5 ms·

You need to take down the data folder now and rebuild the repository. You're going to get hit with a DMCA notice. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN

You need to take down the data folder now and rebuild the repository. You're going to get hit with a DMCA notice. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN. Publishers of popular book series don't take these matters lightly.

marssaxman 9y ago
Why do the copyright mafia's work for them? Let them pay their lawyers first, THEN take the data down. Money is the only language these people understand, so let's force them to spend as much of it as we can.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > Why do the copyright mafia's work for them? Because it's the right thing to do in this case? If you define what you want to defend purely based on what a law you don't agree with can be used to do, as opposed to the merits of the actual instance, you're bound to pick a bunch of really bad battles.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  This guy is distributing entire books. You think that's ok?
  - marssaxman 9y ago
    Sure. What harm is it causing?
    - EpicEng 9y ago
      Really? You don't think theft is an appreciable and measurable societal harm? You honestly have no problem whatsoever with outright ripping off these works? I'd love to hear your defense of that position. It's not like we're talking about situations like cable where I have to pay $100 / month to watch one or maybe two shows I enjoy and have no other way to get access at a reasonable price (and even that is debatable). You can pick up a copy of GRRM's work for < $10 without hassle and contribute back to someone whose work gives you joy and the publishers who got that work into your hands.
      - marssaxman 9y ago
        It's not theft, it's copyright violation, and no, I don't think it's a societal harm. Nobody is being deprived of anything, because digital goods are non-rivalrous. The author of this project is riffing on an older creative work to make a new creative work, exactly as artists did for all the millenia of human civilization, until lawyers got involved in the 20th century and fucked it all up.
        EpicEng 9y ago
        You're right; theft is a legal term, and it's not technically theft, it's a copyright violation as you say. They rest is your opinion. If I intended on buying the book and instead downloaded it for free I am absolutely depriving the copyright holder of income. I'm far from a hard-liner on this but, in this instance, I believe it's wrong to download these books and read them. If you want the book go ahead and pay for it. As far as the project goes, the author should not be bundling the books with everything else (common sense and debatable moral issues.) I have no issue with him using the texts, it's the distribution that's a problem.
- afarrell 9y ago
  The first of those books was published less than 28 years ago and the author is continuing to actively build upon those ideas. A world in which authors of creative works don't have the ability to have a monopoly on those works for limited terms is a world in which people who focus full-time on writing those creative works cannot pay their grocery bills. It is also a world in which only banks, large corporations, and highly educated folks can get software written for their interests.
alexcnwy 9y ago
This brings up the interesting question of whether it's ok to publish the trained model and not the data? I'd imagine it's sufficiently derivative as to be allowed? What if you wrote a model that produced summaries of the book - would that be allowed?
- ebp234 9y ago
  I believe it would still be a derivative work. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
spapas82 9y ago
What would happen if many (ie 10000) people forked that repo? Github getting the DMCA notice?

marssaxman 9y ago

Why do the copyright mafia's work for them? Let them pay their lawyers first, THEN take the data down. Money is the only language these people understand, so let's force them to spend as much of it as we can.

kbenson 9y ago
> Why do the copyright mafia's work for them? Because it's the right thing to do in this case? If you define what you want to defend purely based on what a law you don't agree with can be used to do, as opposed to the merits of the actual instance, you're bound to pick a bunch of really bad battles.
EpicEng 9y ago
This guy is distributing entire books. You think that's ok?
- marssaxman 9y ago
  Sure. What harm is it causing?
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    Really? You don't think theft is an appreciable and measurable societal harm? You honestly have no problem whatsoever with outright ripping off these works? I'd love to hear your defense of that position. It's not like we're talking about situations like cable where I have to pay $100 / month to watch one or maybe two shows I enjoy and have no other way to get access at a reasonable price (and even that is debatable). You can pick up a copy of GRRM's work for < $10 without hassle and contribute back to someone whose work gives you joy and the publishers who got that work into your hands.
    - marssaxman 9y ago
      It's not theft, it's copyright violation, and no, I don't think it's a societal harm. Nobody is being deprived of anything, because digital goods are non-rivalrous. The author of this project is riffing on an older creative work to make a new creative work, exactly as artists did for all the millenia of human civilization, until lawyers got involved in the 20th century and fucked it all up.
      - EpicEng 9y ago
        You're right; theft is a legal term, and it's not technically theft, it's a copyright violation as you say. They rest is your opinion. If I intended on buying the book and instead downloaded it for free I am absolutely depriving the copyright holder of income. I'm far from a hard-liner on this but, in this instance, I believe it's wrong to download these books and read them. If you want the book go ahead and pay for it. As far as the project goes, the author should not be bundling the books with everything else (common sense and debatable moral issues.) I have no issue with him using the texts, it's the distribution that's a problem.
afarrell 9y ago
The first of those books was published less than 28 years ago and the author is continuing to actively build upon those ideas. A world in which authors of creative works don't have the ability to have a monopoly on those works for limited terms is a world in which people who focus full-time on writing those creative works cannot pay their grocery bills. It is also a world in which only banks, large corporations, and highly educated folks can get software written for their interests.

alexcnwy 9y ago

This brings up the interesting question of whether it's ok to publish the trained model and not the data? I'd imagine it's sufficiently derivative as to be allowed? What if you wrote a model that produced summaries of the book - would that be allowed?

ebp234 9y ago
I believe it would still be a derivative work. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

spapas82 9y ago

What would happen if many (ie 10000) people forked that repo? Github getting the DMCA notice?