144
[Gamers Nexus] ASUS Says We're "Confused" (www.youtube.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/games@sh.itjust.works
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -21 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Remember I’m pullin’ for ya–we’re all in this together. ✊🏼

Thanks, and no disrespect meant, but I would believe that more if you did license your own comments as well.

In case you need the formatting for it, here it is...

[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)

Feel free to replace the link to point to whatever license you wish to use for your own content, if you do not want to use the same one that I am using.

Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I don't think the license does anything at all, but it is weird to me that you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID. How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so? If you had a unique phrase you could probably trigger the model into repeating it as evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    I don’t think the license does anything at all

    ProPublica would disagree with you.

    you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID

    The specific license number is explicitly stated.

    How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so?

    Already discussed in that other conversation post.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You are writing "anti-commercial AI," they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially. You have completely different motivations. One major difference between you and ProPublica is they must have interacted with some actual lawyers explaining how copyright works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You are writing “anti-commercial AI,” they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially.

    That's just a description of what the license actually does, non-commercial usage of my content.

    It's actually not even my description, it's one I got from someone else, who's also licensing their content with the same license.

    I have no problem with my content being used for non-commercial purposes.

    You have completely different motivations.

    No, I do not. My intent aligns with ProPublica.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Your license doesn't do what you say it does."

    "Haha, joke's on you, I don't want it to do what I say it does."

    Glad we figured that one out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •