3 ms·
I wouldn't characterise it as 'undercover cop...' but perhaps it might be fairer to say that until it's tested in court, no-one knows, so they (Amazon etc) are
by PlunderBunny 2mo ago
I wouldn't characterise it as 'undercover cop...' but perhaps it might be fairer to say that until it's tested in court, no-one knows, so they (Amazon etc) are taking the 'safe' path of destroying the books?
- littlecranky67 2mo agoWell, trying anything in court is definitely what they want to avoid. I mean, what is your suggestion here - should they buy the book, scan it, then sell or give it to someone else? That IS a copyright violation in itself, no need to try anything in court. Whether or not AI training or replication of the text through the model is a copyright violation, is a whole different but unrelated question.
- PlunderBunny 2mo agoI don’t think it’s a sure thing that training a model on a work is considered a duplication in the sense that ripping a CD might be for example - unless I’ve missed something, that’s what hasn’t been decided in court. I think they see destroying the book as the safest course of action for them.
- littlecranky67 2mo agoBut they do not delete the scan after training, they keep all the training data for future use and future training.
- PlunderBunny 2mo agoYes, and I imagine that’s why - in the minds of their lawyers - doing anything with the book (other than destroying it) is arguably less safe than destroying it