4 ms·

My fear is that the law will be settled for large corporations in the stupidest manner possible. For example: I took an into to chemical engineering class, bou

My fear is that the law will be settled for large corporations in the stupidest manner possible. For example: I took an into to chemical engineering class, bought and read the textbook. Later in my career I taught that class as a graduate student. If I write blog entries about NPSH considerations when sizing pumps, it may seem to be similar to the text book I used oh so many years ago. If an AI uses my blogs for training does the book publisher have a case for infringement? If the AI training owners buy used text books, scan and digitize them, are they not allowed to train their AI on the data? I find all of this hew and cry about training data to just be large corps wanting yet another dip into someone else’s wallet. You published data. There was no license agreement in place, nor do I think you should have one if you also want to claim copyright protection. The fact that someone else may make a buck is just a fact of life and business.

belorn 3y ago
In the first example, I would ask what you as a teacher are contributing to your students beyond what exist in the textbook. If the answer is nothing, then what is the difference between a student taking your class compared to listening to a voice synthesizer? I generally suspect that teachers are selling themselves short if they think that their only contribution is to repeat what exist in the textbook. In the second example, how similar are they compared to the textbook? If they are just copied out sections then yes, it most likely is infringement (assuming they are eligible works to begin with). As with any dance around copyright eligibility and fair use exceptions, the devil is in the details. What I hope is that the law won't just create an other situation where only corporations with large departments of lawyers can do things, while any small fry will be shot down by copyright notices, DMCA, blocked accounts and accusation of hacking. For example, if google want to use any published data for training data, then I want to use published videos on youtube to use for the same purpose. If they don't need a license to use other peoples work, then no EULA, DRM, or user agreement should be able to prevent others to do the exact same thing. I suspect however that google only want data to travel in one direction and will do everything in their lawyers power to keep it that way.
- wombatpm 3y ago
  Yes 100%. You articulated my concerns exactly.

belorn 3y ago

In the first example, I would ask what you as a teacher are contributing to your students beyond what exist in the textbook. If the answer is nothing, then what is the difference between a student taking your class compared to listening to a voice synthesizer? I generally suspect that teachers are selling themselves short if they think that their only contribution is to repeat what exist in the textbook. In the second example, how similar are they compared to the textbook? If they are just copied out sections then yes, it most likely is infringement (assuming they are eligible works to begin with). As with any dance around copyright eligibility and fair use exceptions, the devil is in the details. What I hope is that the law won't just create an other situation where only corporations with large departments of lawyers can do things, while any small fry will be shot down by copyright notices, DMCA, blocked accounts and accusation of hacking. For example, if google want to use any published data for training data, then I want to use published videos on youtube to use for the same purpose. If they don't need a license to use other peoples work, then no EULA, DRM, or user agreement should be able to prevent others to do the exact same thing. I suspect however that google only want data to travel in one direction and will do everything in their lawyers power to keep it that way.

wombatpm 3y ago
Yes 100%. You articulated my concerns exactly.