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 <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
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: <v1mcms$1kt62$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1kgcf$3dc4$1@solani.org> <la5vu5FojftU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v1kn8j$3hm7$1@solani.org> <20240510a@crcomp.net>
 <v1lk9b$1feor$1@dont-email.me> <20240510b@crcomp.net>
 <v1lvf6$1hum3$1@dont-email.me> <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.