simplisticated
8 hours ago
In other words, they require the company to name scapegoats who will be fired for the decisions made by top management.
Terr_
5 hours ago
Maybe yes, maybe no, but I'd rather see that than a defeatist: "Oh my, a corporation did something bad, whelllp I guess that's the end of the story! Nothing to be done here, artificial persons will be artificial persons, those cheeky scamps."
tourmalinetaco
3 hours ago
I’ll be honest, most piracy is only legally bad and not morally bad. I’d also prefer AI companies pirate already scanned content than destroy potentially rare books and hoard the scans, which fails to benefit the wider intellectual community.
In a world where 95 years of copyright is the minimum, and works like Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone likely won’t enter the public domain until approximately 2120AD, I fail to see a moral argument be made for any book published pre-2011.
As it stands, we are caught between allowing AI companies unfettered access to copyrighted material or allowing the corpus of human creativity to be squandered by rights holders. It is an unfortunate position to be in, but I would far prefer a copyright minimalist world than what we currently suffer through, even if that means AI companies are vacuuming up the intellectual works of humanity.
tty456
7 hours ago
Let's see how the evidence plays out. If there's internal comms with approvals and knowingly committing crimes then people should be brought to justice.
darth_avocado
8 hours ago
Fired or prosecuted? Because on can come with cushy severance while the other can come with a 20 year prison sentence.
user
8 hours ago
pacman1337
7 hours ago
more help find people so they can start pointing fingers at each other