> my TOS doesn’t matter, but theirs does?

Wilhoit Conservatism: In-groups protected by contract law but not bound by it, alongside out-groups bound by contract law, but not protected by it.

The term "matters" is proportional to influence. Do you have a team of well financed attorneys?

Your TOS matters insofar as you can prove a person actually read and agreed to it. These are illegal in different ways:

1. Copyright violations (can put you in jail) 2. TOS violations (will be a fine at worst)

Companies do get away with drive-by legal shittiness way too often and frankly the practice needs to be reined in, but at the end of the day the only damages are the financial ones you can prove in court.

And what if the LLM ingested and “understood” it as part of its training?

Well, I guess that's a personal question but the law is pretty clear that only a human being can "understand" anything.

How convenient.

Incidentally, this suggests that once an LLM is capable of accessing and distilling a competitor's LLM without human intervention, then any legal argument about TOS violation is moot. But somehow I doubt that will fly in court.

The content of the site is subject to licence for making copies. So you’re saying licences don’t matter?

The GPL established this rather clearly. Copyright law doesn’t require consideration.

(The licence itself is a basic BSD licence, so it just requires attribution including in marketing materials, which obviously hasn’t happened.)

> you’re saying licences don’t matter?

Within this context, I don’t think so. I can’t make a website that buries some shrink wrap that requires everyone who reads it become vegan.

Yes - yours is just some optional text nobody reads or understands and is probably not legally required to adhere to. Theirs is a contract signed by their customer who they know did understand it.

Accessing the site may already mean that you agree to TOS. Also if you don’t see an explicit copyright terms on some text on the internet it doesn’t mean that it’s public domain. Same as checking a checkbox. Text being small and somewhere is not an excuse for a corporation to steal and sell other people’s work.

I know that text isn't public domain by default. I'm not talking about pirating IP. I'm talking about reading a website - which is a right that supersedes copyright - even using a computer that learns from it without storing a copy of it or distributing it.

No, you don't need to agree to TOS. I'm sure you never actually agree to them and you're not going to jail for it. If you believe that, I hope you never visited cnn.com, for example. Their Terms of Use is 11,000 words. Are you sure you have agreed to that when you clicked on some random news link? Are you sure you're happy to to surrender your legal defense and its expenses to them if they make a claim against you? You're OK that they have no liability for sharing your PII when they're not authorized to? You won't complain if you pay for a subscription and they don't give you access to the subscription content, don't refund your payment, and don't even tell you why?

Interesting. So what makes theirs not “optional text nobody reads or understands”?

> what makes theirs not “optional text nobody reads or understands”?

You accept it. You pay consideration for it. If your website has a TOS dickover, that requires someone attest with their legal name and pay you $1, yes, it may be enforceable under some circumstances.

I think you’re failing to understand copyright law.

Without a licence you can’t wget -r a website and make copies of the materials on it, alter them, and so forth.