3 ms·

> If I make it available via the web, I can probably sell access to other scientists and engineers in my field. Out of curiosity. Does this statement come from

> If I make it available via the web, I can probably sell access to other scientists and engineers in my field. Out of curiosity. Does this statement come from complete ignorance of or complete disregard to copyright of the author?

throwaway11460 2y ago
If it's research it very probably is at least partially publicly funded. Regardless of whatever the law says, I don't think it's immoral to take it and offer better services around it that will be useful enough that someone decides to pay.
- hervature 2y ago
  Do you not see the hypocrisy in stating that someone should be able to take something partially publicly funded and profit from it while the creator of said work should not retain some rights over said profit? By extension of the transitive property of the nebulous "partially", the LLM wrapper should be provided for free with complete disregard to the wrapper's creator since it is a derivative of partially publicly funded work.
  - throwaway11460 2y ago
    Yeah, the LLM maybe - though nobody paid for the training costs in that case and that feels weird. If the public paid for a work, it should be able to use it and not be required to give away their own derivative work for free since they already paid for it through taxes. While I rather like the idea of having to provide access to derivates of publicly funded works, I fear that people would rather not use it than invest money into innovative approaches of using it. Of course if the public pays for the training and development costs, then by all means it should be available. And the library itself and the computing resources to operate it cost money that someone needs to pay. Publishers didn't pay for the research and yet they can profit from it - why this guy shouldn't?
  - jddj 2y ago
    Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier has a market capitalisation of £62B for essentially doing what GP is proposing.
  - p_l 2y ago
    The hoarders of IP in this case usually have done 0 work to produce it (Elsevier et al).
walterbell 2y ago
> complete ignorance of or complete disregard to copyright A question that could be appended to many LLM discussions!
- luqtas 2y ago
  but the LLM is no different than a human doing that & outputs COMPLETELY unique strings! - said the profiting robot parked at the gray zone law area waiting for lobyists turn it white
znpy 2y ago
OpenAI et similia seems to be doing just fine though
thomastjeffery 2y ago
I see you have encountered the first reality of "personal library". Of course, the idea of selling access to your private digital collection (or a derivative model) is relatively more absurd than the idea of monopolizing the original published work... Even so, this is as good a time as any to reconsider the practicality of copyright.

throwaway11460 2y ago

If it's research it very probably is at least partially publicly funded. Regardless of whatever the law says, I don't think it's immoral to take it and offer better services around it that will be useful enough that someone decides to pay.

hervature 2y ago
Do you not see the hypocrisy in stating that someone should be able to take something partially publicly funded and profit from it while the creator of said work should not retain some rights over said profit? By extension of the transitive property of the nebulous "partially", the LLM wrapper should be provided for free with complete disregard to the wrapper's creator since it is a derivative of partially publicly funded work.
- throwaway11460 2y ago
  Yeah, the LLM maybe - though nobody paid for the training costs in that case and that feels weird. If the public paid for a work, it should be able to use it and not be required to give away their own derivative work for free since they already paid for it through taxes. While I rather like the idea of having to provide access to derivates of publicly funded works, I fear that people would rather not use it than invest money into innovative approaches of using it. Of course if the public pays for the training and development costs, then by all means it should be available. And the library itself and the computing resources to operate it cost money that someone needs to pay. Publishers didn't pay for the research and yet they can profit from it - why this guy shouldn't?
- jddj 2y ago
  Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier has a market capitalisation of £62B for essentially doing what GP is proposing.
- p_l 2y ago
  The hoarders of IP in this case usually have done 0 work to produce it (Elsevier et al).

walterbell 2y ago

> complete ignorance of or complete disregard to copyright A question that could be appended to many LLM discussions!

luqtas 2y ago
but the LLM is no different than a human doing that & outputs COMPLETELY unique strings! - said the profiting robot parked at the gray zone law area waiting for lobyists turn it white

znpy 2y ago

OpenAI et similia seems to be doing just fine though

thomastjeffery 2y ago

I see you have encountered the first reality of "personal library". Of course, the idea of selling access to your private digital collection (or a derivative model) is relatively more absurd than the idea of monopolizing the original published work... Even so, this is as good a time as any to reconsider the practicality of copyright.