Noerknhar@feddit.org to Fuck AI@lemmy.world · 2 months agoAnthropic can legally train AI on books without authors permission, judge rulescybernews.comexternal-linkmessage-square23linkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down10file-textcross-posted to: ai_@lemmy.worldartificial_intel@lemmy.ml
arrow-up12arrow-down1external-linkAnthropic can legally train AI on books without authors permission, judge rulescybernews.comNoerknhar@feddit.org to Fuck AI@lemmy.world · 2 months agomessage-square23linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: ai_@lemmy.worldartificial_intel@lemmy.ml
minus-squareHobbitFoot @thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·2 months agoUnder this definition, it is illegal summarize news articles behind a paywall.
minus-squarejmill@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 months agoIf you made money doing that, it probably would be illegal. You would certainly get sued, in any case.
minus-squareHobbitFoot @thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·2 months agoPeople make a lot of money summarizing articles behind paywalls and it is generally considered legal as long as it is a summary and not copied text.
minus-squareHobbitFoot @thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·2 months agoYou don’t have to pay for fair use.
minus-squarenjm1314@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 months agoSo how are they making a lot of money then?
minus-squareHobbitFoot @thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down2·2 months agoAdvertisement. You don’t have to pay for original content. You just need to pay someone/thing to summarize it and get clicks for advertisement.
minus-squarenjm1314@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 months agoI can’t say I’ve ever seen this in my life. Paid advertisement on summaries of paywalled articles. Not something I’ve come across. Certainly they would be sued if they were found by the companies in question I imagine.
minus-squareHobbitFoot @thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down2·2 months agoSure you have. If you ever have read an article that says “As reported in X”, that is a summarization of another journalist’s work.
Under this definition, it is illegal summarize news articles behind a paywall.
If you made money doing that, it probably would be illegal. You would certainly get sued, in any case.
People make a lot of money summarizing articles behind paywalls and it is generally considered legal as long as it is a summary and not copied text.
Who are you paying for that?
You don’t have to pay for fair use.
So how are they making a lot of money then?
Advertisement. You don’t have to pay for original content. You just need to pay someone/thing to summarize it and get clicks for advertisement.
I can’t say I’ve ever seen this in my life. Paid advertisement on summaries of paywalled articles. Not something I’ve come across. Certainly they would be sued if they were found by the companies in question I imagine.
Sure you have. If you ever have read an article that says “As reported in X”, that is a summarization of another journalist’s work.