Finally, web browsers work for the user, not the website owners!

No, thanks. It is unethical for developers to restrict users -- yes, this includes AI trainers -- from studying the work freely.

Anecdotes don't mean much. For example, most people I know use it. It's just a very normal technology now.

For something more substantial than an anecdote, 92% of UK students use AI: https://studenttimes.org/news/uk-students-turn-to-ai-in-reco...

That's true, but IIRC Stop Killing Games goes a bit further and aims for things like the release of server code when the servers get shut down.

Not necessarily source code, but anything that would keep the game in a playable state after end of life. So any one of:

- a) patch to game the game playable in single-player mode locally

- b) binaries to self-host a server

would satisfy that requirement.

Note that the details of implementations of any law that would advance the cause are still to be discussed, which is the whole point of the petition.

More on what would be expected and some example use-cases are available in the FAQ of the Stop Killing Games official web-page: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

If you believe that destroying books is bad, your issue is with copyright law, not the AI companies. The AI companies are just following copyright law -- they are allowed to move data from one format to another (thereby destroying the original), but not copy it.

Not everything objectionable or unethical should or could necessarily be outlawed. "It's not illegal" is not really an argument or justification for anything.

I don't think CaptainFever's point is that it's acceptable because it's legal, but rather that copyright law is what prevents them from, say, donating the originals instead of throwing them away.

> If you believe that destroying books is bad, your issue is with copyright law, not the AI companies

No, my issue is with the companies that do this. The law doesn't enter into it. Just because a thing is legal doesn't mean it's OK.

Specifically his issue is with First Sale doctrine. If you own it you can destroy it and its none of anyone else's business.

I don't have an issue with the first sale doctrine. It's an important property right.

That doesn't mean I support everything that people have a right to do with their property.

I very much have a problem with both of these things.

However, if your JS is disabled (or if you're running LibreJS), you do get redirected to a CAPTCHA which only works sometimes.

I just use yt-dlp (YTDLnis on Android, which has a great UI that makes it quite YouTube-like). Downloading instead of streaming (read: downloading then automatically deleting) is so much better.

1. It's all offline play, so I can use my favorite players like VLC. Also, no buffering (after the initial download, of course).

2. I can do anything I want to the video: make edits, splice ads out, extract audio, generate subtitles or dubs, etc.

3. It saves Google server costs! Well, comparing to streaming the same video from them multiple times with adblock on, at least.

I do this so I can watch powerpoint style math videos with the colors inverted, so it's white text on black background instead of black text on white background.

Download the video and then open with `mpv --vf=negate --hwdec=no`.

Because I control my computer, and if I don't want to see ads, I have the right to automatically filter them out on my side. (Yes, yes, and Google has the right to block me from accessing their servers.)

I think what the GP meant was that it doesn't compete with that specific work it was trained on.

That is, if you want to read Harry Potter, you'd rather buy it (or get it from Anne) than try to wrangle it out of an LLM. Therefore, it doesn't compete with the original work. IANAL, though.

Keep in mind the 4 factors of Fair Use (US-specific):

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

For 1, maybe OpenAI could've been safe if they'd actually stayed "open", but nowadays every AI company clearly fails, as do many (but not all) of the LLM users. Contrast this with most traditional fanfiction and personal projects where there were scary letters and occasional bullying, but few actual law-based problems.

"Transformative" is also part of 1 and is often cited as letting LLMs get away with everything, but everybody argues that and doesn't always win. Also, it's quite linked with 4.

2 mostly isn't a problem but gets into nasty details.

For 3 (emphasis on "used"), this link once again proves that the point does fail.

For 4 we are indisputably seeing mass disruption in several fields, so that point fails.

To be clear - there are ways to use LLMs that balance much closer to the side of fair use, but that isn't how LLMs are advertised.

I feel like once you start talking about a specific copyrighted work this falls apart.

We have not seen mass disruption in books or news for example, which seem to be two big areas that are most aggressively pursuing copyright claims.

I think the best case on this front is probably from Getty where image generation models ARE directly competing with them.

Nitpick: Can a license restrict you? I thought it only gave you additional rights, should you choose to accept it, but can't take away rights you have (e.g. the ability to make parodies from it). The restriction comes from IP laws themselves.