131–140 of 471 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can just bribe the president.
Not sure if he has the power to, and if everyone else will let him, but some EOs opening up the copyright system would be very welcome. There are already some things he's done around this: https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/trump-admin...
The outcome of a fair use claim by one of the world's largest corporations to ingest wholesale an entire corpus and use it for commercial purposes is probably not the same as one by an individual person who wanted to watch a movie.
It's not the same use, and is much more likely to be found unfair.
I expect all LLMs to be illegal within a year if this is the sort of high caliber defense the top minds of meta can come up with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the Netherlands this is still the law. Downloading is fine, uploading is not. We used to have a sort of national library of every single media on Usenet back in the day.
11 years ago the EU made the Netherlands change their position: https://www.zdnet.com/article/downloading-pirate-material-fi... AFAIK this is still the case - the Netherlands is more poorly-enforced than other EU countries, but it's still illegal to download pirated material.
This has never been enforced though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sites indexed often don't explicitly allow it. I can see my website in the index of web search engines that I never opted in to. I'm not unhappy about it; but was never consulted.
Linking is different from copying, and fortunately the last case I remember allows it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticketmaster_Corp._v._Tickets.... .
Well, I guess it would be nice if we could have some precedent for the claim that downloading copyright protected information is not in itself a breach of copyright. It makes sense from the point of view that distribution is the act protected by copyright, not the mere act of copying . If that sounds odd to you then that's probably on purpose, There's been plenty of opportunity to rename copyright to authorrights or…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... "Attached to the core rights of free speech and free press are several peripheral rights that make these core rights more secure. The peripheral rights encompass not only freedom of association, including privacy in one's associations, but also, in the words of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), "the freedom of the entire university community", i.e., the ri…
It just fuels my personal theory that americans only reason in positive liberty (freedom to...) and never in negative liberty (freedom from...).
They have the money and legal team to push it to any conclusion, but that conclusion would risk so many huge industries in the Us that too many parties would be effected. That would incentivize companies to drop this case against meta and the status quo can continue.
I'm under absolutely zero illusion this will set some precedent for one way or the other. It's too valuable to too many people involved.
Like how do you know that (say) Netflix actually has the right to stream you every show that they do? And how do you know that some random ad supported website doesn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sites copied by Google Search explicitly allow it. The books copied by Meta, explicitly disallow it, and require payment for distribution.
Information wants to be free.