HN Reader

Of course real scientists don't publish. Okay I'm trolling but I know that the science published by Google et al has been thoroughly screened for commercial advantage before we see it. Try doing a litt search on hypersonics and you can see where the Russians _stop_ publishing.

This is pretty clearly an instance of the right people (i.e. rich people) being allowed to pirate, and the poor people get in trouble for copyrighted music in the background of some video clip.

The hypocrisy really grinds my gears.

>That is because it is now the tech giants that are accused of exploiting pirated content on an industrial scale

Nah. Media just moved to services, and with that, the main media consumption turned from piracy to subscriptions / ad supported streams.

Lack of public interest is also reflected in the fact that there were not really any development on the piracy front technologically in the last 15 years - or am I behind the times? Between 2000 and 2010, there were a lot more new software, new tech, different ways developed to get files, than there were between 2010 and 2025.

Even with pirating content, I think illegal streaming sites take most of the traffic. There is also much more content than there ever was, making the culture diverse, fragmented, and one-time use only.

So, I think,

1. Services happened to piracy. It's not about collecting files now, but about using an online service to view.

2. At the same time, collecting turned into consuming.

AI doesn't violate any copyright laws. When AI companies have been found to violate copyright laws (in ways that have nothing at all to do with AI) they have been sued successfully. There has been no change in enforcement.

It turned out laws were only for little people, after all.

Will they rehabilitate Kim Dotcom?

It only mattered when multi-millionaires were upset about it and they could sue regular people. When billionaires and large conglomerates are on the receiving end of pirated content, it's no longer a problem.

Copyright is about extracting a perpetual tax on culture from the peasants. It's not about hobbling the march of progress itself, not when the people who get to levy the culture tax will eventually get to cash in on the wonders that will ensue. Didn't anyone ever inform you?

This thread is a dumpster fire. Piracy is still illegal; Anthropic had to pay for damages. Training has been ruled several times to be not copyright infringement because nothing is reproduced (no, the Harry Potter thing doesn't count). Then you have someone here using a racial slur and not being flagged.

Let me be crystal clear:

Large company pirates stuff: illegal (Anthropic)

Little guy pirates stuff: illegal (though most get away with it)

Large company trains model: legal (Anthropic)

Little guy trains (fine-tunes) model: legal (Civit trainers)

Why the hell are people still repeating the same old shit about "oh so the big guy can ignore laws"? What the fuck is going on?

Also: if copyright enforcement is really getting weaker (no it's not, the article's premise is wrong in the first place), good.

The use of paywalled scientific articles to train AI is one place where I think we have to just draw the line and say, this has to be allowed or US AI is simply going to get gutted and replaced by international competitors who have no respect for copyright law.

Sorry but this is just a competitive reality and the content matters A LOT. Sucks that Elsevier gambled badly on the scientific community putting up with overpriced subscriptions forever, but their concerns can't dictate national policy on this.