[zeagle]

I mean why wouldn’t they? All their IP was scraped for at their own cost of hosting it for AI training. It further pulls away from their own business models as people ask the AI models the questions instead of reading primary sources. Plus it doesn’t seem likely they’ll ever be compensated for that loss given the economy is all in on AI. At least search engines would link back.

[szmarczak]

Those countermeasures don't really have an effect in terms of scraping. Anyone skilled can overcome any protection within a week or two. By officially blocking IA, IA can't archive those websites in a legal way, while all major AI companies use copyrighted content without permission.

[zeagle]

For sure. There are many billions and brilliant engineers propping up AI so they will win any cat and mouse game of blocking. It would be ideal if sites gave their data to IA and IA protected it exactly from what you say. But as someone that intentionally uses AI tools almost daily (mainly open evidence) IMO blame the abuser not the victim that it has come to this.

[szmarczak]

I'm not blaming the victim, but don't play the 'look what you made me do' game. Making content accessible to anyone (even behind a paywall) is a risk they need to take nevertheless. It's impossible to know upfront if the content is used for consumption or to create derived products (e.g. write an article in NYT style etc.). If this was a newspaper, this would be equivalent to scanning paper and then training AI. You can't prevent scanning, as the process is based on exactly the same phenomenon what makes your eyes see, iow information being sent and received. The game was lost before it even started.

[ninjagoo]

That is a good question. However, copyright exists (for a limited time) to allow for them to be compensated. AI doesn't change that. It feels like blocking AI-use is a ploy to extract additional revenue. If their content is regurgitated within copyright terms, yes, they should be compensated.

[fc417fc802]

The problem is that producing a mix of personalized content that doesn't appear (at least on its face) to violate copyright still completely destroys their business model. So either copyright law needs to be updated or their business model does.

Either way I'm fairly certain that blocking AI agent access isn't a viable long term solution.

[ninjagoo]

> Either way I'm fairly certain that blocking AI agent access isn't a viable long term solution.

Great point. If my personal AI assistant cannot find your product/website/content, it effectively may no longer exist! For me. Ain't nobody got the time to go searching that stuff up and sifting through the AI slop. The pendulum may even swing the other way and the publishers may need to start paying me (or whoever my gatekeeper is) for access to my space...

[zeagle]

That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered. Although the whole thing stinks of middlemen extracting all the profit between producers and consumers e.g. ag sector by the laws won’t catch up or even force integration. Thanks!

[ninjagoo]

There is definitely a middleman question.

The bigger question is business model vs value-add. Copyright law draws a very direct line from value-add to compensation - if you created something new (or even derivative), copyright attaches to allow for compensation, if people find it valuable.

Business models are a different animal: they can range from value-add services and products to rent-seeking to monopolies, extracting value from both producers and consumers.

While copyright law makes no mention of business models, I don't know whether that is a historical artifact since copyright is presumably older, or a philosophical exclusion because society owes no business model a right to exist. I would suggest the existence of monopoly-busting government agencies argues that societies do not owe business models a right of existence. Fair compensation for the advancement of arts and sciences is clearly a public good, though.

Tying it back to the AI-in-the-middle question, it's yet another platform in a series of these between producers and consumers, and doesn't override copyright. Regurgitating a copyright (article, art, whatever) should absolutely attract compensation; should summarizing content attract compensation? should it be considered any different from a friend (or executive assistant) describing the content? And if the producers' business model involves extracting value from a transaction on any basis other than adding value to the consumer, does society owe that business model any right to exist?