Father, Hacker (Information Security Professional), Open Source Software Developer, Inventor, and 3D printing enthusiast
Yep! There’s really only ONE operating system that doesn’t do rsync over SSH. Can you guess which one? 😁
BTW: FolderSync does it on Android for free… https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=dk.tacit.android.foldersync.lite (only OK-ish GUI but it works).
I just use rsync over ssh via a cron job 🤷
It’s been working fine for over 20 years on all my various PCs.
You know they’re just buildings full of servers, right?
I mean, I’d rather have a data center than some toxic chemical factory or a busy warehouse in my neighborhood. Data centers just… sit there. They use a lot of power and some use a lot of water, but if your region doesn’t have power/water problems it’s not really much of an impact.
A nation’s supercomputing power used to be something people celebrated. Especially one owned and operated by a place like Los Alamos National Laboratory.
There’s no legal distinction between what a search engine scraper does and what an AI scraper does. They’re literally the same exact fucking thing.
Google scrapes a site and puts it in their database.
An AI company scrapes a site and puts it in their database.
You’re trying to make a distinction based on what happens after the data has been collected and completely ignoring the fact that search engine scrapers and AI scrapers are performing the same activity.
In fact it’s everyone’s right to scrape the Internet! Go, scrape it! Whether it’s Google or AI companies or Joe Schmoe. Scraping is legal and a perfectly normal activity. Just because some AI scrapers are fucking up has no bearing on whether or not the activity of scraping is bad/good.
We learned this lesson in the 90s: If you don’t want someone scraping your stuff don’t put it on the fucking Internet!
A VCR spits out copyrighted material because the user put it there (by inserting a cassette). Just like how an AI can spit out something that resembles copyrighted works when a user asks it to do so.
It’s not a perfect analogy but it fits. Especially from a legal perspective.
Many of the AI companies have been downloading content through means other than scraping, such as bittorrent, to access and compile copyrighted data that is not publicly scrape-able. That includes Meta, OpenAI, and Google.
Anthropic is the only company to have admitted publicly to doing this. They were sued and settled out of court. Google and OpenAI have had no such accusations as far as I’m aware. Furthermore, Google had the gigantic book scanning project where it was determined in court that the act of scanning as many fucking books as you want is perfectly legal (fair use). Read all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s summary judgment in October 2015, ruling Google’s “project provides a public service without violating intellectual property law.” The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied a petition to hear the case.
You say:
That is also false. Just because you don’t understand the legal distinction between scraping content to summarize in order to direct people to a site (there was already a lawsuit against Google that established this, as well as its boundaries), versus scraping content to generate a replacement that obviates the original content, doesn’t mean the law doesn’t understand it.
There is no such legal distinction. Scraping content is legal no matter WTF you plan to do with it. This has been settled in court many, many times. Here’s some court cases for you to learn the actual legality of scraping and storing of said scraped data:
To summarize all this: You are 100% wrong. I have cited my sources. I was there (“3000 years ago…”) when all this went down. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
You say:
And none of this matters, because AI companies aren’t just reading content, they’re taking it and using it for commercial purposes.
This is a common misconception of copyright law: Remember Napster? They were sued and argued in court that because users don’t profit from sharing songs with their friends, it is legal. The court rejected this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thomas-Rasset and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enterprises and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union_v._Texaco,_Inc. where the courts all ruled the same way.
You say:
Perhaps you are unaware, but (at least in the US) while it is legal for you to view a video on YouTube, if you download it for offline use that would constitute copyright infringement if the owner objects. The video being public does not grant anyone and everyone the right to use it however they wish. Ditto for something like making an mp3 of a song on Spotify using Audacity.
Downloading a Youtube video for offline use is legal… Depending on the purpose. This is one of those very, very nuanced areas of copyright law where fair use intersects with the DMCA and also intersects with the CFAA. The DMCA states, “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” Since Youtube videos have some technical measures to prevent copying (depending on the resolution and platform!), it is illegal to circumvent them. However, The Librarian of Congress can grant exceptions to this rule and has done so for many situations. For example, archiving (https://www.arl.org/news/librarian-of-congress-expands-dmca-exemption-for-text-and-data-mining/) which is just plain wacky, IMHO.
