[AnthonyMouse]

It kind of is though?

It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important.

> And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.

There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.

[freejazz]

>It kind of is though?

No, it kinda isn't. Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now.

>It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important.

No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features.

>There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.

Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now

It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alternative would be that the use doesn't happen rather than that the author gets paid for it.

> No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features.

To make a search engine you have to do two things. One is to download a copy of the whole internet, the other is to create a search index. I'm talking about the first one, you're talking about the second one.

> Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?

Microsoft does this with an automated system. There is no single automated system where you can get every book ever written, and separately interfacing with all of the many systems needed in order to do it is the source of the overhead.

[const_cast]

I think the notion that some sort of god-given right to "scale" can absolve you of laws is preposterous.

If your business model is not economically sustainable in the current legal landscape you operate in, the correct outcome is you go out of business.

There's lots and lots of potential businesses, infinite in fact, that fall into this understanding. They don't exist because they can't because we don't want them to, so you never see them. Which might give the impression of a right to scale, but no, it does not exist.

[freejazz]

>It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alternative would be that the use doesn't happen rather than that the author gets paid for it.

No, that's not the most important factor. The transformative factor is the most important. Effect on market for the work doesn't even support your argument anyway. Your argument is about the cost of making the end product, which is totally distinct from the market effects on the copyright holder when the infringer makes and releases the infringing product.

>To make a search engine you have to do two things. One is to download a copy of the whole internet, the other is to create a search index. I'm talking about the first one, you're talking about the second one.

So? That doesn't make you right. Go read the opinions, dude. This isn't something that's actually up for debate. Search engines are fair uses because of their transformative effect, not because they are really expensive otherwise. Your argument doesn't even make sense. By that logic, anything that's expensive becomes a fair use. It's facially ridiculous. Them being expensive is neither sufficient nor necessary for them to be a fair use. Their transformative nature is both sufficient and necessary to be found a fair use. Full stop.

>Microsoft does this with an automated system. There is no single automated system where you can get every book ever written, and separately interfacing with all of the many systems needed in order to do it is the source of the overhead.

Okay, and? They don't need to get every single book ever written. The libraries they pirated do not consist of "every single book ever written". It's hard to take this argument in good faith because you're being so ridiculous.

[AnthonyMouse]

> No, that's not the most important factor. The transformative factor is the most important.

It's a four factor test because all of the factors are relevant, but if the use has negligible effect on the market for the work then it's pretty hard to get anywhere with the others. For example, for cases like classroom use, even making verbatim copies of the entire work is often still fair use. Buying a separate copy for each student to use for only a few minutes would make that use uneconomical.

> Effect on market for the work doesn't even support your argument anyway. You're argument is about the cost of making the end product, which is totally distinct from the market effects on the copyright holder when the infringer makes and releases the infringing product.

We're talking about the temporary copies they make during training. Those aren't being distributed to anyone else.

> So? That doesn't make you right.

Making a copy of everything on the internet is a prerequisite to making a search engine. It's something you have to do as a step to making the index, which is the transformative step. Are you suggesting that doing the first step is illegal or what do you propose justifies it?

> By that logic, anything that's expensive becomes a fair use. It's facially ridiculous.

Anything with unreasonably high transaction costs. Why is that ridiculous? It doesn't exempt any of the normal stuff like an individual person buying an individual book.

> They don't need to get every single book ever written.

They need to get as many books as possible, with the platonic ideal being every book. Whether or not the ideal is feasible in practice, the question is whether it's socially beneficial to impose a situation with excessively high transaction costs in order to require something with only trivial benefit to authors (potentially selling one extra copy).

[freejazz]

>It's a four factor test because all of the factors are relevant, but if the use has negligible effect on the market for the work then it's pretty hard to get anywhere with the others. For example, for cases like classroom use, even making verbatim copies of the entire work is often still fair use. Buying a separate copy for each student to use for only a few minutes would make that use uneconomical.

All four factors are not equally relevant which is something described in pretty much every single fair use opinion. Educational uses are educational uses and considered fair because of their educational purpose (purpose is one of the factors), again, not because it's expensive. Maybe next time try googling or using ChatGPT "fair use educational".

>We're talking about the temporary copies they make during training. Those aren't being distributed to anyone else.

It's your argument. Not mine. You do not understand the market harm factor and it has nothing to do with Anthropic's transaction costs. That's just fully outright absolutely incorrect application of law.

>Making a copy of everything on the internet is a prerequisite to making a search engine. It's something you have to do as a step to making the index, which is the transformative step. Are you suggesting that doing the first step is illegal or what do you propose justifies it?

The transformative step is why it's a fair use, not the "market harm" (which you misunderstand) or the made up argument that it's "too expensive". In fact, I said this like every single turn in our conversation so it's a bit perplexing to me that you can now ask me "do you mean that it being transformative is what makes it legal" when that was my exact argument three times.

>Anything with unreasonably high transaction costs. Why is that ridiculous? It doesn't exempt any of the normal stuff like an individual person buying an individual book.

It's ridiculous because of the example I gave. Things being expensive is not a defense to copyright infringement and copyright law has no obligation to make expensive business models work. Copyright has an obligation to make transformative business models work because of the overall good they provide to society. Describing it as a "transaction cost" just kicks the can down the road even further and doesn't deal with the substance, either. They could have gone to the major publishers and licensed books from them. They didn't. That's generally who they are being sued by. When they are being sued by copyright owners in the fringe examples you pointed to, they will become relevant then.

>They need to get as many books as possible, with the platonic ideal being every book. Whether or not the ideal is feasible in practice, the question is whether it's socially beneficial to impose a situation with excessively high transaction costs in order to require something with only trivial benefit to authors (potentially selling one extra copy).

Lol dude, it was your example, not mine. They do not need every single book. They aren't being sued over every single book anyway, so it's totally besides the point.