3 ms·
Copying 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 a
by ninkendo 2mo ago
Copying 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 2mo 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 2mo 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.
- pfdietz 2mo agoThe sociopathy here is describing a perfectly acceptable activity as somehow evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- ninkendo 2mo agoIndeed, won’t someone please think of the poor AI company CEO’s, we should be ashamed of ourselves for criticizing their perfectly acceptable destruction of our creative works. Thank god you’re here to swoop in and defend them at every turn.