5 ms·

People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anth

by dmix 10mo ago

People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anthropic, just like Google's book project which got them in trouble.

wswope 10mo ago
> People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust. Worst of both worlds IMO.
- dmix 10mo ago
  Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world? Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
  - carlosjobim 10mo ago
    To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement. Which was a lot of money per book.
    - votepaunchy 10mo ago
      And a lot more expensive per book than buying, digitizing, and destroying the physical copy. Which was ruled legal.
  - wswope 10mo ago
    You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making. Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
    - carlosjobim 10mo ago
      They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?
asveikau 10mo ago
Wasn't the Google project scanning physical books and not distributing them externally? That seems like a very different thing than torrenting or even downloading stuff uploaded by a third party.

by dmix 10mo ago

wswope 10mo ago

> People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust. Worst of both worlds IMO.

dmix 10mo ago
Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world? Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
- carlosjobim 10mo ago
  To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement. Which was a lot of money per book.
  - votepaunchy 10mo ago
    And a lot more expensive per book than buying, digitizing, and destroying the physical copy. Which was ruled legal.
- wswope 10mo ago
  You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making. Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
  - carlosjobim 10mo ago
    They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?

asveikau 10mo ago

Wasn't the Google project scanning physical books and not distributing them externally? That seems like a very different thing than torrenting or even downloading stuff uploaded by a third party.