4 ms·

> Even as a human, you are not allowed to go to all libraries and bookstores in the world, copy their work, and stockpile it for reading later. You are allowed

> Even as a human, you are not allowed to go to all libraries and bookstores in the world, copy their work, and stockpile it for reading later. You are allowed to do this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,...

jazzyjackson 1y ago
That's not a blanket ruling for any kind of copying-all-books, it's a decision that the product Google built out of it's book copying provided a service to the public and didn't threaten the livelihood of the copyright holders. Fair Use is case by case, there is not a ruling yet on whether producing a chatbot that can author competing works for free is Fair Use, personally I'm bearish considering the forth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- dooglius 1y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that if someone stockpiles for reading later (parent's scenario), without making the copies available to others at all, then that would be covered by the ruling since it's a subset of what Google did.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    You can't subset a fair use argument like that and necessarily get a valid defense out of it. Fair use is essentially arguing "I infringed copyright in one of the narrow ways expressly allowed for the public interest". If you remove the public interest, you probably fail the first pillar. If you were doing something else (e.g. acting as a public archive), you might not need a fair use defense because you'd fall under different rules.
tsimionescu 1y ago
That case is entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying for one simple reason: Google had obtained all of the physical books they were scanning legally. They had bought or borrowed at least one physical copy of every book they were scanning. What OpenAI and the others are doing, by contrast, is the equivalent of stealing every book in a book store, making a digital copy, retaining that copy, and returning the original book. This is completely and obviously illegal, and has been tested in court many times - for example in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial .

jazzyjackson 1y ago

That's not a blanket ruling for any kind of copying-all-books, it's a decision that the product Google built out of it's book copying provided a service to the public and didn't threaten the livelihood of the copyright holders. Fair Use is case by case, there is not a ruling yet on whether producing a chatbot that can author competing works for free is Fair Use, personally I'm bearish considering the forth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

dooglius 1y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that if someone stockpiles for reading later (parent's scenario), without making the copies available to others at all, then that would be covered by the ruling since it's a subset of what Google did.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  You can't subset a fair use argument like that and necessarily get a valid defense out of it. Fair use is essentially arguing "I infringed copyright in one of the narrow ways expressly allowed for the public interest". If you remove the public interest, you probably fail the first pillar. If you were doing something else (e.g. acting as a public archive), you might not need a fair use defense because you'd fall under different rules.

tsimionescu 1y ago

That case is entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying for one simple reason: Google had obtained all of the physical books they were scanning legally. They had bought or borrowed at least one physical copy of every book they were scanning. What OpenAI and the others are doing, by contrast, is the equivalent of stealing every book in a book store, making a digital copy, retaining that copy, and returning the original book. This is completely and obviously illegal, and has been tested in court many times - for example in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial .