Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DragoonXNucleon t1_j5onjvc wrote

Reply to comment by twbrn in CNET's AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism by iingot

There is an easy fix. Its revenue sharing.

If you display the totality of content, you either pay for it or take it down.

Back in the print days, if I just plagiarized your article and printed it in my own magazine you could sue me. Why has this changed? Well, Google writes the laws now.

In video media there are fair use laws. You can only use X seconds of a video before it becomes theft. Reddit, Facebook, Google are all selling other peoples content. Imagine if web site runners could set DNS record indicating a rev share PPV price. If a piece of content receives over X views that price kicks in and the owner would be liable.

Until we make laws to protect journalism, we won't have it.

2

twbrn t1_j5pawtn wrote

In principle, it sounds good. The problem is that laws are made generally by people who have no idea about how technology works. And even when they do, they don't want to. We're still struggling with laws for something as basic as network neutrality.

There's also a lot of wiggle room that would make it difficult for a one-size-fits-all law to cover and, more importantly, enforce. You'd be looking at needing some kind of agency that actually made sure the rules were followed and settled disputes.

Maybe it could be done on a good faith basis, the way that groups like the Writers Guild of America arbitrate cases among members. If you could get Google and a few other big players on board, you might have a groundswell. But there's a lot of incentive for big tech companies not to want to stop the free circulation of content when the only people they're really hurting are writers and readers, not themselves.

1