I’m not sure I agree that this © distinction is creating a preference for robot-reading? That’s an inference I don’t intuitively see #algacc
@SherwinPK @grimmelm yes, but not sure how we jumped from a form of safe harbor for robot-reading to expressive reading being replaced
-
-
@SherwinPK@grimmelm specifically, to humans themselves performing more robot-reading. -
@sarahjeong I'm thinking less "humans" doing robot-reading, and systems/companies moving reading from humans to bots.@grimmelm#algacc -
@SherwinPK@grimmelm I think what is nagging at me is that I do see the systemic preference for robot-like behaviors, -
@SherwinPK@grimmelm but I don’t see how it stems from copyright -
@sarahjeong not "stems from;" "is reflected in."@grimmelm -
@SherwinPK I can see “reflected in.” But I’m not sure that’s what@grimmelm was saying!
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong replaced, I assume, in non-romantic/fireside settings. Replaced in reading warnings, EULAs, "publications"@grimmelm#algacc -
@SherwinPK@grimmelm the other thing is couldn’t the law & economics analysis run both ways? -
@SherwinPK@grimmelm No liability for robot-reading / no protection for robot works -
@sarahjeong Sure: who made the creative expression? who fixed it? Sufficiently creative and not just aleatory?@grimmelm#algacc
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.