Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Don Y Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: The end of stackoverflow? Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 17:04:34 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <20240510a@crcomp.net> <20240510b@crcomp.net> <20240510c@crcomp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 02:04:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1a5da5fa3844ddc8a1e88e0cc707f6a"; logging-data="1733826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+COXmHJGDnXjRvtaW7Zhvd" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:cpJYM+V3h9c6S7y6xzFcFFjY/Ic= In-Reply-To: <20240510c@crcomp.net> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3750 On 5/10/2024 3:22 PM, Don wrote: > Don Y wrote: >> Don wrote: >>> Don Y wrote: >>>> Don wrote: >>>>> It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to >>>>> Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the >>>>> website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to >>>>> host the site. >>>>> >>>>> Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people >>>>> absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their >>>>> rights. >>>> >>>> Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site >>>> (that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of >>>> visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant >>>> in time. >>>> >>>> Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that >>>> content to "educate a visitor"? *Train* an AI?? >>> >>> Both 'bots and litigation are separate topics. >> >> Bots are the exact corollary to AI; what's the difference between >> me, as a human, scraping your site (even if I don't do it mechanically) >> and LEARNING from everything contained therein... vs. a bot scraping it >> for an AI? >> >>> My comments pertain to rights retention. After you sign away your >>> rights, nothing's left to litigate. >> >> When *your* site is scraped, where are your rights? Can you >> prove that my AI derived some/all of its knowledge from the >> "copyright-protected content" on your site? >> >>> If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled >>> to rip you off when you sign away your rights. >> >> So, as the site's owner, what protections do *you* have >> regarding *your* content (regardless of its source)? >> >> Once you publish, you're exposed. I make a point of inserting >> small bugs into any code that I publish as exemplars. My thinking >> is that anyone who is interested in the points being illustrated will >> TRY to run the code, encounter an error AND THEN LOOK *INTO* THE CODE >> in an attempt to UNDERSTAND it. That last point being the exact >> point of providing exemplars! :> >> >> (Anyone -- or anyTHING -- intent on just COPYING it will replicate the bug) > > "What we've got here is failure to communicate." > > Your questions and arguments again fall outside of the scope of my > followup. My comments pertain to rights retention. The *post* pertains to AI harvesting information posted by site users.