Rendered at 23:31:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
simplisticated 1 days ago [-]
In other words, they require the company to name scapegoats who will be fired for the decisions made by top management.
Terr_ 24 hours ago [-]
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I'd rather see that than a defeatist: "Oh my, a corporation did something bad, whelllp I guess that's the end of the story! Nothing to be done here, artificial persons will be artificial persons, those cheeky scamps."
tourmalinetaco 22 hours ago [-]
I’ll be honest, most piracy is only legally bad and not morally bad. I’d also prefer AI companies pirate already scanned content than destroy potentially rare books and hoard the scans, which fails to benefit the wider intellectual community.
In a world where 95 years of copyright is the minimum, and works like Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone likely won’t enter the public domain until approximately 2120AD, I fail to see a moral argument be made for any book published pre-2011.
As it stands, we are caught between allowing AI companies unfettered access to copyrighted material or allowing the corpus of human creativity to be squandered by rights holders. It is an unfortunate position to be in, but I would far prefer a copyright minimalist world than what we currently suffer through, even if that means AI companies are vacuuming up the intellectual works of humanity.
Starman_Jones 7 hours ago [-]
Malum prohibitum vs malum in se - that which is wrong because it is forbidden, as opposed to that which is wrong in and of itself.
simplisticated 10 hours ago [-]
And what would you say about piracy if you were the author of "Harry Potter"? Please think twice before replying.
TheCoelacanth 3 hours ago [-]
Probably too busy sending anti-trans tweets from her private jet to say anything about piracy.
tourmalinetaco 4 hours ago [-]
If all else is the same except I wrote a famous novel equivalent to Harry Potter, or if I was in fact J. K. Rowling? If I was Rowling, then obviously I would have the same opinions as Rowling does, making the thought experiment uninteresting.
However, it’s also uninteresting from the alternative perspective: if I made a famous novel series. In which case, I still believe what I currently believe, except now I am very rich, so thank you. I could—and would—submit the works into the public domain 20 years after their release and then live comfortably for the rest of my life.
Let me inform you of something: from 1997 to 2007, the HP series sold approximately 350 million copies. Between 2007 to 2018 it sold approximately 150 million additional copies. That rate will continue to go down, and Rowling would still profit off of the books because of what they’re already doing: expensive limited edition official releases, which makes superfans and other collectors go crazy and have high profit margins. Even if Rowling gave up the copyright in 2017 for the first book, she has the other books which would be in their own 20yr copyright term, and the trademarks which would be uniquely hers and desirable by consumers.
I would be very well off and nothing would really change, except now people can sell their own sequels/rewrites and make money too. Isn’t more artists having a chance to make a living a good thing? Or only specific artists? If someone rewrote the series but if Malfoy was a girl and in love with Harry (à la the recent Malfoid memes) shouldn’t they be rewarded for their work if the market deems it high quality?
tty456 1 days ago [-]
Let's see how the evidence plays out. If there's internal comms with approvals and knowingly committing crimes then people should be brought to justice.
darth_avocado 1 days ago [-]
Fired or prosecuted? Because on can come with cushy severance while the other can come with a 20 year prison sentence.
1 days ago [-]
pacman1337 1 days ago [-]
more help find people so they can start pointing fingers at each other
sharts 23 hours ago [-]
There is no I in team. The entire org should should have their pay docked because that’s how teamwork works.
asanineassasin 18 hours ago [-]
I do not want to know how it happens but make it happen..
1 days ago [-]
rasz 15 hours ago [-]
Next up "Judge Orders Meta to Name Employees Who Approved continuous recording by Meta Glasses"
verdverm 1 days ago [-]
The people deserve transparency, unlike how Meta escaped their dirty laundry being aired in the teen harm settlement. I'm disappointed in our politicians for choosing to settle so easily, like they were bought off by a billionaire.
If we wish for this behavior to end, we should see naming and shaming as a good thing, a step in the right direction. Real, commensurate consequences need to happen for these people as well.
Joakal 1 days ago [-]
The city don't care who was speeding through a speed camera when they fine the registered owner of the car, me, many months later. The picture evidence doesn't show who, just the car and licence plate. I have to investigate and prove it was someone else or pay the fine.
But it's apparently controversial to not just fine the company and then let the company investigate themselves.
solyin 1 days ago [-]
Yes, unless your car was stolen, you decided to let someone you trust to drive your car so you gotta pay the fine. I also pay for the toilet paper my house guests use. Hopefully they don't use too much.
lesuorac 22 hours ago [-]
Usually you have to find the perpetrator so you can summon them.
And in the cases where you can't figure it out you then summon people you suspect know to testify and use that information to figure out the perpetrator.
Like if you think somebody placed insider trades in the stock market you don't fine the NYSE $1 Billion and let them figure out who to fine.
verdverm 22 hours ago [-]
There is a possibility red light camera will be invalidated for exactly this reason. When a cop pulls you over, they validate the driver at that moment. When the cameras are used, drivers have to prove their innocence, a shift in the burden of proof.
A florida judge ruled them unconstitutional, tbd if/when this goes to SCOTUS and what happens there...
In a world where 95 years of copyright is the minimum, and works like Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone likely won’t enter the public domain until approximately 2120AD, I fail to see a moral argument be made for any book published pre-2011.
As it stands, we are caught between allowing AI companies unfettered access to copyrighted material or allowing the corpus of human creativity to be squandered by rights holders. It is an unfortunate position to be in, but I would far prefer a copyright minimalist world than what we currently suffer through, even if that means AI companies are vacuuming up the intellectual works of humanity.
However, it’s also uninteresting from the alternative perspective: if I made a famous novel series. In which case, I still believe what I currently believe, except now I am very rich, so thank you. I could—and would—submit the works into the public domain 20 years after their release and then live comfortably for the rest of my life.
Let me inform you of something: from 1997 to 2007, the HP series sold approximately 350 million copies. Between 2007 to 2018 it sold approximately 150 million additional copies. That rate will continue to go down, and Rowling would still profit off of the books because of what they’re already doing: expensive limited edition official releases, which makes superfans and other collectors go crazy and have high profit margins. Even if Rowling gave up the copyright in 2017 for the first book, she has the other books which would be in their own 20yr copyright term, and the trademarks which would be uniquely hers and desirable by consumers.
I would be very well off and nothing would really change, except now people can sell their own sequels/rewrites and make money too. Isn’t more artists having a chance to make a living a good thing? Or only specific artists? If someone rewrote the series but if Malfoy was a girl and in love with Harry (à la the recent Malfoid memes) shouldn’t they be rewarded for their work if the market deems it high quality?
If we wish for this behavior to end, we should see naming and shaming as a good thing, a step in the right direction. Real, commensurate consequences need to happen for these people as well.
But it's apparently controversial to not just fine the company and then let the company investigate themselves.
And in the cases where you can't figure it out you then summon people you suspect know to testify and use that information to figure out the perpetrator.
Like if you think somebody placed insider trades in the stock market you don't fine the NYSE $1 Billion and let them figure out who to fine.
A florida judge ruled them unconstitutional, tbd if/when this goes to SCOTUS and what happens there...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47312090