In all likelihood, it wouldn’t be enforced against small fry, but it may be. The fact is that running something like that costs time and money. If what you get in return is legal threats and more demands, maybe you just don’t bother anymore.

What kind of future is there for flouting these laws? GDPR and Article 13 are rarely enforced against small fry, but they are. And all I see, even on lemmy, are demands for more laws and more enforcement. When somebody gets busted, it’s their own bloody fault for having ignored the law for years and being so recalcitrant.

Yes, that’s people. You see such laws being pushed throughout the world and even on lemmy people are full of support. They simply don’t understand the technical, social, or economic implications.

Damn shame. But it is what people want.

You can get a lot of things for free by lying. It’s called fraud.

Anyway, preventing rent-seeking on AI training just means that the copyright mafia can’t charge you money for what you do with your own property. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a copy for training doesn’t have to be legally obtained.

A few years ago, the EU expanded copyright so that “information service providers” have to get consent to use news articles in any way. So google has obtained licenses but the publishers want more money. Google says it’s not worth it. Given how notoriously delusional copyright owners are, I believe google.

Turning that on is probably a GDPR violation for those in Europe.

ETA: Don’t shoot the messenger. I won’t be suing.

That’s not how the law works.

If anyone wants it a little more precise. Lemmy.world claims Dutch and German jurisdiction. An English translation of one relevant German statute may be found here (§130, but also note §131): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368

I don’t think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It’s all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it’s not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.

.world is in the EU. The same laws that apply to inciting hate or violence against “The Jews” or “The Blacks” also apply to “The CEOs”. And the same laws that apply to Facebook also apply to lemmy.

Strange that the adults don’t want those benefits for themselves also.