▲ 190 ▼ Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books (www.bbc.com) submitted 1 year ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children) That "freely" there really does a lot of hard work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) It means what it means, "freely" pulls its own weight. I didn't say "readily" accessible. Torrents could be viewed as "readily" accessible but it couldn't be viewed as "freely" accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are "freely" accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neural systems. If payment for reading is expected then it isn't free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Womble@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children) It means what it means, "freely" pulls its own weight. I didn't say "readily" accessible. Torrents could be viewed as "readily" accessible but it couldn't be viewed as "freely" accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are "freely" accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neural systems. If payment for reading is expected then it isn't free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Womble@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft. permalink fedilink source parent