[boplicity]

Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story.

This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription.

I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.

[amelius]

I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.

[slopinthebag]

If OpenAI doesn't need to respect copyright why should we?

[denkmoon]

Copyright is dead.

[mrkstu]

In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.

[Dylan16807]

Legally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.

[ericmay]

I think copyright should exist, but it only exists in that you can put a gate around it. The website makes the content available freely for the public, just use incognito mode or something or change your IP address and you get access to it.

If this was, for example, was only content behind a paywall that would make more sense to suggest there is a copyright violation here.