Hacker News Reader

I don't think that is relevant to my comment. Whether the material is purchased, borrowed from a library, or legally reproduced under "fair use", I'm still asserting that I don't "owe" the creators any of my profit that I earn from taking advantage of what I learned.

View on HN

The parent comment asks whether an “engine” trained on copyrighted data is entitled to decide profit. Your comment is about a human receiving knowledge that facilitates profit. Of course, these are legally independent scenarios.

Take a college student who scans all her textbooks, relying on fair use. If she is the only user, is she obligated to pay a premium for mining?

What about the scenario in which she sells that engine to other book owners? What if they only owned the book a short time in school?

I agree that they are different scenarios that may lead to different legal frameworks. My point though was that asserting that the "profit" motive is sufficient to conclude something is owed to the creators is faulty logic. Individuals can generate profit from what they learn and we don't generally require them to share their profits with the creators of copyrighted material that they used to educate themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com