Hacker News Reader

Then do human artists also owe money to the countless artists who influenced them?

It's clearly not the same thing. It doesn't even matter to be quite honest.

It doesn't change the fact that you're using other people's work as an input for your commercial algorithm that makes money for you. This by itself, without any merit to the discussion of how much is being copied, is enough reason to make you pay for the use of someone's else work.

Companies now will download your art without consent, make a lot of money and not pay you a single dime because their algorithm is "not copying". It's a complete absurd.

If what the algorithm does is considered copying, then so is what human artists do all the time... but somehow the humans get a pass.

"The algorithm" is a work of art and the owners of the algorithm, like other great artists, steal.

> It doesn't change the fact that you're using other people's work as an input for your commercial algorithm that makes money for you. This by itself, without any merit to the discussion of how much is being copied, is enough reason to make you pay for the use of someone's else work.

This by itself? So if I'm making a search engine for pictures that doesn't even show previews, you'd require payment to every site in the index?

And does replacing "algorithm" with "employee" make that much difference?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com