Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by Yizahi on Thursday December 28, 2023 @05:48AM
(#38792120)
We can extend this analogy. What if someone put up a proxy, that has a legal Netflix subscription and which "watches" streams of Netflix shows, captures actual RGB values of pixels and re-streams the resulting video to anyone else? Isn't it the same "proxy" excuse?
Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by quickthrower2 on Thursday December 28, 2023 @06:31AM
(#38792393)
I would say no because the site was happy to serve the content publicly,
whereas your proxy is breaking a contractual agreement. Now we get into terms of service of a website, and even if you visit for free you agree to them. Which is a possible point. It is quite grey IMO. In terms of HN I reckon a mag would love the free brand rec. vs. the archive not being shared. Where it hurts them is if someone is avoiding paying for a subscription by continually using archive sites.
Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by EvgeniyZh on Thursday December 28, 2023 @05:19AM
(#38791983)
Indeed there are media that are hard paywalled, e.g., the information. However these are prohibited on HN, which possibly create additional bias towards non-hard-paywalled publications
If the news/magazine doesn't want this they can simple serve a cut down or zero length article to all non-paying viewers! But they want that SEO, and they want that marketing.