3 ms·
Yes, since we complained about them violating copyright so much, it does not violate copyright if they destroy the original, so they are now destroying the orig
by inigyou 3mo ago
Yes, since we complained about them violating copyright so much, it does not violate copyright if they destroy the original, so they are now destroying the original. We got our demands met.
- lookingdesk 3mo agoThat's not how copyright works, at all.
- inigyou 3mo agoYes, actually it is
- netsharc 3mo agoI'm going to buy a Taylor Swift CD, rip it as MP3s, destroy the CD, and put the MP3s online... Will I get sued?
- pfdietz 3mo agoThe "putting it online" part is where you are f-ing up.
- themaninthedark 3mo agoBut it's transformed now! Edit(seriously): >Transformativeness is a characteristic of such derivative works that makes them transcend, or place in a new light, the underlying works on which they are based. In computer- and Internet-related works, the transformative characteristic of the later work is often that it provides the public with a benefit not previously available to it, which would otherwise remain unavailable.(Wikipedia) I am sure Napster or the like argued that what they were doing was transformative. Not sure how AI companies are arguing about PUBLIC benefit if you have to pay...
- pfdietz 3mo agoIt has to be sufficiently transformed. Simply scanning it doesn't qualify. The legal system by contrast is leaning toward training of AI as being sufficiently transformative.
- pfdietz 3mo agoDestroying your copy of a copyrighted work does not violate copyright.
- inigyou 3mo agoFormat shifting is allowed. Making copies isn't. By destroying the original, it's format shifting.
- pfdietz 3mo agoRight. But destroying a book even without making a copy is also allowed. It's very very common, in fact; something approaching a billion books are destroyed each year in the US.
- madaxe_again 3mo agoIt absolutely is. By destroying the original they retain the one copy they were licensed. It explicitly discusses that this was judged fair use in a court of law, because of the destruction of the original, as this becomes a transformation of the original work rather than a duplication. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
- themaninthedark 3mo agoSo what are they doing about the online data they ingested?
- ninkendo 3mo agoCopying it. Because they clearly believe that they’re allowed to do so. For physical books, they believe they’re not allowed to, hence the destruction. It’s abhorrent, I agree… maybe if your world domination plan involves destroying rare books, you should change the plan rather than saying “well our hands our tied, the law says we have to”
- inigyou 3mo agoI mean they used to have a different plan, which involved not destroying the books, and then they got sued for not destroying the books, by us, so now they are destroying the books. What did you think would happen?
- ninkendo 3mo agoThey got sued for violating copyright in general, not for “not destroying books” in particular. Destroying the books was a legal trick they used to continue scanning them without breaking the law. If I were running the AI company and my lawyers came back with “teeeechnically we can still scan them if we burn them after”, I would reply with “I guess we’re not scanning them”, but I lack the sociopathic instincts required to be a tech CEO I guess.
- 3mo ago
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]