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).
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
Reuters still has their analysis. nothing was stolen.
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