A 6-year-old, a best-selling author, and others accuse Google of stealing “everything ever shared on the internet" after Gizmodo noted a privacy policy change.
Break google, microsoft and meta
Degoogle immediately, friends.
Google does not own the internet, it does not own our creative works, it does not own our expressions of our personhood, pictures of our families and children, or anything else simply because we share it online
If it’s something personal don’t share it online?
Who would have thought
That posting stuff on the internet meant people could copy it?
Maybe don’t post your copyrighted work in public? Just a thought
That stuff exists online is not really a legitimate basis for copying it. Reading or other forms of consumption sure, but copying — no. The whole piracy debacle was centered around this.
Not posting stuff online isn’t really an alternative either. Such a big part of our lives are digital these days. All the way from what news we consume to stay up to date in our everyday lives, how we discuss current topics such as this one, how we can stay connected to our friends, how we met potential partners and heck even how we watch porn.
Or how big part of these examples do you think people read actual newspapers, discuss and debate current topics offline, how many old friends from high school do we keep in touch without using social media, how many dates do we go on off dating apps or how many watch porn dvds do we pop on when the need arises?
When I post something online, say a trip report on my personal travel blog, does that mean I consent to ie Google using my intellectual property for training their LLM? My answer is a resounding no.
I’m not at all versed in IP law, but I can’t fathom how using all available data online for development of a commercial product can be considered fair use of this data, or as really any other legal basis.
Reading or other forms of consumption sure, but copying — no.
Scraping for purposes of indexing a search engine actually requires copying, and presenting those search results actually requires re-distributing portions of the copyrighted work. Search engines have been using various forms of “artificial intelligence” for decades, and their models have survived countless legal challenges.
Training an LLM would be considered an act of consumption, not an act of copying. It is less infringing than indexing, in that the LLM is designed to not regurgitate copies of existing work, but rather to produce novel content.
When I post something online, say a trip report on my personal travel blog, does that mean I consent to ie Google using my intellectual property for training their LLM? My answer is a resounding no.
“Your answer” is wrong.
Google is a member of the public. Microsoft is a member of the public. Meta is a member of the public. Your pervy neighbor is a member of the public. I am a member of the public, as are all your social media friends. If you want to prohibit a member of the public from consuming your content, you cannot post it in a publicly-accessible forum.
When I post something online, say a trip report on my personal travel blog, does that mean I consent to ie Google using my intellectual property for training their LLM? My answer is a resounding no.
You posted it online. It’s the same as posting a picture outside your house, you can’t then demand that only some people look at it, or prevent anyone from taking a picture of your picture. If you want your travel blog to be personal, don’t post it in public
