Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • What happens when I put a Terms of Service on my website (esp. with a firm click-wrap) which says Meta agrees to not scrape my website--notwithstanding any prior agreement--and will owe me a billion dollars in damages if they do?
    by Terr_
  • When you sign trade deals with US, you're essentially enslaving yourselves to them. What Meta is asking is essentially that. The former is usually done covertly; the latter is done overtly. That's all. Nothing new here. Classic US way of doing business.

    If you're not OK with the terms, you think you can walk away, right? R i g h t?

    by penguin_booze
  • That's a bold move. I imagine a lot of businesses will leave Meta over this. And if their gamble pays off, and businesses can't afford not to advertise on Meta platforms, then there is probably a good antitrust case for them abusing their oligopoly power.
    by thayne
  • "Will consent", that's some interesting phrasing in the current post title.
    by phyzome
  • I do not want to be cynical, yet my reading is that they are most likely doing it already. This is to provide a legal cover to it.
    by sandeepkd
  • Doesn't them requiring a license from partners to train on their content undermine the more general argument that they don't need a license from copyright owners to train on copyrighted content -- which I assume most big AI firms would love to make?

    IANAL, but this looks like Meta lawyers trying to shield themselves against partners' suing them, but enough cases like this could help set a precedent that -- yes, you do in fact need a license.

    by nananana9
  • This is some next level legal judo. Say what you want about the metaverse or muse, but it's clear that Meta is still innovating when it comes to its Terms of Service.
    by Centigonal
  • I don’t really understand the legal theory here. Party A (Meta) writes a contract with Party B (a business account holder) ostensibly granting A the right to scrape B’s website and a license to the content.

    But why is there any presumption that B owns the content or has any right to grant this license? It’s extremely common for a publisher to license content from a third party under terms that may not allow this sort of sublicencing. What happens if the publisher can’t grant this license?

    by amluto

Explore Birbla archives