Regardless, if Youtube didn’t put an anti-circumvention mechanism into their videos it would be perfectly legal to download the videos. Just like it’s legal to record TV shows with a VCR. This was ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (already cited). There’s no reason why it wouldn’t still apply to Youtube videos. The fact that no one has been sued for doing this since then (that I could find) seems to indicate that this is a very settled thing.
You say:
no one is arguing that it is theft, they are arguing that it is copyright infringement, which is what all of us are also subject to under the DMCA. So we’re actually arguing that AI companies should be held to the same standard that we are.
No. Fuck no. A shittton of people are saying it’s “theft”. Have you been on the Internet recently? LOL! I see it every damned day and I’m sick of it. I repeat myself that, “it’s not theft, it’s copyright infringement” and I get downvoted for “being pedantic”. Like it’s not a very fucking important distinction!
…but also: What an AI model does isn’t copyright infringement (usually). You ask it to generate an image or some text and it just does what you ask it to do. The fact that it’s possible for it to infringe copyright shouldn’t matter because it’s just a tool like a Xerox machine/copier. It has already been ruled fair use for an AI company to train their models with copyrighted works (great summary of that here: https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/06/anthropic-and-meta-decisions-on-fair-use ). Despite these TWO court rulings, people are still saying that training AI models is both “theft” and somehow “illegal”. We’re already past that.
AI models are terrible copyright violators! Everything they generate—at best—can only ever be, “kinda sorta like” a copyrighted work. You can get closer and closer if you get clever with prompts and tell the model to generate say, 10000 images of the same thing. Then you can look at your prayers to the RNG gods and say, “Aha! Look! This image looks very very similar to Indiana Jones!”
You say:
Also, note that AI companies have argued in court (in the case brought by Steven King et al) that their use of copyrighted material shouldn’t fall under DMCA at all (i.e. arguing that it’s not about Fair Use), because their argument is that AI training is not the ‘intended use’ of the source material, so this is not eating into that commercial use. That argument leaves copyright infringement liability intact for the rest of us, while solely exempting them from liability. No thanks.
Luckily, them arguing they’re apart and separate from Fair Use also means that this can be rejected without affecting Fair Use! Double-win!
Where TF did you see this? I did some searching and I cannot see anything suggesting that the AI companies have rejected any kind of DMCA protection.
If you believe AI companies should NOT be allowed to train AI with copyrighted works you should stop using Internet search engines. Because the same rules that allow Google to train their search with everyone’s copyrighted websites are what allow the AI companies to train their models.
Every day, Google and others download huge swaths of the Internet directly into their servers and nobody bats an eye. An AI company does the same thing and now people say that’s copyright infringement.
What the fuck! I don’t get it. It’s the exact same thing. Why is an AI company doing that any different‽
It’d be one thing if people were bitching about just the output of AI models but they’re not. They’re bitching about the ingress step!
The day we ban ingress of copyrighted works into whatever TF people want is the day the Internet stops working.
My comment right here is copyrighted. So is yours! I didn’t ask your permission before my Lemmy client downloaded it. I don’t need to ask your permission to use your comment however TF I want until I distribute it. That’s how the law works. That’s how it’s always worked.
The DMCA also protects the sites that host Lemmy instances from copyright lawsuits. Because without that, they’d be guilty of distribution of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission every damned day.
People who hate AI are supporting an argument that the movie and music studios made in the 90s: That “downloading is theft.” It is not! In fact, because that is not theft, we’re all able to enjoy the Internet every day.
Ever since the Berne convention, literally everything is copyrighted. Everything.
Your VCR is hooked up to your TV (coaxial into the VCR and from the VCR into the TV). Just before the broadcast starts, you press the record button (which was often mechanically linked to the play button). When it’s done, you press stop. Then you rewind and can play it back later.
The end user is sort of passively recording it. The broadcast happens regardless of the user’s or the VCR’s presence.
This is how the software works:
You obviously never used a VCR to record a live broadcast before. When people were using a VCR to record things, that’s what they were doing 99% of the time. Nobody had two VCRs hooked up to each other to copy tapes. That was a super rare situation that you’d typically only find in professional studios.
Imagine you have a magic box that can generate any video you want. Some people ask it to generate fan fiction-like videos, some ask it to generate meme-like videos, and a whole lot of people ask it to generate porn.
