this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
258 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
62936 readers
3904 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is stealing in the same way that profits are stolen labor. The AI company stole the labor of those who prepared the summaries without compensation then, used what they obtained to directly compete.
since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don't see that as stealing.
I agree with you there. Context is what makes it theft and using the stolen data to attempt to directly compete with the source is where the actual harm occurs.
In a scenario where the source of the data is not being harmed, it's hard to think of it as theft (data/information wants to be free).
they might claim they're harmed if the information is distributed for free. I don't care. that's not theft.
Yup. The context on this is directly profiting off of others' work, not setting data free.
That's basically what the judge said as well. The AI firm tried to create a market alternative, aka they wanted to compete, and that was the main issue why this is not free use