I DIDN’T Migrate my Minecraft Account - Here’s What Happened
youtu.be
What happens if you don't migrate your Minecraft account? The goal of this video is to document exactly what happens if you don't. Maybe I could get it back?...

I’ve just watched the video. I find it pretty outrageous. The word about it should spread.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    110·
    9 months ago

    in the case of ai generated media, companies just decided that they just had the rights to use existing published media, so they harvested it without consent or compensation

    Have you read the ToS of your favourite social media site lately?

    In any event, it might well be that companies (and you yourself) have the rights to use existing published media to train AIs. Copyright doesn’t cover the analysis of public data. I suspect that people wouldn’t like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

    • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
      101·
      9 months ago

      You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before? Also, are we exclusively talking about cases where sites gave consent to provide data? Rather than just having it be harvested without their knowledge or consent?

      And in any case, you’re missing the key point, which is that legality doesn’t matter in either case. You can’t fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don’t.

      I suspect that people wouldn’t like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

      Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

      Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.

      • otpEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before?

        Being more specific is not the same as changing something from illegal to legal.

          • otpEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance.

            LLMs were a big paradigm shift. They’re not necessarily something that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

            • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
              11·
              9 months ago

              CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance

              why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you’re arguing they were already covering themselves against?

              that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

              or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here

              you can’t meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        11·
        9 months ago

        You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies?

        The ToSes would generally have a blanket permission in them to license the data to third-party companies and whatnot. I went back through historical Reddit ToS versions a little while back and that was in there from the start.

        Also in there was a clause allowing them to update their ToS, so even if the blanket permission wasn’t there then it is now and you agreed to that too.

        Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

        It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued. There are some legal cases before the courts that will clarify this in various jurisdictions but I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data.

        • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
          2·
          9 months ago

          you agreed to that too

          you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?

          hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

          It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued

          people continuing to use a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one

          I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data

          tell me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            11·
            9 months ago

            you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?

            And you know that doesn’t necessarily imply the reverse? Granting a site a license to use the stuff you post there is a pretty basic and reasonable thing to agree to in exchange for them letting you post stuff there in the first place.

            hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

            As others have been pointing out to you in this thread, that also is not a sign that the previous ToS didn’t cover this. They’re just being clearer about what they can do.

            Go ahead and refrain from using their services if you don’t agree to the terms under which they’re offering those services. Nobody’s forcing you.

            • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
              1·
              9 months ago

              companies don’t update legal documents for fun

              you’re also continuing to pointedly ignore what this conversation is actually about, so i’m guessing you don’t really have anything relevant to say in response