> 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
> 2) The nature of the copyrighted work
> 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
> 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
[emphasis from TFA]
HN always talks about derivative work and transformativeness, but never about these. The fourth one especially seems clear in its implications for models.
Regardless, it makes it seem much less clear cut than people here often say.
The answer is no, because you reading the article didn’t dramatically degrade its market value.
An AI ingesting all content on the internet and then being ultra-effective at frontrunning that content for a large number of future readers does degrade its market value (and subsumes it into the model’s value).
The most obvious parallel to me is YouTube. There are a ton of people ingesting books, then transforming that information into a roughly paraphrased video for people to watch for free (ish). That devalues the books they read and paraphrased, because other people don't need to read them.
Spark Notes devalue actual books in a way, because a lot of high schoolers read those instead of buying the actual book.
Search engines have also supplanted books in large part, because I don't need a whole book to answer a specific question. I don't know anyone that owns an encyclopedia anymore.
This is the next iteration of these processes. Non-novel information's market value has been degrading for decades now. A series of questions that would have cost thousands of dollars in books to answer in the 70's/80's is now free, with or without AI.