• Leet@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    So if reddit wins, that means the content is theirs. So if the content is theirs, they are liable for any content that is illegal. Is that true?

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      yes to both regardless of this lawsuit

      The wiggle room for large businesses is that they remove content that violates local laws when notified of it

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. I am not aware of any law that makes you liable by holding or claiming the copyright to some content. EG you may have to pay damages for libel, but not because you have copyright to the libelous statement.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Doesn’t quite make sense.

        You’re telling me that someone can get popped for mistakenly visiting the dark side of the internet and having whatever-the-fuck horrible shit put on their machine, but owning the content and hosting it on your servers results in nothing?

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Not quite.

          Generally, sites aren’t liable for user generated content as long as they follow some rules. They need to take down illegal content and provide some way of reporting such content. In the US, that’s the whole DMCA takedown thing. The whole content ID thing, that YouTube does, might not be strictly necessary, but it was rolled out in response to a high-stakes lawsuit. The EU is, as always, more strict in these matters.

          People are not punished for things beyond their control (but mind that a fine is not the same as damages). If you are sent illegal content, that you have not requested, you shouldn’t expect formal punishment, though the investigation may be punishing in itself. If you simply don’t know how caching works, you’re probably in trouble.

          But this was about copyright. I don’t think you get punished anywhere for holding some copyright. Say some Japanese Manga artist travels to some European state where some of their works are illegal. They’re not going to get arrested for that. Anyone who brings such illegal works into the country will not be so lucky, regardless of copyright.

    • Almacca@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      The content’s theirs whether they win or not, isn’t it? It’s in the EULA when you sign up.

      Edit: Here’s the clause.

      You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:

      When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. For example, this license includes the right to use Your Content to train AI and machine learning models, as further described in our Public Content Policy. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

      • JonsJava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        non-exclusive

        That means we can license all our content to another company, and Reddit would be forced to allow them to fetch it, as we still own it, right?

        • Almacca@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It certainly reads that way. Gonna start a Reddit User Collective? Licence it to Anthropic at a discount to undercut Reddit? That could be pretty funny.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That would be legally possible, though, obviously, you would have to pay for your own servers.

            In practice, it wouldn’t be worth anyone’s time.

            • Almacca@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I don’t see why. Users own the content wherever it’s located. Reddit, of course, would be free to remove that content, but that would be cutting off their own nose to spite their face and is also acceptable.

              • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                You don’t see why you would need your own servers? Do you see why unauthorized access to a computer system might be illegal?

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Non-exclusive just means you’re free to give a copy of your content to whoever you want. It doesn’t mean Reddit is obligated to distribute it for you.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          No. Just because you own a copyright, doesn’t mean that you are entitled to free network services. If you owned the copyright to a movie, would you expect free tickets for any cinema showing it?

  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    222
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hope they lose this case badly.

    For the concerns I have about AI and stealing others work, I want to see Reddit burn for pretending that they are all about community and connection, while actively harming their users’ experience on the platform and attempting to profit off their content.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, something about a company making billions of dollars off completely user generated content and moderation just runs me the wrong way. As much as I hate Facebook, they at least pay people to do moderation there, and regularly update their site (as shitty as it is). I dont use either anymore, and I hope they die in a pit of flames owing billions to their shareholders.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        As much as I hate Facebook, they at least pay people to do moderation there, and regularly update their site

        Facebook pays content creators too (https://creators.facebook.com/earn-money ), including for things other than videos (like photo/image posts). Platforms like YouTube do too, but as far as I know, Reddit doesn’t.

      • ryannathans@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Shareholders of these companies are likely you or I, as they are so big they are significant parts of index funds purchased by retirement funds and the like

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Maybe, I still hope the go belly up. My 401k isn’t worth supporting companies that spread deliberate disinformation. (Looking at you facebook). Hell, when the stock market took a nosedive over tarrifs, I pulled my entire 401k and put it into foreign investments to try to further the crash. Literally the only thing these dipsticks understand is money, and if they’re losing it, thats when they pay attention.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          A lot of people don’t realise that around 40% of the value of the S&P 500, and the majority of the Nasdaq 100 (i.e. QQQM) is big tech companies.

          You could always build a portfolio that excludes companies you feel are unethical (for example, exclude oil and gas companies, exclude big tech, etc), but if you were to exclude all companies that have done something unethical then you’d probably end up with the S&P 0 (an empty list)

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Maybe our quality of life, livelihood, and retirements should not be bound to the success of for-profit corporations?

            This is the greatest grift of all time. Binding the average citizen’s, and governmental, wealth to the success of private corporations means that the economic success of those corporations, and the oligarchs who own them, become equal to “national security”; thus they are violently protected by the state, even when their actions and success are the antithesis of democracy.

            • dan@upvote.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I agree, but unfortunately it’s a reality of a capitalist society that large private companies have a lot of the wealth, and so people set themselves up for retirement by owning a very tiny part of those companies.

              • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Our retirement plans didn’t used to be tied to the stock market. So clearly there’s a way to have retirement plans that don’t tie the entire middle class to the success of every large corporation.

                • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Well, there’s the Defined Benefit pension, however typically these pension funds then become institutional investors who seek to own shares in… you guessed it - stocks.

                  At least those institutional investors are at least somewhat responsive to public pressure campaigns, as the state/local comptrollers are a politically appointed position.

                  When you give your money to a 401k, the fund manager gets all the voting rights on the corporate board and is generally only accountable to “A reasonable rate of return”

  • Raltoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Long story short: They are not combatting bots on their platform. They sold training data to google and these guys aren’t paying, that’s why they’re suing.

  • rosco385@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Reddit’s humanity is uniquely valuable in a world flattened by AI,“ Lee said. ”Now more than ever, people are seeking authentic human-to-human conversation. Reddit hosts nearly 20 years of rich, human discussion on virtually every topic imaginable. These conversations don’t happen anywhere else—and they’re central to training language models like Claude.”

    LMAO, reddit’s days of genuine conversations between humans is long gone.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is like one of those cases where I’m kind of hoping they both lose somehow. Neither party are right in this case, Reddit is trying to claim copyright over content they have no rights to, and anthropic shouldn’t be violating copyright without a licence.

    But apparently you are actually allowed to violate copyright without a licence if you’re an AI company because apparently llms are the future? So I guess Reddit are going to lose, which will be funny.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      Judge finds that anthropic has to pay restitution to the reddit users. Affirms that posts belong to users.

      Well, I can dream.

    • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      I am squarely on the reddit should lose this side.

      Anthropic may be breaking copyright, but not Reddit’s copyright. Sure maybe Anthropic should be sued, but not by Reddit.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Actually this case could be a good thing. The whole question of who owns user generated content needs hashing out, because no one seems to actually know.

        Obviously the logical answer would be that the people who created it own the content, but that’s never been officially decided.

        • Alaik@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          Because that’s the only common sense conclusion to make, but that doesnt make rich fucks more money

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Yeah maybe we shouldn’t have the case in the US where money rules everything.

            EU get on it.

        • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          The whole question of who owns user generated content needs hashing out, because no one seems to actually know.

          It’s billionaires. They know. They just sometimes squable over it like two year olds. But they know. They pay lawyers to make it clear in thousand page terms of service documents.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      You mean Reddit, the company that would be very happy if Anthropic did the exact same thing, but paid Reddit first?

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Violating copyright without a licence” is a lovely turn of phrase. You must be the valedictorian of the Lemmy School of Copyright.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    2 days ago

    In the filing, Reddit calls Anthropic a “late-blooming artificial intelligence (‘AI’) company that bills itself as the white knight of the AI industry,” alleging that “it is anything but.”

    “This case is about the two faces of Anthropic: the public face that attempts to ingratiate itself into the consumer’s consciousness with claims of righteousness and respect for boundaries and the law, and the private face that ignores any rules that interfere with its attempts to further line its pockets.”

    I mean, Reddit’s objection is that they want to sell the same data to Google to do the same training.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Obviously Reddit isn’t averse to bots scraping the site for data, just ones that aren’t paying them. I’m regretting not going through and systematically deleting all my posts and comments before deleting my account, but I thought that happened automatically.

    • Pika@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      it wouldnt have mattered anyway if you left during the time most people did. Reddit rolled back mass deleted data and manually deleted accounts during that duration so that comments remained without usernames.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      I deleted all my posts and my account and they restored them all and then permanently banned me. They can recover anything they want to.

      • hightrix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Basically nowhere on the internet does delete mean delete. Nearly everywhere it means archive or hide.

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Do you really believe they don’t have backups? Especially since it seems selling content for AI training was their plan for quite a while?

      Or that they didn’t make full backups a couple years ago before the protest, anticipating a lot of users would try to delete their comments?

      I think the only way to truly delete anything from reddit would be living in EU and enforcing a GDPR request, but even in that case, I believe it would be very difficult to check they actually comply.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think the only way to truly delete anything from reddit would be living in EU and enforcing a GDPR request, but even in that case, I believe it would be very difficult to check they actually comply.

        Wouldn’t work. GDPR is not copyright. Deleting the username is enough, unless you have doxed yourself in some post.

        Rather, it can be argued that GDPR requires restoring comments at least in some situations. Comments may be necessary context to understand replies or even other posts.

    • yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t regret not deleting all my comments. For me, It’s a mishmash of helpful/comedic/observational comments that I don’t care that they have sold off for use as training data.

      But, I just got shadowbanned, because of my VPN or something, so they aren’t getting any more!

  • Ledericas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    while half of reddit is infested with propaganda bots from russia.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Not just Russia.

      Israel, US, China, North Korea, India and other countries… Nuclear Lobby, Fossil Fuel Lobby and countless other industry lobbyists… Private companies advertising their products…