5 ms·

> They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. In a way, it's similar to how cable TV started. Early

> They've stolen it, they're put it into their little magic box and now they want to sell it back to you. In a way, it's similar to how cable TV started. Early cable relayed free terrestrial channels and charged a fee for it. The selling point was better picture quality in some areas. Cable operators did not pay broadcasters for the content they retransmitted. https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://www.britannica.com/technology/cable-television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute

b112 2y ago
They also didn't chop up the broadcasts, store them, rearrange and put together frames from different broadcasts, and then charge an additional fee for help videos, and rebroadcast them upon demand. It's not even remotely the same.
- growfeather 2y ago
  Sounds almost transformative when you put it that way. You’re saying they took the content, and turned it into something completely different than its source? Hm.
  - b112 2y ago
    No, I'm not saying that. I can read a book, like it, create a screenplay with changes, and make a movie. It's different, but not completely different, and it is infringement. I can even create an entirely new story, but using the same canon and characters, that too is infringement. What people don't get is that you can't play games. TV lawyers are drama, and made up gibberish. Judges won't tolerate mental gymnastics, and attempts to explain away legalities rarely succeed.
- zigzag312 2y ago
  Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. They did substitute advertising sometimes. But I'm not sure, if it happened without any rights and compensation at any point in history. Quick google search doesn't find any quality sources on the topic. But the parallel I was trying to draw is that they profited financially from other people's work without any compensation to the IP owners.
  - b112 2y ago
    Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. No. It never happened. Instead, legally mandated (in some jurisdictions, such as Canada), or negotiated deals allowed local cable TV providers to insert their own ads. This isn't "altering the broadcasts" without permission, which is 100% what we are discussing here. Instead, it's doing what is legally permitted. Broadcast law is quite complex, and includes not altering anything at all without permission. It's simply not remotely the same. You need to find another parallel here, I think. The logic behind cable television is rife with legislation, copyright law, a century of case law, and more. It is also co-mingled with broadcasting over the air, which is considered a public space, the airwaves being auctioned off (no, the internet isn't).
    - zigzag312 2y ago
      I said I don't know if altering was with or without permission. Just that altering did happen and you said it yourself that it happened with permission. I don't understand the point you're trying to make about the significance of altering. Are you suggesting that if OpenAI simply served the content without altering it and didn't pay IP holders or obtain permission in any way, that would somehow be acceptable? This is what cable TV did before laws prohibited it.
      - b112 2y ago
        You aren't altering the broadcast without permission, if you're inserting commercials into allows commercoal areas. As well, the TV show itself is not altered.

b112 2y ago

They also didn't chop up the broadcasts, store them, rearrange and put together frames from different broadcasts, and then charge an additional fee for help videos, and rebroadcast them upon demand. It's not even remotely the same.

growfeather 2y ago
Sounds almost transformative when you put it that way. You’re saying they took the content, and turned it into something completely different than its source? Hm.
- b112 2y ago
  No, I'm not saying that. I can read a book, like it, create a screenplay with changes, and make a movie. It's different, but not completely different, and it is infringement. I can even create an entirely new story, but using the same canon and characters, that too is infringement. What people don't get is that you can't play games. TV lawyers are drama, and made up gibberish. Judges won't tolerate mental gymnastics, and attempts to explain away legalities rarely succeed.
zigzag312 2y ago
Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. They did substitute advertising sometimes. But I'm not sure, if it happened without any rights and compensation at any point in history. Quick google search doesn't find any quality sources on the topic. But the parallel I was trying to draw is that they profited financially from other people's work without any compensation to the IP owners.
- b112 2y ago
  Altering of received broadcast signals did happen. No. It never happened. Instead, legally mandated (in some jurisdictions, such as Canada), or negotiated deals allowed local cable TV providers to insert their own ads. This isn't "altering the broadcasts" without permission, which is 100% what we are discussing here. Instead, it's doing what is legally permitted. Broadcast law is quite complex, and includes not altering anything at all without permission. It's simply not remotely the same. You need to find another parallel here, I think. The logic behind cable television is rife with legislation, copyright law, a century of case law, and more. It is also co-mingled with broadcasting over the air, which is considered a public space, the airwaves being auctioned off (no, the internet isn't).
  - zigzag312 2y ago
    I said I don't know if altering was with or without permission. Just that altering did happen and you said it yourself that it happened with permission. I don't understand the point you're trying to make about the significance of altering. Are you suggesting that if OpenAI simply served the content without altering it and didn't pay IP holders or obtain permission in any way, that would somehow be acceptable? This is what cable TV did before laws prohibited it.
    - b112 2y ago
      You aren't altering the broadcast without permission, if you're inserting commercials into allows commercoal areas. As well, the TV show itself is not altered.