So @internetarchive scanning books for their digital library is copyright infringement:
http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/
But OpenAI slurping all of that to train a model that then can generate text and put actual authors out of business (already happening with copywriters), is not.
Figures, there are no $billions of VC / corporate money behind Internet Archive, why would anyone want to support a public service, right? 🤦♀️
IA ≠ AI, know the difference!
#InternetArchive
http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/
But OpenAI slurping all of that to train a model that then can generate text and put actual authors out of business (already happening with copywriters), is not.
Figures, there are no $billions of VC / corporate money behind Internet Archive, why would anyone want to support a public service, right? 🤦♀️
IA ≠ AI, know the difference!
#InternetArchive
The Fight Continues
Today’s lower court decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive is a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve. This decision impacts libraries across the US who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online.chrisfreeland (Internet Archive Blogs)
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Bob Mottram :debian:
in reply to Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 • • •Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
in reply to Bob Mottram :debian: • • •But we have been told for decades that unlicensed remixes are copyright infringement just as well as straight up distributing unlicensed copies.
I think all of this is bullcrap, but at least here I can point to very clear example of hypocrisy.
Bob Mottram :debian:
in reply to Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦 • • •vagabond
in reply to Bob Mottram :debian: • • •Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
in reply to vagabond • • •And the hole AI thing is putting it in stark relief.
@bob @internetarchive