3 ms·

What's the alternative? Do you feel that entities like The Financial Times should just willingly or be forced to give up all their data to the public?

cess11 2y ago
Sure. Just like it always was, like when libraries buy magazines and papers and archive them, giving the public access to their contents.
- sgt101 2y ago
  The difference is that mega-corps are ripping off content and reselling it. I hope that the FT can sustain itself for a long time using the money from this deal.
  - cess11 2y ago
    OK, so you think this is something new? There are no examples of mega-corporations "ripping off" and "reselling" from, say, the sixties?
0xedd 2y ago
[flagged]
- sgt101 2y ago
  Do you work for free? If so - if you are a volunteer and do not take state aid or use funds from your inheritance - then your position is defensible. If not, then I invite you to look at the huge attrition of journalism jobs in the UK and the USA. Local newsrooms have been destroyed by the web and national newsrooms have been gutted. Folks that create content should be allowed to monetize content - in exactly the same way that I am allowed to monetize the work I do.
  - pksebben 2y ago
    They are currently allowed to do so, and this attrition has happened without a proliferation of LLMs. This feels like an oranges-apples kinda argument. The thing that's destroying journalism is the current framework for monetizing and how utterly inadequate it is - that, and the lack of a robust middle class; the primary consumer of news. It's easy to point at tech and say that it's what changed so it's the problem - but just like dirt roads were better for horses, sometimes it's the existing structures that need to change. Our ownership model is lost in the modern era and badly needs revisiting.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
That was the intent of copyright, until it was extended from 14 years to beyond the heat death of the universe. Maybe we should go back to 14 years for use in AI models?

cess11 2y ago

Sure. Just like it always was, like when libraries buy magazines and papers and archive them, giving the public access to their contents.

sgt101 2y ago
The difference is that mega-corps are ripping off content and reselling it. I hope that the FT can sustain itself for a long time using the money from this deal.
- cess11 2y ago
  OK, so you think this is something new? There are no examples of mega-corporations "ripping off" and "reselling" from, say, the sixties?

0xedd 2y ago

[flagged]

sgt101 2y ago
Do you work for free? If so - if you are a volunteer and do not take state aid or use funds from your inheritance - then your position is defensible. If not, then I invite you to look at the huge attrition of journalism jobs in the UK and the USA. Local newsrooms have been destroyed by the web and national newsrooms have been gutted. Folks that create content should be allowed to monetize content - in exactly the same way that I am allowed to monetize the work I do.
- pksebben 2y ago
  They are currently allowed to do so, and this attrition has happened without a proliferation of LLMs. This feels like an oranges-apples kinda argument. The thing that's destroying journalism is the current framework for monetizing and how utterly inadequate it is - that, and the lack of a robust middle class; the primary consumer of news. It's easy to point at tech and say that it's what changed so it's the problem - but just like dirt roads were better for horses, sometimes it's the existing structures that need to change. Our ownership model is lost in the modern era and badly needs revisiting.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

That was the intent of copyright, until it was extended from 14 years to beyond the heat death of the universe. Maybe we should go back to 14 years for use in AI models?