[ryandrake]

People need to have a better mental model of what it means to host a public web site, and what they are actually doing when they run the web server and point it at a directory of files. They're not just serving those files to customers. They're not just serving them to members. They're not just serving them to human beings. They're not even necessarily serving files to web browsers. They're serving files to every IP address (no matter what machine is attached to it) that is capable of opening a socket and sending GET. There's no such distinct thing as a scraper--and if your mental model tries to distinguish between a scraper and a human user, you're going to be disappointed.

As the web server operator, you can try to figure out if there's a human behind the IP, and you might be right or wrong. You can try to figure out if it's a web browser, or if it's someone typing in curl from a command line, or if it's a massively parallel automated system, and you might be right or wrong. You can try to guess what country the IP is in, and you might be right or wrong. But if you really want to actually limit access to the content, you shouldn't be publishing that content publicly.

[Retric]

> They're serving files to every IP address (no matter what machine is attached to it) that is capable of opening a socket and sending GET.

Legally in the US a “public” web server can have any set of usage restrictions it feels like even without a login screen. Private property doesn’t automatically give permission to do anything even if there happens to be a driveway from the public road into the middle of it.

The law cars about authorized access not the specific technical implementation of access. Which has caused serious legal trouble for many people when they make seemingly reasonable assumptions that say access to someURL/A12.jpg also gives them permission to someURL/A13.jpg etc.

[jMyles]

...but the matter of "what the law cares about" is not really the point of contention here - what matters here is what happens in the real world.

In the real world, these requests are being made, and servers are generating responses. So the way to change that is to change the logic of the servers.

[Retric]

> In the real world, these requests are being made, and servers are generating responses.

Except that’s not the end of the story.

If you’re running a scraper and risking serious legal consequences when you piss off someone running a server enough, then it suddenly matters a great deal independent of what was going on up to that point. Having already made these requests you’ve just lost control of the situation.

That’s the real world we’re all living in, you can hope the guy running a server is going to play ball but that’s simply not under your control. Which is the real reason large established companies care about robots.txt etc.

[jraph]

> There's no such distinct thing as a scraper--and if your mental model tries to distinguish between a scraper and a human user, you're going to be disappointed.

I disagree. If your mental model doesn't allow conceptualizing (abusive) scrapers, it is too simplicistic to be useful to understand and deal with reality.

But I'd like to re-state the frame / the concern: it's not about any bot or any scraper, it is about the despicable behavior of LLM providers and their awful scrappers.

I'm personally fine with bots accessing my web servers, there are many legitimate use cases for this.

> But if you really want to actually limit access to the content, you shouldn't be publishing that content publicly.

It is not about denying access to the content to some and allowing access to others.

It is about having to deal with abuses.

Is a world in which people stop sharing their work publicly because of these abuses desirable? Hell no.

[oytis]

Technically, you are not serving anything - it's just voltage levels going up and down with no meaning at all.

[tremon]

The CFAA wants to have a word. The fact that a server responds with a 200 OK has no bearing on the legality of your request, there's plenty of precedent by now.

[bigbuppo]

How about AI companies just act ethically and obey norms?