zlacker

>>Jeanne+(OP)
Using robots.txt as a model for anything doesn't work. All a robots.txt is is a polite request to please follow the rules in it, there is no "legal" agreement to follow those rules, only a moral imperative.

Robots.txt has failed as a system, if it hadn't we wouldn't have captchas or Cloudflare.

In the age of AI we need to better understand where copyright applies to it, and potentially need reform of copyright to align legislation with what the public wants. We need test cases.

The thing I somewhat struggle with is that after 20-30 years of calls for shorter copyright terms, lesser restrictions on content you access publicly, and what you can do with it, we are now in the situation where the arguments are quickly leaning the other way. "We" now want stricter copyright law when it comes to AI, but at the same time shorter copyright duration...

In many ways an ai.txt would be worse than doing nothing as it's a meaningless veneer that would be ignored, but pointed to as the answer.

>>samwil+H5
With search engines and other crawlers, there wasn't easy ways to monetize "copyright theft" at scale. Google, which had the biggest share of eyeballs, was much more equitable in sharing revenue to content producers (who wanted to monetize). And Google was probably more just in taking action against copyright theft.

Individual high value IP was always much less accessible (not available as a webpage on the internet). Gen AI/LLMs with the internet scale data is too powerful and maybe easier to monetize.