alt Hacker News>Ah yes, blindly trusting the corpo fascists that stole the entire creative output of humanity to stop now.
Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner.
People aren't protected from copying in the same way. There are lots of valid exclusions, and building new non competing tools is a very common exclusion.
The big issue with the OpenAI case, is that they didn't pay for the books. Scanning them and using them for training is very much likely to be protected. Similar case with the old Nintendo bootloader.
The "Corpo Fascists" are buoyed by your support for the IP laws that have thus far supported them. If anything, to be less "Corpo Fascist" we would want more people to have more access to more data. Mankind collectively owns the creative output of Humanity, and should be able to use it to make derivative works.
Replies
> Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner.
You know a position is indefensible when you equivocation fallacy this hard.
> The "Corpo Fascists" are buoyed by your support for the IP laws
You know a position is indefensible when you strawman this hard.
> If anything, to be less "Corpo Fascist" we would want more people to have more access to more data. Mankind collectively owns the creative output of Humanity, and should be able to use it to make derivative works.
Sounds about right to me, but why you would state that when defending slop slingers is enough to give me whiplash.
> Scanning them and using them for training is very much likely to be protected.
Where can I find these totally legal, free, and open datasets all of these slop slingers are trained on?
> Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner.
Isn't this a little simplistic?
If the value of something lies in its scarcity, then making it widely available has robbed the owner of a scarcity value which cannot be retrieved.
A win for consumers, perhaps, but a loss for the owner nonetheless.