• henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    64·
    6 months ago

    If you say the magic words, laws don’t apply.

    EDIT: I looked up two of these. Theft prevention act? It’s like they’re randomly cutting and pasting parts of laws and in their heads somehow it makes sense.

    I can also randomly pick words from legal documents to say anything I want. But then, every word in this post came from a legal document including the following:

    I now own your house and by having read this post you consent to a transfer of all your assets to me. No signature or confirmation required. No take backs.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      5·
      6 months ago

      “natural born” is part of the qualification to be President of the United States in the constitution.

      “Under God” is a clause that was officially added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s. The pledge of allegiance doesn’t really have much legal significance at all in the United States, even if it is recited daily in schools.

      “Natural born woman” sounds a lot like an Aretha Franklin hit.

      • mPony@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 months ago

        after reading about people who don’t understand law I can only say YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE less of a dumbass. (not you, mkwt, all you did was put Aretha in my head which is never a bad thing, also FREEEEeeeeeWAY OF LOVE)

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    38·
    6 months ago

    This makes me think of people that add a “copyright” notice at the end of every comment

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      18·
      6 months ago

      “I do not claim ownership of the song used in this video.”

      Good, because you’d be a lunatic if you did, JazzMasterZero, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are still using someone else’s art in your monetized and shittily-edited dog trick compilation video.

    • drislands@lemmy.world
      11·
      6 months ago

      Ugh the ones with the “anti-AI” “licensing”? I honestly don’t know how they expect that to accomplish anything, other than look like a pretentious idiot.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        5·
        6 months ago

        It’s either fair use to train, and the license does nothing, or it is not fair use to train, and the license is extraneous. I explained that to one of them and he said the license isn’t actually supposed to do the “anti-AI” he claims it does. Thus winning the discussion, I guess.

      • the_third@feddit.de
        3·
        6 months ago

        Any better idea how to prevent scraping or, at least, be able to fight it after the fact?

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          4·
          6 months ago

          For the US: you already have a copyright on everything you write. Adding CC-BY-NC grants others the right to republish it for non-commercial use, it does not remove any rights at all.

          • the_third@feddit.de
            11·
            6 months ago

            Yes, that is how that works, correct. CC-BY-NC specifically prevents commercial use and as far as I see that, that’s the point of those people that add that footer to their posts.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              3·
              6 months ago

              No, that’s not how it works. Commercial use is already prohibited by default. They are adding no new prohibitions. They are allowing use that is not allowed by default.

          • the_third@feddit.de
            41·
            6 months ago

            That’s like saying “If you don’t want corporations to steal your sourcecode, just don’t publish it.” That’s just not the right conclusion to come to.

            I think it should be absolutely possible to communicate with other people in the open while still maintaining some kind of control over your creation.

            • brianorca@lemmy.world
              7·
              6 months ago

              I agree it’s not great for public discourse, but you are subject to the whims of the third party’s TOS. You can still publish it, but have to make your own site or pick a third party that won’t sell you out.

              Or you just accept that the third party is going to do what it’s going to do. Post your discourse, but don’t expect it to be protected.

              • the_third@feddit.de
                11·
                6 months ago

                That’s not how copyright works. In my example: Publishing code on GitHub still means that code remains under whatever license I put on it, no matter how GitHub feels about that. They can not go ahead and sell my little helper library to Sony for use in their PlayStation OS update to make a buck. If I put it under GPL e.g., Sony would still have to stick to that.

                Same goes for posting on a public Lemmy instance. I publish content, I can limit it’s usage. The only thing the instance could do about that is remove my content if their usage of it is in conflict with whatever limitations I put on it.

                Should, in some form of future, courts rule that those LLM generating companies can’t just use everything they get their hands on as they please, the poison pill is in their models. That’s why that thing matters now. Could it be done more elegantly than a persistent footer? Certainly. Right now though? I don’t see it.

                • brianorca@lemmy.world
                  5·
                  6 months ago

                  I agree, that’s how it should work. GitHub as a third party probably had better TOS than most, and would face more uproar if they changed it. But they are not a social media site.

                  But for regular social media posting, Facebook, Twitter, etc, there is no fighting against their TOS other than abstinence. You can object in writing with one of those footers, but nobody in charge is going to read it or honor it. It will be shoveled into the AI along with everything else. Your only recourse will be an expensive legal fight, and it would be difficult to prove any particular post was in the AI or not. It’s unproven legal ground to say giving a post to an AI for training even qualifies as a “copy” under copyright, or what notification qualifies to exempt your content.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    21·
    6 months ago

    My favorite is the “without prejudice” part. That’s the part of the spell that let’s you banish a demon but don’t prevent it from showing back up later.

  • Tyfud@lemmy.world
    21·
    6 months ago

    Ah yes, let’s reference all of the laws, for which you don’t ascribe, to justify you not ascribing to those laws.

    • Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world
      20·
      6 months ago

      This is what gets me every time. They quote US laws, but at the same time claim they are not subject to any US laws. How do they decide what laws apply and what laws don’t?

      • norbert@kbin.social
        9·
        6 months ago

        How do they decide what laws apply and what laws don’t?

        The same way religions do, willy-nilly.

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
    191·
    6 months ago

    You know, I’m really rooting for these people. They are like Mario 64 speed runners looking for the new speed butt jump glitch. One of them might actually find something worthwhile.

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 months ago

      I agree - I’m just waiting for it to get upheld by the Supreme Court before I get my cardboard license plates too lol

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      This can be viewed as soft evidence that we’re not in a simulation. Speedrunners achieve their goals, and do not waste time on unnecessary dialogue.

  • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
    15·
    6 months ago

    What’s really interesting to me is how much time they invest in this stuff. It’s not exactly interesting. And there’s no tangible result for them, other than ending up in court. They do end up having to pay tax or whatever it is they’re trying to dodge.

    What do they get out of it?

    These sovcits obsessed with sticking to the DMV just seem like flat earthers - there’s no actual point to the obsession.

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      131·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, but in exchange for their $500 fine, they get the “moral victory”, they get to feel as persecuted as they want to be (read: “aren’t”), and they get a cool story to share with mayonnaise people on their divorced middle-aged white guy fascist gunnut forums. We all have our hobbies. Mine is Rubik’s Cubes.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 months ago

      Imagine how much fun they would be having with a wizard character in D&D instead of trying to cast spells through the court system.

  • wheeldawg@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    11·
    6 months ago

    I’m really curious about the “without prejudice” part. I’ve never heard that part of their “lore” before.

    Does it basically end up meaning “give me the rights of this paper/document, but I reserve the right to not meet my end of the bargain”? Because knowing them, this is exactly what it boils down to.

    How much blind faith does it take for these morons to have their whole hope seated in claiming that judges dismissing them bring called a “victory”? To my knowledge none of them has ever succeeded in any way in a court setting, so they have no real examples to point to besides a judge just not seeming it worth the struggle of dealing with them.

    Although at this point we should be seeking to take every one of these cases there are and summarily deciding to rule for their worst case scenario. Movement will likely die off when they spend the rest of their lives such in jail or under an impossible set of fees that they’ll never even make progress on, much less finish off.

    Clearly I jest, but if we could stop ducking these cases and start prosecuting them more harshly, this would naturally go away.

  • Heavybell@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    5 months ago

    I really want to know how they think a regular license plate means the vehicle is for hire.