this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

40303 readers
499 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't want to rehash the comments section from Ars, but my overall take is this piece is a brief padded out way too far. I mean, it's "Settlement reached; details TK."

That Alsup is presiding is, to my mind, one of the best possible routes. IIRC, he taught himself a programming language a while back to rule on (this may be a hallucination) Oracle v. Sun. This is a judge who understands tech in its current state

And frankly, I think he split the baby correctly here. If you paid for or otherwise legally acquired access (think libraries) and create a transformative work from it, well, that's literally the fair-use carve out -- the scale is what makes it look so wildly different from a college student looking at microfiche for a term paper (yes, I'm old). And it's specious to imply that all this aggregation isn't transformative.

The problem is the works they didn't pay for. "Copyright infringement" is quite the anodyne term for "theft."

[–] ranandtoldthat@beehaw.org 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oracle vs. Google, and he mostly already had hobbyist knowledge of programming, but yes he did learn some Java for the case.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 2 weeks ago

That's the one I was thinking about. Thanks for correcting the record!

[–] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The problem is the works they didn’t pay for. “Copyright infringement” is quite the anodyne term for “theft.”

Other way around. Copyright infringement is the alleged crime. "Theft" is the entertainment industry's spin term for it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Theft It is best to call things what they are and not buy into this silly narrative.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Here we go, more Mickey Mouse fueled BS. Instead of fixing the preposterous "until author's death + 70 years" copyright term, the result is a world where tearing up books to train AI is legal, and a class lawsuit settlement with "7 million claimaints" who will get none of it.

Lawyer circus, is what this is.