics are important in the abstract, but because they only became relevant after significant technological improvement.
user queries "static" training data in LLM; LLM guesses something, then searches internet in real-time for data to support the guesses. This would be classified as "browsing" rather than trawling.
(the searched data then get added back into the corpus, thus sadly sidestepping all the anti-AI trawling mechanisms)
Kind of like the way a normal user would.
The problem is, as others have already mentioned, how would the LLMs know what is a good answer versus a bad, when a "normal" user also has this issue?