3 ms·
Copyright isn't thoughtcrime, if they aren't redistributing it to anyone with standing to sue (very likely not LinkedIn, no matter their ToS) they can process t
by revelation 9y ago
Copyright isn't thoughtcrime, if they aren't redistributing it to anyone with standing to sue (very likely not LinkedIn, no matter their ToS) they can process things all day.
- tyingq 9y agoI did not say or imply "thoughtcrime". Just noting it can be more complex. Sentiment analysis of copyrighted text passages might be claimed as being a derivitive work for example. Fair use does have limits. The standing to sue is an issue for user generated content, yes.
- cvsh 9y ago>Sentiment analysis of copyrighted text passages might be claimed as being a derivitive work for example. So if a company releases a product that predicts likelihood of an employee quitting, you think you're going to have standing to sue because an analysis of a copyrighted passage you wrote comprised 0.000001% of the source material the algorithm was trained on?
- tyingq 9y agoYou left out my last sentence, on purpose I suppose. The context was that scraping doesn't always get a free pass because "facts". This specific case may skirt it because of the user generated content. Doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning for the larger context that copyright isn't black and white.