Reposted by Bitsy Perlman
Public and private funding also do different things: private funders want to appropriate the created intellectual property, whereas public funders want to create public IP
alexxihe.github.io/qje.pdf
(Also it is very clear that researchers can't replace the funds when they lose public funding)
alexxihe.github.io
![This case is about, as Microsoft’s Director of Applied Science put it, “an astonishing theft
of unprecedented proportions”; SF1437, perhaps the “largest theft of labor in human history.”
SF1652. Defendants repeatedly copied millions of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted articles in their entirety
without permission to produce substitutive commercial AI products. OpenAI’s Head of ChatGPT
wrote that “[p]ublishers” face an “existential threat” from those products, SF1466, which, he said,
“are largely substitutive, period” and “will get more and more substitutive as they get better.”
SF1473-74. Such admissions eviscerate Defendants’ “fair use” defense because substitution is
“copyright’s bête noire.” Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S.
508, 528 (2023). For Defendants to prevail on this defense “would,” the same Microsoft executive
recognized, arguably “make a complete mockery of the idea of ‘fair use.’” SF1450.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:g6asx7scljsgdu3vqwtyfszj/bafkreigjgd7igfx27rgypjgodjjqcf2z6vf3veilaekexbuie3kb6p2uai)
