4 ms·

Sure, but that's not the only factor in my thought experiment. For example, "The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work th

Sure, but that's not the only factor in my thought experiment. For example, "The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair." Using a work in its entirety surely must factor in.

greglindahl 11y ago
You might want to read this next: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 TL;DR: "usage" by computer algorithm is quite different from showing a copyrighted work to a human.
- Gargoyle 11y ago
  Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll comment on what I find to be relevant in it in case it is of use to others. There is a part re Sega v Accolade that brings up the interesting sub-topic of "intermediate copying", which is legal, but then says it's legal because it's “the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program.” But wholesale scanning of entire works is not the only way to gain access to the ideas of books. It's also possible to purchase copies from the publishers. Perhaps a bit more relevant- "Accolade was not using Sega’s games for their protected expressive content, but simply to extract some unprotected, functional, nonexpressive information contained within them" I think that would be debatable in certain machine learning projects. Perhaps much of it would fall under that category, but a large part of the point would in fact be to extract the expressive information contained in them. What I'm trying to get at is related- Google (and other machine learning giants) is making an effort to extract the expressive content of these works. That's different from what we've seen in the past. To me, at least, it feel like it's worth asking if it's right that the people who produced that expressive content should not be compensated for it.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    It gets murkier by the fact that so much is out of print and never have been OCR'd even by the author or publisher. Copies just can't be bought for much of it. Also, increasing discoverability through being searchable feels like it should pass under fair use. Can't make it searchable without a digital index, and an index can't be made without scanning!
- mirimir 11y ago
  Hey, that's the NSA's argument that recording intercepts isn't "collection". It's not "collected" until a human sees it.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    Privacy is about the effects following from what's known about you. Copyright is about culture, incentivizing creativity through legal exclusivity on distribution to other humans. (at least on paper)
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Right. I don't agree with the NSA's position. Not that anyone cares. But it is the same human vs machine distinction. AI will mess that up, for sure.

greglindahl 11y ago

You might want to read this next: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 TL;DR: "usage" by computer algorithm is quite different from showing a copyrighted work to a human.

Gargoyle 11y ago
Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll comment on what I find to be relevant in it in case it is of use to others. There is a part re Sega v Accolade that brings up the interesting sub-topic of "intermediate copying", which is legal, but then says it's legal because it's “the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program.” But wholesale scanning of entire works is not the only way to gain access to the ideas of books. It's also possible to purchase copies from the publishers. Perhaps a bit more relevant- "Accolade was not using Sega’s games for their protected expressive content, but simply to extract some unprotected, functional, nonexpressive information contained within them" I think that would be debatable in certain machine learning projects. Perhaps much of it would fall under that category, but a large part of the point would in fact be to extract the expressive information contained in them. What I'm trying to get at is related- Google (and other machine learning giants) is making an effort to extract the expressive content of these works. That's different from what we've seen in the past. To me, at least, it feel like it's worth asking if it's right that the people who produced that expressive content should not be compensated for it.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  It gets murkier by the fact that so much is out of print and never have been OCR'd even by the author or publisher. Copies just can't be bought for much of it. Also, increasing discoverability through being searchable feels like it should pass under fair use. Can't make it searchable without a digital index, and an index can't be made without scanning!
mirimir 11y ago
Hey, that's the NSA's argument that recording intercepts isn't "collection". It's not "collected" until a human sees it.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  Privacy is about the effects following from what's known about you. Copyright is about culture, incentivizing creativity through legal exclusivity on distribution to other humans. (at least on paper)
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Right. I don't agree with the NSA's position. Not that anyone cares. But it is the same human vs machine distinction. AI will mess that up, for sure.