3 ms·
I agree it is wrong and should be illegal. That being said, I do find the argument that's it's no different than a human learning from and occasionally reconstr
by thatguy0900 3y ago
I agree it is wrong and should be illegal. That being said, I do find the argument that's it's no different than a human learning from and occasionally reconstructing copyrighted things compelling.
- bloppe 3y agoMost normal humans do not spend their time profitably selling their "occasionally reconstructing copyrighted things" at a rate a millions of users per second, which is a pretty important difference in practice.
- esafak 3y agoIs it legal to transcribe a book from memory for money? Does it matter how faithful the transcription is?
- JohnFen 3y ago> Is it legal to transcribe a book from memory for money? If it's an accurate transcription and you don't have permission, then it's not legal. It doesn't matter if it's for money or not (or if it's from memory or not). > Does it matter how faithful your transcription is? Yes, it matters. Copyright covers the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
- DelightOne 3y agoThat said, the law is not made with super-humans being able to reproduce (slightly transformative) as good as all they read (all worlds' knowledge) in mind. A clarifying law should be created.