Skip Navigation
technology Technology @lemmy.world
L4sBot @lemmy.world
BOT

Class-Action Lawsuit Says Google Stole Everyone's Data to Train Its AI

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

19 comments

  • 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

          • Yup, but posting online =/= giving away all or any rights to said intellectual property. Sure I can go to the Louvre and take a photo of the Mona Lisa. I can even use that photo to practice painting, maybe I'll become the next Da Vinci.

            The owners have even posted photos of the most famous painting in the world online. Does that mean they allow me to advertise my beautiful reproduction as the Mona Lisa? Of course it doesn't. Because that is still their intellectual property.

            Same thing with other ip rights.

            Online piracy is also just copying, right? The right holders never lose their product?

            Well, remember when Metallica took on Napster? Or how many people have been sued by Hollywood for copying their work, and for how much?

            Or try posting a video to Youtube with Disney music overlaid. It gets flagged and taken down so fast, because that interfers with the mouse's ip rights.

            Hell, Disney's IP law departement are so on the ball that some US cops have used it as a strategy: they have played Disney music from their cellphones when they have been recorded violating citizens' rights, because they know that shit gets taken down so fast.

            If I publicize my little travel blog, I have an expectation that people will read it. I might even want them to. Maybe inspire them to go to the same place.

            But that is something completely different than letting one of the largests corporations in the world use it to build a commercial product with an enourmous potential. If someone uses my IP for monetary gains, the rules are (roughly) that they have to compensate me for that.

            This is already too long, but as I've been writing I have become more curious with your (or anyone else's) perspective on this. May I ask, what is your view on this? How far do you mean that companies can use online data?

            Can a company which sells pills against premature ejaculation use my photo in advertisements, just because it is available online? Or can they take pictures of you and create a deepfake which makes it looks like you are praising Hitler? Or can a travel writer take my photos and writing from my blog and publicise it and make a quazillion dollars while I just have to deal with it because I posted it online?

            Genuinely curious.

            • Online piracy is also just copying, right? The right holders never lose their product?

              True. Once the cost of duplication is removed, which is what their business model was based on, they had to find new ways to profit.

              If a band wants to be paid money for playing music, they should perhaps actually play music?

              My view is that if you post content on someone else's server and accept their terms for doing so, it is your problem if they then do something else with it. No one is forcing anyone to supply content, they are doing it for fake internet points.

              If a company uses my image to make me look bad, I'll sue them for defamation, but it's got nothing to do with copyright.

        • Agree, you could have a front lawn where there are those artsy leprechaun-things, does that give them the right to take it out of it??? Heck no. Good points you made.

      • A company is creating unauthorized derivative works of copyrighted materials for profit.

        I feel like most traditional situations that would fall under that description would be clear-cut copyright violations. Why does AI get a pass?

      • Yep, this smells like a cash grab. It's possible they are truly lost on the concept of the internet as well.

19 comments