That’s literally not what the ruling is about. It was about an AI bro company using proprietary, copyrighted materials to train its AI, which they obtained by questionable means, after being denied license to do so by the IP owners. Further, after training the AI with unlicensed materials, they launched a competing product.
Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.
It’s a pretty definitive example of many AI companies being little more than leeches, stealing others’ work and repackaging it as their own. All with zero long-term consideration of “what do we do when there’s noone left to leech off of because we undermined the ability of those make the source data to make a living, while unnecessarily driving increased emissions and consumption of potable water for something that provides little actual value do humanity as a whole?”
Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.
they’re both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it’s free dissemination, is also wrong.
I am in agreement with you here, at least ideologically. I think that IP law needs a massive overhaul because data “wants” to be free. The major problem is with the context of the hyper-commercialized landscape that we currently live in.
It is stealing in the same way that profits are stolen labor. The AI company stole the labor of those who prepared the summaries without compensation then, used what they obtained to directly compete.
since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don’t see that as stealing.
That’s basically what the judge said as well. The AI firm tried to create a market alternative, aka they wanted to compete, and that was the main issue why this is not free use
I agree with you there. Context is what makes it theft and using the stolen data to attempt to directly compete with the source is where the actual harm occurs.
In a scenario where the source of the data is not being harmed, it’s hard to think of it as theft (data/information wants to be free).
That’s literally not what the ruling is about. It was about an AI bro company using proprietary, copyrighted materials to train its AI, which they obtained by questionable means, after being denied license to do so by the IP owners. Further, after training the AI with unlicensed materials, they launched a competing product.
Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.
It’s a pretty definitive example of many AI companies being little more than leeches, stealing others’ work and repackaging it as their own. All with zero long-term consideration of “what do we do when there’s noone left to leech off of because we undermined the ability of those make the source data to make a living, while unnecessarily driving increased emissions and consumption of potable water for something that provides little actual value do humanity as a whole?”
they’re both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it’s free dissemination, is also wrong.
I am in agreement with you here, at least ideologically. I think that IP law needs a massive overhaul because data “wants” to be free. The major problem is with the context of the hyper-commercialized landscape that we currently live in.
Reuters still has their analysis. nothing was stolen.
It is stealing in the same way that profits are stolen labor. The AI company stole the labor of those who prepared the summaries without compensation then, used what they obtained to directly compete.
since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don’t see that as stealing.
That’s basically what the judge said as well. The AI firm tried to create a market alternative, aka they wanted to compete, and that was the main issue why this is not free use
I agree with you there. Context is what makes it theft and using the stolen data to attempt to directly compete with the source is where the actual harm occurs.
In a scenario where the source of the data is not being harmed, it’s hard to think of it as theft (data/information wants to be free).
they might claim they’re harmed if the information is distributed for free. I don’t care. that’s not theft.
Yup. The context on this is directly profiting off of others’ work, not setting data free.