Comment by originalvichy
6 months ago
At least most pirates just consume for personal use. Profiting from piracy is a whole other level beyond just pirating a book.
6 months ago
At least most pirates just consume for personal use. Profiting from piracy is a whole other level beyond just pirating a book.
Someone on Twitter said: "Oh well, P2P mp3 downloads, although illegal, made contributions to the music industry"
That's not what's happening here. People weren't downloading music illegally and reselling it on Claude.ai. And while P2P networks led to some great tech, there's no solid proof they actually improved the music industry.
I really feel as if Youtube is the best sort of convenience for music videos where most people watch ads whereas some people can use an ad blocker.
I use an adblocker and tbh I think so many people on HN are okay with ad blocking and not piracy when basically both just block the end user from earning money.
I kind of believe that if you really like a software, you really like something. Just ask them what their favourite charity is and donate their or join their patreon/a direct way to support them.
And somehow actually paying for youtube which fully removes advertising and provides revenue to the service/creators is seen as an utterly absurd proposition by a staggering number of people.
5 replies →
If you are someone who can think clearly, it's extremely obvious that the conversation around copyright, LLMs, piracy, and ad-blocking is
"What serves me personally the best for any given situation" for 95% of people.
I think that critique of this case is not about piracy in itself but how these companies are treated by courts vs. how individuals are treated.
Let's not forget Spotify ;)
https://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-f...
Those claims were never proved.
I feel like profit was always a central motive of pirates. At least from the historical documents known as, "The Pirates of the Caribbean".
This isn't really profiting from piracy. They don't make money off the raw input data. It's no different to consuming for personal use.
They make money off the model weights, which is fair use (as confirmed by recent case law).
This is absurd. Remove all of the content from the training data that was pirated and what is the quality of the end product now?
With Claude, people are paying Anthropic to access answers that are generated from pirated books, without the authors permission, credit, or compensation.
5 replies →
That's the law.
Please keep in mind, copyright is intended as a compromise between benefit to society and to the individual.
A thought experiment, students pirating textbooks and applying that knowledge later on in their work?
10 replies →
> At least most pirates just consume for personal use.
Easy for the pirate to say. Artists might argue their intent was to trade compensation for one's personal enjoyment of the work.
The gut punch of being a photographer selling your work on display, someone walks by and lines up their phone to take a perfect picture of your photograph, and then exclaims to you "Your work is beautiful! I can't wait to print this out and put it on my wall!"
[flagged]
The way you've presented this, the evidence is just "common sense", which isn't much evidence at all.
2 replies →