Plugin developers: A warning from Rhett Shull and Open source firmware

[Stuart Welwood]

Not just developers, but the whole community may be interested in this:
I Think AI Just Killed the Plugin Industry

 

[Craig Anderton]

This is all well and good for resurrecting discontinued plug-ins. I'd love to have my original Steinberg Quadrafuzz plug-in again. But really, this is not a question of technology. Whether technology is "good" or "bad" always depends on personal morality.

The fatal flaw is that you need something to reverse-engineer. Google's AI summaries of sites has cut traffic to the sites from which Google steals repurposes content, often by as much as 80% or even 90%. What's more, because people no longer have to go to the site, they don't explore what's on the site. The combination kills advertising income*. These sites will eventually go out of business, and then Google will have nothing left to steal repurpose.

I get free stuff or loaner gear from time to time because if I had to pay for everything I've ever reviewed or written about, my income would be negative. However, if I receive something for free and I would actually use it in my personal work, not just for something like book screenshots to illustrate points made in the text, it's my policy to compensate the company. Often it's by paying the dealer cost. However, there are some companies that would rather have me compensate them by developing presets, or cleaning up language in a manual. That's worth more to them than money. Either way, I've exchanged something of value for their work. I think it's only fair. The Golden Rule makes sense as a matter of principle, regardless of any religious associations.

* I think that eventually, a legal ruling will say that what Google does is not fair use. Fair use has four main tests. One of them requires that usage does not impact the marketability of the material for which fair use is claimed.

 

[tulamide]

I think that eventually, a legal ruling will say that what Google does is not fair use. Fair use has four main tests.

It gets even stranger: The concept of fair use only exists in the USA. In Germany, for example, everything is forbidden, unless explicitly mentioned as an exception in the law itself. That doesn't stop them. Instead they went full-on Mafia: "We take your stuff and present it on our own site, or you won't appear at all on any search results."

Not even the notoriously strict German law could end this practice. So, even if "fair use" would be rendered obsolete for Google, they would still do it - and nobody can do anything about it. Their monopoly is too strong.

 

[Craig Anderton]

So, even if "fair use" would be rendered obsolete for Google, they would still do it - and nobody can do anything about it. Their monopoly is too strong.

One difference might be that the US is a very litigious society. If there was an unambiguous court ruling saying "you can'd do that," the lawsuits would start. Granted, a giant monopoly has a major advantage. But, it might force some kind of settlement, like a 90 day first-to-publish concession going to the originator.

I've had something similar happen with articles that were reprinted elsewhere. The articles could be reprinted only after a certain amount of time, so that the originator had exclusivity for a while. If Google had to link directly to what they were planning to summarize on the site for 90 days, and then include a link to the site after 90 days as part of the AI summary, that might smooth things over.

Of course, reverse-engineering copyrighted code is something else. There are already laws about copyright infringement. But, those laws may not be up-to-date with changes in technology. Technically, copyright doesn't protect the work as much as it protects who controls the distribution of that work. I've served as an expert witness several times in patent litigation, and patent law is very nuanced. I don't know if copyright law is as nuanced, e.g., whether a reverse-engineered effect (even with differences in coding) could be challenged based on someone versed in the state of the art being able to obtain the same results.

But what do I know? What a mess...