Meta has the money to burn, 1. it’s easier to fight all this in court after having done it rather than to ask for permission from all the publishers beforehand.
2. sadly oftentimes the fines are minuscule when big tech does wrong.
3. CEOs in big tech don’t have or listen to morality, they have “sold their soul” so to say a long time ago
It’s interesting the stuff that Meta gets away with under Zuckerberg’s direction, where other CEOs would be under intense scrutiny or already behind bars.
There is a huge gap between someone pirating a book and one of the richest corporations on the planet pirating seven million books to train their for-profit stuff on.
To be clear, I think copyright should not exist, as I don't think it follows from the basic principles on which our governance is founded. Regardless of my view on the matter, the state will still enforce copyright. Under the written law, this allows people to treat my work as if copyright did not exist (to a reasonable approximation).
Maybe a different, even more permissible license (public domain like) would be more fitting, but I am a practical person and understand that a more common and well understood license is better for this purpose.
If you think copyright shouldn't exist, you're free to ignore any rights afforded you for your work, "the state" is not going to enforce anything unless you bring a case to a court.
I understand the MIT licence as convention, and it makes sense. It's just you're opining on a public forum about copyright being somehow antithetical to "basic principles on which our governance is founded" whilst attaching copyright notices to your work.
Much of common law is specifically about property, upon which a good portion of modern day governance is founded. So your objection to copyright seems somewhat misinformed.
What is it about copyright that you think is a negative in today's society?
The difference is in the real consequences of the action. Which exist regardless of the abstract notions that precede it and which exist regardless of whether anyone accepts those notions.
Yes, unequal enforcement of the law is inherently unjust and ripe for abuse. That doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed, but a legal system that arbitrarily picks and chooses when it enforces the law is corrupt and has a built in method to persecute and target select people and groups. It undermines the very principle of Rule of Law and allows unjust laws to remain on the books ready to be selectively enforced.
Yann LeCun endlessly talks about what's good, what's bad, about how he is this and that, bla bla bla bla bla.
Then gives stuff like this a green light. He does get a fat paycheck out of it, though.
Trashy.