6 ms·
Remember: If OpenAI/Google does it for $$$, it's not illegal. If idealists do it for public access, full force of the law. Information wants to be free. Oblige
by tototrains 11mo ago
Remember: If OpenAI/Google does it for $$$, it's not illegal. If idealists do it for public access, full force of the law.
Information wants to be free. Oblige it. Fools with temporary power trying to extract from the work of others will be a blip in the history books if we make them.
- noir_lord 11mo agointernetarchive.ai It's a training set not an archive.
- charcircuit 11mo agoYou are being intentionally misleading. Public access AI models are not being taken down either. There is a big, transformative, difference with freely giving out books to read compared with using them to train an ML model.
- fsckboy 11mo ago> There is a big, transformative, difference with freely giving out books to read on a small, measured in human reading pace, scale compared with using them at a massive scale at internet and computer memory speeds to train an ML model even if the intellectual property used to train the ML was from unlicensed copies, and which the model regularly and with some frequency regurgitates verbatim. not wanting you to be intentially misleading, FTFY.
- Permit 11mo ago> some frequency This is a weasel word you've inserted to be intentionally misleading.
- wtfwhateven 11mo agoSaying "some frequency" instead of "often" doesn't mean their overall point is wrong. You know that, you're just being intentionally deceitful.
- wmf 11mo agoThere was also a lawsuit over Google Books.
- fooqux 11mo agoSure, which Google won. Which was basically the point of the person you replied to I think.
- Analemma_ 11mo ago“Won” in a purely symbolic sense with no practical significance. How do I access the Google Books library?
- Levitating 11mo agohttps://books.google.com/ https://books.google.com/
- wahern 11mo agoGoogle removed a ridiculous amount of material during the dispute with the Author's Guild. I know because a bunch of my legal history research citation links collected between 2007-2011 are long since dead, with the material completely gone, AFAICT, and either not discoverable or only available in excerpt. And this was stuff from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which definitely was out of copyright in the US, though some of it may have potentially been a headache in Europe regarding copyright-adjacent author rights that Google didn't want to deal with.
- throwuxiytayq 11mo agoAsk Gemini to write you a story
- harrall 11mo agoGoogle didn’t “win.” Google Books is currently a shell of its former self.
- raincole 11mo agoSince when OpenAI made a digital library? The 'goodwill' counterparts of ChatGPT, a.k.a. open weight models, are still well alive online.
- margalabargala 11mo ago> Since when OpenAI made a digital library? What do you think is step 1 of training an LLM? OpenAI just kept their library private and only distribute the digested summaries of the library, are the main differences.
- raincole 11mo agoYes...? Which is the whole point. That main difference is why IA was sued, not the fact they're idealists.
- conception 11mo agoSo it’s OK to make an illegal copy of all copyrighted works as long as you don’t put it on the Internet?
- margalabargala 11mo agoWhat OpenAI did is equally not legal under the same statutes that were used to sue IA.
- AlexAplin 11mo agoGoogle had a tailored fair use argument because they never made more than snippets public and searchable. It was also prior to Hachette that controlled lending with one-to-one digital copies for every physical copy was a status quo that publishers largely accepted, which IA deliberately tried to upset with the National "Emergency" Library. I think it's worth fighting back on copyright as a broken institution, and it should be part of the IA's mission, but you have to be responsible on your approach if you're also going to posture as an archival library with stability of information and access. I understand Kahle might lament losing some of the hacker ethos, but the IA is too important to run up against extremes like this without an existential threat.
- lateforwork 11mo ago> Information wants to be free. Those who create information may have families to feed, house and clothe. Until those items (food/housing/clothes) are also free, information cannot be free.
- alt187 11mo agoYou might be glad to learn a number of studies (mostly commissioked by the European Union) agree on the fact that piracy doesn't hurt sales. The main consensus is that people who illegally access content wouldn't have bought it otherwise, and that they still advertise it (thus, still driving up sales). These studies have then been systematically strong-armed into silence by the EU and constituent countries' anti-piracy organisms. This is probably because the war on piracy, too, is a billion-dollar industry. I'd be glad to blow it all up and give it all to the starving artists and their families.
- fngjdflmdflg 11mo agoWhy do companies attempt to prevent piracy if it doesn't hurt sales?
- wcarss 11mo agoThe opinions of their principals may not align with published findings, for many reasons.
- fragmede 11mo agoBecause those studies aren't actual proof, and companies selling things are biased to believe that people won't pay for shit if they don't have to. (Which they won't.)
- machomaster 11mo agoIt's hard to convince people of X, if their earnings depend on them not agreeing. Management and lawyers are paid to be busy and "defend rights", not on sitting still and saying that nothing should be done. Even if it true, they still need look busy and "earn their check", otherwise their numbers/salaries can be reduced.
- paulddraper 11mo agoNeither OpenAI or Google did what Internet Archive did. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
- fragmede 11mo agoGoogle Books scanned paper books in, and then made those scans available online, with some limitations.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- PeaceTed 11mo agoThe last few years have really put to test copyrights limits and uses. As someone that falls more in line with Copyleft ideals (do whatever you want with my stuff!), it is very funny. I just grab the popcorn and watch from the side lines, see where it all lands.
- nine_k 11mo agoI'm used to think that "copyleft" is "do whatever you want with my stuff, but you must agree that others must be able to do whatever you want with your stuff you made out of mine".
- wkat4242 11mo agoIt's not just that though. They pulled a stupid stunt during covid. If you're campaigning for fair use, don't give your enemy ammunition to shoot you with by stretching said fair use too far. That was just really dumb. Besides, for those willing to look outside official channels there's plenty of book library services available already. Just let them do what they do well and don't contaminate an above-board service with that.
- ranger_danger 11mo agoFor my friends... everything. For my enemies... the law.