Holy Christ, this. This is what people are missing. All of these suits bring bright up against AI boil down to this and unless the law changes (not implying either way) these suits are dumb.
Me using your public works and deriving my own, machine helped or not, has never been protected.
The author in my opinion misrepresents the stance of the NY Times here.
It’s a false belief that reading something (whether by human or machine) somehow implicates copyright.
The Times issue isn’t just that someone or thing is reading materials. The Times takes issue with a group intentionally enmass collecting large amounts of their data (in their case articles) with the intention of distributing them packed into a product to 3rd parties engaging in commercial activities without paying a licensing fee. The Times fears that them doing this damages the potential market for future and past articles from them.
In essentially the Times fears that Common Crawl is acting a fence for other groups to infringe on their copyrighted works.
Factors of Fair Use:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I see what you mean, but I thought copyright is a protection against copying something (even with some modifications).
Techdirt traditionally has a very clear view on copyright and its restrictions, so I am familiar with their bias. Their argument here boils down to the difference between copying something and learning from something. If reading something and learning from it is copyright infringement, any educational institute should be very worried. Because that’s exactly what’s going on in there.
I do understand the difference between a student reading dozens/hundreds of NYT articles (for free in the library) and a computer program doing the same, but for orders of magnitude more articles. So I’m curious to see how this is going to turn out
The Times articles are not “packed into a product”, FFS. How is this so hard for people to grasp? The simple act of parsing data changes it. If digesting media is theft, then every single meme is piracy, and every person who’s ever been to a museum, watched a play, or a movie, or read a book, is guilty of “stealing” copyrighted material every single time they’ve done so.
This is genuinely mind-boggling how do many find this basic, crystal clear concept so fucking challenging to grasp.
Every time an ad pops up on wordle my first guess is “fucks” I doubt they’d ever look that closely at the entries, but it’s my way to protest. I remember the first time I had to use it, it only happened about once a month. Now there hasn’t been a day my puzzle attempted (because my piss poor third world California Internet) to start without an ad in at least 6 months.
It’s hurt my average, but fucks isn’t the worst worst to start with.
RIP… grateful for her hard work. I hope there’s a special place in the afterlife for people who expose the greed and pain that the powerful try to get away with
As Narendra Modi’s government clamps down on the free press
This isn’t new…
India’s press freedoms have been dog shit for a long time now.
And I can’t imagine Google not caving to demands from Modi to ban these YouTube channels, at least in India.
They want to keep that market locked down with cheap Android phones because that’s what most Indians can afford. Well, most Indians who can afford even those. I think like 33-50% of Indians dont have Internet access of any kind.
Fox doesn’t hire journalists. They hire actors and writers who hack together some lie they want to sell. First amendment applies to journalists, not whatever class of hack Fox hires.
Journalism
Hot