The IAB proposal would nullify both fair use and the fact/expression dichotomy, which the Supreme Court has said are the "traditional contours of copyright" that ensure First Amendment values are preserved; it would trigger strict scrutiny, and fail.

www.mediapost.com/publication...

And, like a summer blockbuster, kinda long and not quite what you hoped

obviously some of those are sketchy, but plenty of others value disseminating information a lot higher than site traffic for site traffic's sake. Those types of sites feel underrepresented in most AI scraping debates

To the extent that is true, I don't understand why adding restrictive licensing terms to stuff not protected by IP rights addresses the problem?

This is basically matches Prusa's behavior over the last few years, which has consisted of trying to open a 'dialogue' about the viability of open source hardware as a business model & declining to answer simple clarifying questions from people like @thea.codes (& me) so we can have that dialogue

agree, although even if you have a great pipeline you still have the "there needs to be someone at the museum to push the deploy button" problem.

Or just someone who decides to play a harvest once, deploy everyone role for everyone else.

I think sort of, although I don't fully understand how many steps an institution would need to go through to format their data for the Moz thing and what sort of incentives there are to do so. Basically a "the problem is not describing the destination, but the road to get there" issue

that could change if there was some sort of standardization around open access infrastructure, but that hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to happen anytime soon.