They have to prove it but if they case gets far enough they will have the right to ask for discovery and they can see for themselves what was included. Thats why it might just settle quietly to avoid discovery.
Right but you can sue for what happened on the training server. I'm guessing the training server still exists. I doubt they wiped it completely before the next round of training. If the training server infringes copyright then you still lose the suit. Maybe. Remember that copyright law is not written with the internet in mind. If you have a "copy" and it's not authorized that might just be enough for a backwards court to find infringement.
I think of it in extremes. Imagine you had a video producing model of the future. Could you then load up every MLB game recorded and train the model to make novel baseball games based on that or would the MLB be pissed you had a server full of every MLB game ever recorded?
But the server used to calculate the model would have a copy of it. If training an AI model is not fair use then the mere act of loading a book you don't have a license for into the server would be copyright infringement. Like text book. It's a unauthorized digital copy. It's all very untested legal grounds and seems like lots of people want to be the first to test it. Not everyone has a great case but if the courts interpret things a certain way there's gonna be lots of payouts so maybe best to get in line early?
Google hits are probably the least valuable page view. They have killed far bigger subreddits for far dumber reasons. Like AMA. Is history a highly valuable advertising interest? I have no idea but I've never seen a history based advertisment.
I don't think Reddit cares. People talk about well run subs as good things but reddit admins don't really see mods as curators they see them as janitors. They don't like it when mods curate subreddits they want up votes to be the only thing that matters.
I doubt askhistorians really has the numbers (the numbers the imaginary advertiser or investor demands) to do anything to fight back.
they need engagement! Not removed posts and comments! Clickbait and especially ragebait are number makers not these posts with 90 % removed comments.
$500 million is their current revenue so that would be impressive if they could double it just by charging Google and Microsoft.
So doubt they could make that much. Also they already have decades of data they got for free. How much will a bit of new data really change their models?
It all comeback to the fact that Reddit is shamefully unprofitable and everyone needs an exit strategy. A top 10 website that can't even make a billion dollars in revenue? Lol good luck selling that.
All the numbers don't add up. He says only 3 % of users use apps but then also there is a significant cost to not serve that 3 % ads? They also only make pennies per user. They must count any hit from Google as a user or something wild to boost their numbers.
They have to prove it but if they case gets far enough they will have the right to ask for discovery and they can see for themselves what was included. Thats why it might just settle quietly to avoid discovery.
Right but you can sue for what happened on the training server. I'm guessing the training server still exists. I doubt they wiped it completely before the next round of training. If the training server infringes copyright then you still lose the suit. Maybe. Remember that copyright law is not written with the internet in mind. If you have a "copy" and it's not authorized that might just be enough for a backwards court to find infringement.
I think of it in extremes. Imagine you had a video producing model of the future. Could you then load up every MLB game recorded and train the model to make novel baseball games based on that or would the MLB be pissed you had a server full of every MLB game ever recorded?
But the server used to calculate the model would have a copy of it. If training an AI model is not fair use then the mere act of loading a book you don't have a license for into the server would be copyright infringement. Like text book. It's a unauthorized digital copy. It's all very untested legal grounds and seems like lots of people want to be the first to test it. Not everyone has a great case but if the courts interpret things a certain way there's gonna be lots of payouts so maybe best to get in line early?
Google hits are probably the least valuable page view. They have killed far bigger subreddits for far dumber reasons. Like AMA. Is history a highly valuable advertising interest? I have no idea but I've never seen a history based advertisment.
I don't think Reddit cares. People talk about well run subs as good things but reddit admins don't really see mods as curators they see them as janitors. They don't like it when mods curate subreddits they want up votes to be the only thing that matters.
I doubt askhistorians really has the numbers (the numbers the imaginary advertiser or investor demands) to do anything to fight back.
they need engagement! Not removed posts and comments! Clickbait and especially ragebait are number makers not these posts with 90 % removed comments.
Shout out to furries though. I learned how to block magazines day one thanks to them.
$500 million is their current revenue so that would be impressive if they could double it just by charging Google and Microsoft.
So doubt they could make that much. Also they already have decades of data they got for free. How much will a bit of new data really change their models?
It all comeback to the fact that Reddit is shamefully unprofitable and everyone needs an exit strategy. A top 10 website that can't even make a billion dollars in revenue? Lol good luck selling that.
All the numbers don't add up. He says only 3 % of users use apps but then also there is a significant cost to not serve that 3 % ads? They also only make pennies per user. They must count any hit from Google as a user or something wild to boost their numbers.