Defend CC licensed work against AI scraping! Why aren’t CC license terms enough to prevent the kind of AI training we don’t want?

[CC-signals]

Some discussions have been asking to defend the terms of CC licenses for AI training. We understand the frustrations of creators. In short, you did not consent to having your content scraped for AI training just because you openly licensed it. Some creators who have CC licensed their works don’t want it used in AI training at all. Some simply want the terms of their chosen license to apply in the case of AI training.

Why can’t we enforce this? CC licenses are built atop copyright. This means that they are only enforceable insofar as copyright extends. Recent case law (US federal judge issues landmark ruling on AI copyright law - JURIST - News, etc.) shows that many uses of copyrighted material in AI training will continue to be permitted under copyright law. As long as this is the case, training on CC licensed material is also permitted under copyright law. We argue against the strengthening of copyright to solve this issue. For a more detailed explanation of why copyright is not the answer, see pages 20 and 21 of From Human Content to Machine Data: Introducing CC Signals [PDF].

For information about methods to opt out of AI training altogether, see the next FAQ.

[cadadr]

Why can’t we enforce this?

Capitalism. Not a lack of "signals" or whatever.

[cadadr]

From that weird ass report you link,

We’re working on a first iteration of a preference signals framework, which we’re provisionally
calling CC signals. CC signals are designed to offer a new way for stewards of large collections
of content to indicate their preferences as to how machines (and the humans controlling
them) should contribute back to the commons when they reuse and benefit from using the
content.

Please understand, at last, that "contribute back to the commons when they reuse and benefit from using the content" is not something anybody wants. They're not reusing anything, they're merely regurgitating and facilitating plagiarism, misinformation, and abuse.

I don't want anything back from them. I want them to go away. You are fundamentally misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the reaction and demand towards LLMs. From this weird "discussion" post of yours to that absurd report and this incomprehensible, futile "idea" of signals, it is null and void, ineffective and harmful. You will not have done anything but spend the name of Creative Commons for the benefit of LLM companies. Whether you do that willingly or unknowingly, you're harming the commons and the name of CC.

Cut this out. Cut this out.