Re: The end of stackoverflow?

On 5/10/2024 10:27 AM, Don wrote:

Don Y wrote:

Don wrote:

It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to
host the site.
>
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people
absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.

>
Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site
(that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of
visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant
in time.
>
Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that
content to "educate a visitor"?  *Train* an AI??

 Both 'bots and litigation are separate topics.

Bots are the exact corollary to AI; what's the difference between
me, as a human, scraping your site (even if I don't do it mechanically)
and LEARNING from everything contained therein... vs. a bot scraping it
for an AI?

My comments pertain to rights retention. After you sign away your
rights, nothing's left to litigate.

When *your* site is scraped, where are your rights?  Can you
prove that my AI derived some/all of its knowledge from the
"copyright-protected content" on your site?

If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled
to rip you off when you sign away your rights.

So, as the site's owner, what protections do *you* have
regarding *your* content (regardless of its source)?
Once you publish, you're exposed.  I make a point of inserting
small bugs into any code that I publish as exemplars.  My thinking
is that anyone who is interested in the points being illustrated will
TRY to run the code, encounter an error AND THEN LOOK *INTO* THE CODE
in an attempt to UNDERSTAND it.  That last point being the exact
point of providing exemplars!  :>
(Anyone -- or anyTHING -- intent on just COPYING it will replicate the bug)