Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Internet Archive Takes Another Step Towards Death" video.

@terrydaktyllus1320 He's saying that the generative "AI" programs violate copyright law. While they don't necessarily copy outright, it's difficult to make a case otherwise based on how much the output matches certain inputs. If I drew a picture of Mickey Mouse, I guarantee you that Disney would win a case against me for copyright infringement even if it looked as primitive as Steamboat Willie, and if they went after the generative "AI" use they'd likely win there too.
6
@4eyesleo It's actually longer than 70 years, but I keep pushing the idea that we should go back to 1791 on copyright law and limit it to 14 years.
6
@rasputozen Yeah, that "promotional period" is exactly the point at which they violated copyright law.
4
@rasputozen It's more that it's an inflated amount. If a book costs $9 to buy and a million people download a copy, then they can claim $9M in damages. Extrapolate that to 50 different books a million times over, and it was almost assuredly far more, then you start to see where they come up with such a bovine excrement number. In reality, most people that would partake would either buy a copy for themselves after previewing it, or they would never have bought a copy. So the amount of damages isn't realistic, even if it's based on real world usage.
4
@pluto8404 It's possible that the NSA is lying. After all, it wouldn't be the first time they lied and got civilians killed just to justify a budget increase because they "can't do their job without it". However, it's also possible that because there's so much data they can't adequately analyze it for threats in a timely manner. We'd likely need some insider information to make a proper determination on that.
4
@emperorarasaka That's the idea, and I actually agree with you, just that I would adjust the limit to be only 14 years as the law was originally drafted.
3
If they'd only distributed a single copy then that would've been the end of it, but it was actually multiple copies while they only had one physical copy. Not that I agree with this law, but just that it is the law and that's why they're in trouble.
2
I feel like the Internet Archive is what the Library of Congress should be. While they preserve a lot of things, they mostly hide it away in their vaults or require a physical presence to make use of the materials. I know, copyright law, but there should be some allowances made for the LoC. I don't know if they preserve websites either, and that's one of the most important things that the IA does which I also use them for. Although, I personally feel like our copyright law should go back to being 14 years. If that was the limit, then things would make more sense and the IA could distribute anything that was 14 years and older without any worry. For that matter, so could the LoC.
1
@MrBenMcLean I could see such concessions causing problems, because one industry would scoff at their work being valued less than another industry, especially when you consider that software production requires so much more time, skill and education than movie production and infinitely more than music. Not to mention, if you try and nickel and dime it, the entertainment industry is so much more powerful that they'd either squash it with lawsuit after lawsuit, or they'd get a concession of 99 years that would lead to more concessions. Remember the slippery slope is real.
1
@owlmostdead9492 And then you'd have people waiting things out so that nothing would ever make money. If I just have to wait 5 years to see a movie or play a game for free, why bother ever paying to see movies or play games. Then the studios think, why bother making movies or games if they're not going to make their investment back. The reason for it to be at least that long is so that investment happens and new things get produced.
1