I have no idea what they think this will accomplish, to be honest. It has the legal value of posting on Facebook that you don’t allow them to use your photos.
I think the idea is that all parties would find it beneficial:
Leeds told Ars that the RSL standard doesn’t just benefit publishers, though. It also solves a problem for AI companies, which have complained in litigation over AI scraping that there is no effective way to license content across the web.
The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.
This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.
The thing is if all parties find the terms agreeable it doesn’t matter if it’s legally binding.
It’s more like putting a price on the shelf at the grocery store. Not every one will agree the price is agreeable and you might still get shoplifters but it doesn’t mean it’s a waste of time to list the price.
It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.
The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.
The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.
It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.
I have no idea what they think this will accomplish, to be honest. It has the legal value of posting on Facebook that you don’t allow them to use your photos.
I think the idea is that all parties would find it beneficial:
The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.
This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.
The thing is if all parties find the terms agreeable it doesn’t matter if it’s legally binding.
It’s more like putting a price on the shelf at the grocery store. Not every one will agree the price is agreeable and you might still get shoplifters but it doesn’t mean it’s a waste of time to list the price.
It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.
The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.
The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.
It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.