Then there’s a few people that ask it to generate videos using trademarked and copyrighted stuff. It does what the user asks because there’s no way for it to know what is and isn’t copyrighted. What is and isn’t parody or protected fair use.
It’s just a magic box that generates videos… Whatever the human asks for.
This makes some people and companies very, very upset. They sue the maker of the magic box, saying it’s copying their works. They start PR campaigns, painting the magic box in a bad light. They might even use the magic box quite a lot themselves but it doesn’t matter. To them, the magic box is pure evil; indirectly preventing them from gaining more profit… Somehow. Just like Sony was sued for making a machine that let people copy whatever videos they wanted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.).
Before long, other companies make their own magic boxes and then, every day people get access to their own, personal magic boxes that no one can see the output from unless they share.
Why is this different from the Sony vs Universal situation? The AI magic box is actually worse at copying videos than a VCR.
When a person copies—and then distributes—a movie do we say the maker of the VCR/DVD burner/computer is at fault for allowing this to happen? No. It’s the person that distributed the copyrighted work.
Having a unique password per device is best practices. IoT vendors should be doing that regardless of whether or not they’re giving the end user root.
There’s supposed to be a regulation demanding an IoT “nutrition label” that has that very thing in its list of items. I wonder what happened to that?
Listen, if someone gets physical access to a device in your home that’s connected to your wifi all bets are off. Having a password to gain access via adb is irrelevant. The attack scenario you describe is absurd: If someone’s in a celebrity’s home they’re not going to go after the robot vacuum when the thermostat, tablets, computers, TV, router, access point, etc are right there.
If they’re physically in the home, they’ve already been compromised. The fact that the owner of a device can open it up and gain root is irrelevant.
Furthermore, since they have root they can add a password themselves! Something they can’t do with a lot of other things in their home that they supposedly “own” but don’t have that power (but I’m 100% certain have vulnerabilities).
If I broke into your home, why TF would I carefully take apart your robot vacuum in order to copy your wifi credentials‽
Also, WTF other “secrets” are you storing on your robot vacuum‽
This is not a realistic attack scenario.
NO! It’syour device, you should have root! The fact that the manufacturer gives their product owners root is a good thing, not bad!
I will die on this fucking hill.
Does anyone have the data on the total number of data centers that were being built over time? I’m not convinced that AI is causing that many more data centers to be built. From everything I’ve read, is just that they’re putting more GPUs into them.
WTF? Have you ever been in a data center? They don’t release anything. They just… Sit. And blink lights while server fans blow and cooling systems whir, pumping water throughout.
The cooling systems they use aren’t that different from any office building. They’re just bigger, beefier versions. They don’t use anything super special. The Pfas they’re talking about in this article are the same old shit that’s used in any industrial air conditioner.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a data center uses 10 times more cooling as an equivalently sized office building. I don’t know about you, but everywhere that I’ve seen data centers, there’s loads and loads of office buildings nearby. Far more than say 10 for every data center.
My point is this: If you’re going to be bitching about pfas and cooling systems, why focus on data centers (or AI, specifically) when there’s all these damned office buildings? Instead, why don’t we talk about work from home policies which would be an actual way to reduce pfas use.
This article… Ugh. It’s like bitching that electric car batteries can catch fire, pretending that regular cars don’t have a much, much higher likelihood of catching fire and there’s several orders of magnitude more of them.
Are Pfas a problem? Yes. Are data centers anywhere near the top 1000 targets for non-trivially reducing their use? No.
Aside: This is just like the articles bitching about data center water use… Data centers recycle their water! They have a great big intake when they’re done being built but then they’re done. They only need trivial amounts of water after that.
It’s ok: Google and all other ad-supported search is about to go the way of the dinosaur as soon as local AI search catches on. When your own PC runs a search for you, it basically googles on your behalf and you never see those ads.
It’s going to change everything.
LLMs are great at checking grammar in writing. That’s the other thing I’ve found they’re useful for 🤷
Basically, using LLMs to write something is always a bad idea (unless you’re responding to bullshit with more bullshit e.g. work emails 🤣). Using them to check writing is pretty useful though.
I hope the SCOTUS justices aren’t using 3-strikes-you’re-out ISPs! All it would take is three random DMCA takedown notices and they’d lose Internet.