Google started indexing copyrighted data without consent in 1999, Yahoo in 1994. Absolute delusion to think that ChatGPT is the one that broke consent.
I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about getting more visibility to find more members.
Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering?
> I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about getting more visibility to find more members.
Here the logic seems to be: it's OK as long as they derive some kind of benefit from it to look past it.
This is the kind of hair-splitting that I was trying to avoid (because, at the end of the day, there is no functional difference, is md5 okay, maybe Markov chains, just a very simple one-layer perceptron?). Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trust.
However, obviously there's a lot of tension here: free speech. transformed works, copyright owners, profit making, etc., etc. That's why I don't think it's really that important to exactly figure out what consent was broken and when, but rather it's important to be forward-looking and plan for what might come next.
While I agree there's a parallel, do consider what that trust is with regards to putting up an HTTP server. It's kind of like handing out flyers you made yourself. The server is yours and you're handing out your content on your own. Someone is going around accepting such flyers and putting them in their pocket (HTTP cache, maybe a browser's, maybe an indexer's). Then somebody asks them where they might find a barber, and they remember one such flyer was about barbers and they show them the flyer or part of it.
What implicit trust was broken? This is HTTP, the online equivalent of handing out flyers.
Part of the problem here is that copyright is quite a broken concept. That's why it's got such big wiggle room as "fair use" and such.
Not a lawyer, but 1) consider that sharing flyers is the normal use of the thing, and it's precisely what the business wants, to have their marketing spread to whoever needs them. 2) Doubt there's a law that whatever permission you implicitly granted by personally handing your work is revoked as soon as they find a way to make money from it. 3) This is kind of Groupon's business model: to group coupons (which business flyers also typically are). It benefited the businesses and I don't think Groupon needed to pay the businesses for a copyright license to do them the favor of furthering their marketing. Rather Groupon got better deals from the businesses because Groupon had better reach. They had better reach because people that wanted coupons to save money could just buy the little booklet instead of driving around collecting one or two at different locations.
> permission you implicitly granted
There is nothing you implicitly grant anyone, except for ownership (which is explicit, because I gave the thing to you).
The pendulum has swung so high that it's going to break on the return.
They’re gone now, presumably to appease copyright holders.
Also, YouTube was built on people uploading copies of commercial video.