I feel like you're skipping over the illegal part. Something legal that puts authors out of work is quite different to blatant breaking of the law.
They're not skipping, they're keying on the exact same thing I am, which is whether or not authors have been put out of work because of AI, and to what degree. This is stated like it's a fact, but it is not a fact that is established, at least in my experience.
And the use of the data largely being considered 'fair use' means that theft is an assertion based not in law, but in perception and ignorance.
Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.
Your first paragraph is well-taken. Even if it were infringement, infringement is not theft, as HN likes so often to assert.
The Supreme Court agrees.
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Betelbuddy · · focus · HN ↗
armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
afavour · · focus · HN ↗
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
aeon_ai · · focus · HN ↗
Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.
rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
The Supreme Court agrees.
> Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/207/" rel="nofollow">https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/207/