I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.
My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-openai-c...
Some lawsuits don't change that fact.
Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.
You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.
I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals.
Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1].
> seems like misdirection
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2].
>I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general.
Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
Someone compared treatment of X 20 years ago to treatment of Y today -- seems pretty natural to bring up treatment of X more recently. You can't just say "the original comment didn't mention it so you can't mention it either".
I don't see how your accusations of bad faith are warranted.
I feel I have a pretty open view.
And, there's no definition of a 'valid' comment. I'll address points, raise points or whatever. Sorry, I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was.
GP made a comparison! How do you refute a comparison without criticising the comparison?
> I'm not in the realm of 'valid' comments, never was
Claiming misdirection is an argument about validity.
Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge, individuals downloading pirated content have not been threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the last distributor actually sued?
But the fact that they're not being sued is a weird delineation to make. They're not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling. It's not a case that IP owners aren't enforcing copyright, they're just not escalating to actual lawsuits because they don't need to.
I’m asking for evidence of these settlements.
The claim is corporations are being given a free pass relative to how individuals are being treated. I’m not seeing that signal. What I am seeing is Americans becoming more sceptical about intellectual property as a result of the MPAA and RIAA overplaying their hands in the 90s.