Thread

Microsoft exec called AI scraping 'the largest theft of labor in human history'

955 points · 841 comments · pluc

jacquesm · 1789726316 · focus · HN ↗
It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up. Crimes this large are crimes against humanity. So many people whose life's work got appropriated without consideration, compensation or consent it is baffling.
It is said that at the heart of every great fortune there is a great crime, so it should be no surprise that the most valuable companies on the planet will most likely result from this crime. And given that justice can be bought by those with the most money you can forget about anything coming of this.
1. JimDabell · 1789734455 · focus · HN ↗
  > It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up
  Learning isn’t stealing. They didn’t take our culture away from us and nobody is “buying our culture back” from them. We never lost it; it never went anywhere.
  1. zero-sharp · 1789735179 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't that the same point piracy advocates have been making for a while? If I watch a pirated film, I didn't really consume a physical resource. Nothing physical is lost. Therefore it's not theft?
    >Learning isn’t stealing.
    This is cheesy. There is an exposure to (and a gain from) a resource that is traditionally associated with a cost. That cost wasn't paid. It's a public good to have information available, but it's not really acceptable to circumvent established ways of compensating the creator of the work you're benefiting from.
    JimDabell · 1789736596 · focus · HN ↗
    > Isn't that the same point piracy advocates have been making for a while?
    No. Plenty of people – not just “piracy advocates”, whoever they are – have pointed out that copyright infringement is not theft over the years. Learning, copyright infringement, and theft are three distinct things.
    Learning isn’t copyright infringement.
    Learning isn’t theft.
    Copyright infringement isn’t theft.
    These are all different statements, and all are true.
    > There is an exposure to (and a gain from) a resource that is traditionally associated with a cost.
    “Gaining exposure to” isn’t theft either.
    Copyright isn’t some form of “super-ownership” that gives you absolute say over what happens to all copies of the work. It is very specifically a monopoly on the production of new copies, and even that is limited in many important ways and is not absolute.
    There is a form of control over information that matches what you want copyright to be though - trade secrets. If you want legal protection that allows you to control knowledge, then it needs to be a trade secret.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.