3 ms·

>the ship has sailed Certainly, but debating the spirit behind copyright or even "how to regulate AI" (a vast topic, to put it mildly) is only one possible rou

>the ship has sailed Certainly, but debating the spirit behind copyright or even "how to regulate AI" (a vast topic, to put it mildly) is only one possible route these lawsuits could take. I suspect that ultimately the winner is going to be business first (of course in the name of innovation), and the law second, and ethics coming last -- if Google can scan 129 million books [1] and store them without even a slap on the wrist [2], OpenAI and anyone of that size can most surely continue to do what they're doing. This lawsuit and others like it are just the drama of 'due process'. [1] https://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand-up-and-be-counted.html https://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AD0TT/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AD0TT/

iudqnolq 3y ago
The court decided to focus on the tiny snippets Google displayed rather than the full text on their servers backing the search functionality. The court found significant that Google deliberately limited the snippet view so it couldn't be used as a replacement for purchasing the original book. The opinion is a relatively easy read, I highly recommend it if you're interested in the issue. It's also notable the court commented that the Google case was right on the edge of fair use. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13...
- achrono 3y ago
  I referred to the case to point out that Google practically got away with what was a gigantic violation of the spirit or principle here, in that Google gets to keep a copy of these millions of works for itself without ever having paid for them, regardless of what it made available to the public. As for "what would Google do with all these book copies anyway if they can't make it public?", that has now been answered more directly than ever.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    The case was, like any case, based on the specific facts.

iudqnolq 3y ago

The court decided to focus on the tiny snippets Google displayed rather than the full text on their servers backing the search functionality. The court found significant that Google deliberately limited the snippet view so it couldn't be used as a replacement for purchasing the original book. The opinion is a relatively easy read, I highly recommend it if you're interested in the issue. It's also notable the court commented that the Google case was right on the edge of fair use. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13...

achrono 3y ago
I referred to the case to point out that Google practically got away with what was a gigantic violation of the spirit or principle here, in that Google gets to keep a copy of these millions of works for itself without ever having paid for them, regardless of what it made available to the public. As for "what would Google do with all these book copies anyway if they can't make it public?", that has now been answered more directly than ever.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  The case was, like any case, based on the specific facts.