|
|
|
|
|
|
by Slartie
899 days ago
|
|
|
It doesn't matter whether you got the ability to copy that album. It only matters whether you adhere to the licensed rights that you got when buying the album, which allows copying for your personal use. If you decide to copy the album to random other people in exchange for $10, then that's no longer covered by the license and thus illegal, even though you clearly got the ability to do that by buying the album and thus getting access to the MP3s in the first place. The NYT does not give readers the license to recite substantial portions of their articles verbatim on their own websites, even though buying paid access to the NYT website technically gives them the ability to do so. In the same manner, OpenAI did technically gain the ability to do the same, but has not acquired the right to do so. The funny fact that you have to enter some magic words into a form on their website in order for their site to regurgitate entire article texts does not change anything; if I would do the same on my website, for example via a form that requests to enter the first 100 words verbatim before spitting out the entire text, it would obviously still be illegal. The same goes for the fact that you have to perform some attempts before one of them succeeds in reproducing the entire text correctly; I could replicate that just as well by adding an RNG that only returns the valid text in 20% of cases, and my website would still clearly be illegal. |
|
|
> The funny fact that you have to enter some magic words into a form on their website in order for their site to regurgitate entire article texts does not change anything;
Yes it does. The degree to which a tool is designed to facilitate or prevent piracy definitely is going to impact fair use arguments.
Under your rudimentary explanation of the issue, the Internet Archive would not be allowed to store and serve reproductions of articles.