Programmer creates 800,000 books algorithmically, starts selling them on Amazon

Post by moe » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 4:17 AM UTC

jrabone wrote: post #88

Aw, man. I used to hate this guy when I worked on the title authority team. The programmatic titles alone often caused the title matchers to infer that all the books were somehow related, and cluster them all together. Oh, the happy hours spent unpicking the resulting mess. The Wikipedia guy was the worst in terms of sheer pointlessness though. Personally I'd delete the lot of them. Hard to think that your job is wor…

Post by quux » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 4:33 AM UTC

lambda wrote: post #51

quux wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL either but that's an interesting question. I think machines must be able to generate IP though, otherwise the output of something like Pixar's render farms wouldn't be considered copyrightable, only the source models, animations, textures, shaders etc.

The output is considered to be a derivative work of the input, so the same copyright as the input applies. In the case of Pixar, the original models are definitely an original creative work, so the output is as well. If you are simply using public domain databases as the input, and passing them through an automated process with no creative input, then you probably won't be able to get (or more to the point, enforce)…

Post by dasil003 » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 5:24 AM UTC

derleth wrote: post #80

dasil003 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, but then they let it through: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/08/xscreensaver-for-ios-now-ava... I fail to see the point of your tangential vitriol.

> Hm, but then they let it through: Am I the only one that sees the idiocy here? That jwz had to fight with them at all is the entire point .

Post by ChuckMcM » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 7:00 AM UTC

jcr wrote: post #98

ChuckMcM wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how soon before the algorithm then uses the comments as part of the next revision of the book? Its an interesting way to demonstrate the value proposition. In this case algorithmically selecting stuff from around the web generates random books, but they have little value for the most part. Books that are researched and curated on the other hand have higher values. The only difference being the curation, not the ba…

I think using the word "value" is a bit too strong at this point, but maybe someday algorithms along these lines (and the ones I mentioned to you in email, article spinning) will be able to do more good than harm. The trouble is, at present, they are more harmful than beneficial. Machine generated, or guided, curation may eventually become a good thing, but as you know all too well, there are far too many uses of suc…

Post by derleth » Sat, Dec 15, 2012, 7:31 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #105

derleth wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hm, but then they let it through: Am I the only one that sees the idiocy here? That jwz had to fight with them at all is the entire point .

Of course but it's nothing more than bureaucratic red tape. This was simply the call that one junior reviewer made at one point based on a strict interpretation of the rules that had to be appealed. Obviously there will be some false negatives. The quality of the App Store is certainly better than Google Play.