‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI

631 points · 623 comments · papergirl

  1. Skyy93 · · focus · HN ↗
    This is a lobby organisation using only the pieces and bits they like to push their own agenda.

    "sketchy russian website", how about using some more clear description like: A library for sharing books and articles that should be partly public domain because they were paid for by the public. Only some of the material is copyrighted by authors. However, some of their work is so old that it is not reprinted anyway.

    But of course such an explanation would not click.

    I also don't see a problem with statements about making people jobless. Imagine if every robotic or automation company advertised like this: Yeah, you'll buy tons of expensive robots and still rely on expensive labor from real people without any efficiency gains.

    1. quaintdev · · focus · HN ↗
      It's just sad that this is the top comment on Hacker News. Why are we giving free pass to these tech companies? Why are we trusting these CEOs when they have repeatedly broken laws? Remember Aaron Swartz and the fate he suffered? Why is big tech getting away with so much more?
      1. simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
        Aaron was sued for distributing and not for pirating. They are different offences
        1. RossBencina · · focus · HN ↗
          As far as I know Aaron never distributed that which was collected in the MIT data closet.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.