What is the Anti Commercial-Al license and why do people keep adding it to their comments?
I know what the Creative Commons is but not this new thing or why it keeps popping up in comments on Lemmy
You're viewing a single thread.
@onlinepersona@programming.dev and @CosmicCleric@lemmy.world should be able to give their perspectives.
@Pacrat173@lemmy.ml the license is actually a Creative Commons license for Non-Commercial uses. Creative Commons is a copyleft license that's "free to use with some restrictions". Mostly used in art, literature, audio, and film, for my part I'm using it to license my comments. Anybody can cite with attribution, but commercial use is forbidden by the license.
The why: I just don't like non-opensource commercial ventures. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, and so on are harmful in many ways.
Enforcement and legality: Microsoft's Github CoPilot (a large language model / "AI") was trained on copyrighted text source code. A few licenses clearly state that derivatives should also be opensource, which CoPilot is not. So there is a big lawsuit against it. Many artists, non-programmer authors, musicians, and others are also unhappy that AI was trained on their copyrighted works and have sued for damages.
Until these cases make it out of court, it will not be clear if adding a license to comments could even jeopardize commercial AI vendors.
How exactly do you expect to see the "source" of a language model?
.....
Hey does anyone want to buy a t-shirt from me with this guy's worst comments printed on it?
I want a t-shirt with Dalton from Roadhouse on it that says "Keep it Swayze!".
How exactly do you expect to see the “source” of a language model?
Hey does anyone want to buy a t-shirt from me with this guy’s worst comments printed on it?
Yeah that's not the source, that's still output. You don't seem to understand how LLMs work and yet have taken a bizarre stance on it anyway.
Previous work has already shown that image generators can be forced to generate examples from their training data—including copyrighted works—and an early OpenAI LLM produced contact information belonging to a researcher
You don't seem to be able to read the articles, yet have responded with junk anyway.
You know that's not the LLM's 'source' right? It's still output. Do you mean the training data? Is that what you mean by CoPilot should be open source? If CoPilot has learned from something GPL then everything else it outputs, or perhaps specifically its training data - should be GPL?
Are you saying Microsoft CoPilot didn't respect copyleft licences? How are they not getting totally sued for something obviously illegal? Or is it only when copyright violations harm big companies that people get sued?
I said so in my comment
So there is a big lawsuit against it
Seriously what is up with people and the downvotes on this. It is just a link guys.
A lot of this hate feels a bit manufactured because I can't honestly think of a good reason why so many would be so against this.
Likely because it's blatant misinformation and very spammy. Licences permit additional use, they do not restrict use beyond what copyright already does. I imagine there'd be fewer downvotes if they didn't incorrectly claim licencing their content was somehow anti-AI. Still spammy and pointless, but at least not misinformation.
Imagine if someone ended every comment with "I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME."
A bit silly, no?
Thanks for this; this is now my signature line when dealing with one of these people.
As a lawyer, what's your opinion on the CC BY-NC-SA v4 license?
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
CC licences are handy copyleft licences to allow others to use your work with minimal effort. Using them to restrict what others can do is a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. If you want to restrict others' use of your work copyright already handles that, a licence can only be more permissive than default copyright law. You can sign a contract with another party if you want to further restrict their use of your work, but you'll generally also have to give them something in return for the contract to be valid (known as "consideration"). If you wish to do so you can include a copyright notice (eg "Copyright (c) 2024 onlinepersona. All rights reserved.") but that hasn't been a requirement for a long time.
Ironic, considering you are undoubtedly not a lawyer and have evidently never even dealt with copyright issues.
How is it ironic? I never said I was a lawyer, nor did I ever say I was giving legal advice, nor have I ever spoken with authority on the subject.
You however... can't see the irony of your own statement.
It's ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me "irony" then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It's definitely worth noting that you've attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer.
When you and others like you make responses of absolute authority and correctiveness on legal matters, then it's fair to ask if you're a lawyer.
Funny enough, every time that question is asked, not once does somebody come back and say "Yes, I'm a lawyer". Instead they just double down with the same kind of response that you just gave.
Everyone's a lawyer until they're asked to prove their statements on a legal matter that they are advocating for.
If you replied with IANAL, and just expressed opinion, and not assumed legal fact, then you wouldn't get that question.
The problem with your argument is everyone's only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don't need permission the licence doesn't matter. You don't need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that's still ignoring the fact you're putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You're not responding to what I replied, and trying to obfuscate the issue.
You're moving the goalpost away from the point I was making, that those who are not lawyers speak with authority of the subject and represent themselves as the final word on the legality of the subject, and when get challenged as such, avoid answering the challenge.
When you and others like you make responses of absolute authority and correctiveness on legal matters, then it's fair to ask if you're a lawyer.
Funny enough, every time that question is answered, not once does somebody come back and say “Yes, I’m a lawyer”. Instead they just double down with the same kind of response that you just gave.
Likely because it’s blatant misinformation and very spammy.
Its not, and feel free to block people who 'spam', vs. trying to format the whole Internet to look just like how you want it to look.
Imagine if someone ended every comment with “I DO NOT GRANT PERMISSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO READ THIS COMMENT. ANY USE OF THIS COMMENT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. THIS COMMENT CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONS IN RELATION TO ANY CRIME.”
A bit silly, no?
Because a paragraph of ALL CAPS text, vs a single link with a very short sentence description, is not silly. /s
A lot of this hate feels a bit manufactured because I can’t honestly think of a good reason why so many would be so against this.
At this point I'm pretty sure its AI model creating astroturfers desperating trying to get people to not license their content (comments).
If its instead just anti-social people being tools for corporations, then I weep for the species.
What he / she said.
They.
Yep, sorry. Still training my 20th century mindset for the 21st century. Teaching old dogs new tricks and all that, but I'm trying.
I hate using 'they' though, because it always signals "more than one" to me, plural, when I'm talking about a specific singular person.
"They" has always been an indirect pronoun.
“They” has always been an indirect pronoun.
Not really in daily usage though. It's a recent thing.
I'm aware of the few historical cases when it was used in a plural sense. But most usage of it in modern times is singular. We're now making a concerted effort today to start using it as a plural, since gender fluidity is a public thing now. But there's generations that have used it as a singular, and it takes time to get used to that.