undefined | Better HN

0 pointskillingtime742y ago0 comments

What's wrong with that? If I was the NY Time's lawyers that what I would advise. What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway? These are corporations enforcing their rights against one another.

There is nothing wrong with profit seeking from your copyright. That's literally their entire business model...they publish copyrighted content which they sell for a subscription.

OpenAI and others could easily have negotiated a licence instead of just using the data. They bet that it would be cheaper to be sued, lets find out if they bet correctly.

Tangentially that's what Apple did with the sensor in their watch, it doesn't always pay off.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

munchinator2y ago· 1 in thread

> What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway?

It would serve the termination of the infringement.

My point is that the Times doesn't particular seem to care about infringement per se, they care about getting their slice of the cut from that infringement.

It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.

sensanaty2y ago

> It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.

I mean yeah, no one's gonna bother trying to squeeze money out of Joe Schmoe with 10 bucks in his bank account over some pirated movies. If a company with billions and billions of dollars like Netflix started pushing out pirated movies instead, then obviously they'd be sued into oblivion, as they should be.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse