Musicians: You are not allowed to use even the shortest sample without a contractInternet Archive: You are not allowed to lend digital versions of books you own.AI Techbros: LOL. We'll just sample and copy whatever we want to feed our "AI", including a...
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Stefan 'lerothas' D. last edited by
@lerothas And the New York Times is going to court against OpenAI etc. This will all take ages while the LLMs feast on input, regardless
-
Samuel Hautamäkireplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer My face when copyright doesn't apply to the rich capitalists
-
The OwlChemistreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer You got it twisted with Internet Archive. They were successful and above board while lending digital versions of books they owned.
They purposefully began lending more copies than they owned, and refused to stop when requested to. They really shot themselves in the foot by moving away from what protected them.
-
@owlchemist @jwildeboer yep finally someone in mastedon says it. Everyone was complaining about the dead of libraries. No one made a valid argument or justified the making of unlimited amount of copies.
-
@Chiquidrakula @jwildeboer even more, the mastodon mentality of hating AI for stealing copyrighted works and redistributing them without authorization is a stark contrast to “fuck copyright law! IA should be able to do what they want with creative works!”
I see almost no middle ground or consistency in the arguments.
-
@owlchemist @jwildeboer yep indeed. No middle ground. Swinging the pendulum in opposite direction rather than in measured swings.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Hugo last edited by
@Chiquidrakula @owlchemist I don’t have it wrong nor do I twist anything with my statement. The result of the case and the appeal is that the Internet Archive had to remove 500000 books from their digital library and the reason they had to was a decision based on copyright. That’s all I said.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@Chiquidrakula @owlchemist My statement isn’t about how smart (or not) Internet Archive was/is. It’s about the result of the case.
-
@owlchemist
It seems like you're saying they are being hypocritical, but I think the mentality is specifically that tech corporations steal *and sell* author's works with no repercussion, while a library whose intended purpose is to archive and offer access to that archive is being punished for effectively removing waiting lists for time-limited loans (when hundreds of other libraries were physically unable to offer access to their own copies.)
@Chiquidrakula @jwildeboer -
@bitcrush_io @Chiquidrakula @jwildeboer No, IA was perfectly legit when they functioned like a library, providing 1 digital copy per license (book owned). They ceased functioning like a library knowingly when they said to hell with it and opened the floodgates, against their partners wishes.
Unless you’re suggesting that people’s art should just be freely distributed against their will, which I don’t agree with.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to The OwlChemist last edited by
@owlchemist @bitcrush_io @Chiquidrakula The publishers always said that IA needs special ebook licenses for lending digital copies. They never agreed that CDL was legit.
-
bitcrush.ioreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@owlchemist
First I'd like to ask which partners you are referring to, maybe I'm missing some info there. But what I'm suggesting is that "freely distributed against their will" and "opened the floodgates" is an exaggeration that likens CDL to posting a torrent on The Pirate Bay.IA offers 1-hour access to web-only reading of books, and some titles they offer encrypted ebook versions that can be borrowed for up to two weeks before they no longer work.
I know that their thought process was "We're a library offering time-limited DRM borrowing, and a ton of other libraries' copies just got made physically inaccessible by lockdowns, so let's temporarily remove our waiting lists to help make up for all of the people losing access to their local libraries." You could say that's a flawed legal argument, but personally I don't think it's equivalent to IA "stealing copyrighted works and redistributing them without authorization."
-
@bitcrush_io @jwildeboer @Chiquidrakula and their Covid policy was actually fine. It was the post-COVID policy that shot them in the foot.
IA was providing, successfully, a very needed service with the CDL model. They went out of their way to disrupt this service by straying away from it.
By partners I was referring to the authors whose books they lend. Give me some good reasons why they shouldn’t be in control of the works they produce
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to The OwlChemist last edited by
@owlchemist The first good reason: because authors have mostly written away all of those rights by signing contracts with publishers. @bitcrush_io @Chiquidrakula
-
The OwlChemistreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer @bitcrush_io @Chiquidrakula so, if those rights have been transferred to the publishers, we should respect the publisher’s rights to the works, right?
The authors and publishers are both opposed to the NEL. Help me understand how you think NEL should continue without limits while not respecting the wishes of the people holding the rights to the content.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to The OwlChemist last edited by
@owlchemist So we have established that authors are mostly NOT in control as they (had to) transfer those powers to their publisher. This logically means that we are talking about respecting whatever the publishers *claim* to be in the interest of authors, without actually knowing what authors think. That, IMHO, is a good answer to your question "Give me some good reasons why they shouldn’t be in control of the works they produce" - is all. @bitcrush_io @Chiquidrakula