From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you’re going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they’re also charging money for the data and then giving third parties “rights” to that data."

    • Leraje@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah and I expect it from those companies. I guess I was naive enough to think Brave would be better than this.

      But then I didn’t know about Eich’s homophobia, antivaxx beliefs and basic awfulness either (as mentioned in the link u/Xaeris mentions.)

      • NightOwl@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess the crypto stuff along with the ads just made me not at all shocked by this. Not that I think it’s a bad browser, since I’ve had people I tried to explain addons too who found it too confusing so needed an out the box built in solution. But, Firefox continues to be my go to for years and years.

      • federal_explorer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Honestly I don’t care about his political beliefs, and Brave search is the only competitve independent search engine out there, it’s genuinely a joy to use. Until AI crawling gets banned they aren’t doing anything wrong.

        Brave continues to be the best mainstream private browser, backed by actions instead of empty words like Firefox.

        • Leraje@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t think there’s anything wrong with selling you the ‘rights’ to other people’s content?

          • federal_explorer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are being sold access to their AI model, not just content. OpenAI is doing the same thing, and until the court bans that, it’s legally ok, if you are asking morally, then that differs from person to person, and for companies any competitve edge is worth it.

            I personally stopped caring as its going to happen anyway, the only way to stop it is the courts to get involved, as any search engine won’t be competitve without AI assists.

            And even that isn’t clear, we don’t know if AI learning is fair use or not, they are many arguments on both side, with big names like the EFF siding with the fair use.

            • Leraje@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess I am asking morally. I expect this sort of thing from Bing and Google but it surprised me to see a company that is privacy focused basically trampling over someone elses IP to the point they feel they can offer rights to someone elses content and make money from it.

              Obviously, this was before I learned what sort of person Eich is. Now I’m not surprised. I guess we all have to decide if something goes against our own principles enough to use/not use something.

              • federal_explorer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s nothing privacy invasive. It’s a way to improve their search engine, these hit pieces against brave always get over amplified for no reason.