I don’t think they believe that; I think they either (a) think a human lawyer would understand it during the class-action suit after the the AI scrapes it anyway, or (b) more likely, they’re doing it to make a point as a matter of principle.
Either seems pretty fucking reasonable, to be honest!
It’s just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.
It’s the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.
They actually believe AI scraping lemmy will follow the link to the license, understand it, and except their comment.
I don’t think they believe that; I think they either (a) think a human lawyer would understand it during the class-action suit after the the AI scrapes it anyway, or (b) more likely, they’re doing it to make a point as a matter of principle.
Either seems pretty fucking reasonable, to be honest!
It’s just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.
What? How would an AI company have copyright over @onlinepersona@programming.dev’s comment? That makes no sense at all.
It’s the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.
Ah, I see what you mean now.