In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
Well no, just the largest ones who can pay some fine or have nearly endless legal funds to discourage challenges to their practice, this bring a form of a pretend business moat. The average company won’t be able to and will get shredded.
What fine? I thought this new law allows it. Or is it one of those instances where training your AI on copyrighted material and distributing it is fine but actually sourcing it isn‘t so you can‘t legally create a model but also nobody can do anything if you have and use it? That sounds legally very messy.
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
It’s like the goal is to bleed culture from humanity. Corporate is so keep on the $$$ they’re willing to sacrifice culture to it.
I’ll bet corporate gets to keep their copyrights.
Absolute fastest way to kill this shit? Feed the entire Disney catalog in and start producing knockoff Disney movies. Disney would kill this so fast.
That’s exactly what i was just thinking.
Where’s Disney in all of this?Probably getting in on it tbh
Good point. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have deals with all the ai companies.
The record companies already have all the data and all the rights. Petitions like these are meant to rig the game in their favor, so we get the official Warner Music AI at a high price point with licensing fees, and anything open source is deemed illegal and cant be used in products.
If you’re on the side that stands with Disney, you are probably on the wrong one.
But you, casual BitTorrent, eDonkey (I like good old things) and such user, can’t.
It’s literally a law allowing people doing some business violate a right of others, or, looking at that from another side, making only people not working for some companies subject to a law …
What I mean - at some point in my stupid life I thought only individuals should ever be subjects of law. Where now the sides are the government and some individual, a representative (or a chain of people making decisions) of the government should be a side, not its entirety.
For everything happening a specific person, easy to determine, should be legally responsible. Or a group of people (say, a chain from top to this specific one in a hierarchy).
Because otherwise this happens, the differentiation between a person and a business and so on allows other differentiation kinds, and also a person having fewer rights than a business or some other organization. And it will always drift in that direction, because a group is stronger than an individual.
And in this specific case somebody would be able to sue the prime minister.
OK, it’s an utopia, similar to anarcho-capitalism, just in a different dimension, in that of responsibility.
What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
They’re not gonna do anything about it for the same reason any other litigious company hasn’t done anything thus far. They’re looking to benefit from AI by cutting costs. If the tech wasn’t beneficiary to these big tech conglomerates they would’ve already sued their asses to oblivion, but since they do care they’ll let AI train on their copyrighted material.
“Generate a movie in the style of star wars”
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn’t profit off of you.
Thought experiment: What if AI companies were allowed to use copyrighted material for free as long as they release their models to the public? Want to keep your model private? Pay up. Similar to the GPL.
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
It’s literally called copyright because it’s about the rights to copy something. The new law would still be a form of copyright.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
Ahh. Paul McCartney. Looks like Lemmy has finally found a billionaire it likes.
I’m sure it is The Beatles’ activism for social change that won people over. Who could forget their great protest song “The Taxman”, bravely taking a stand against the 95% tax rate. Truly, the 60ies were a time of liberation.
“truly the 60’s were a time of liberation.”
I love the people that compare one aspect of history and forget the rest, lol. The past sucked and our current future sucks.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
“Lemmy has found a billionaire it likes.” - reads one post makes a determination because of one post.
God I fucking hate Lemmy. It is the same nonsense like this Lemmy gives reddit crap about
One post doesnt make a platform like a billionaire. Also, if a Billionaire can speak about against something that protects artists then all the power to them. Slapping the word billionaire on something doesn’t make everything a billionaire does bad.
I hate billionaires as much as the next Lemmy user but it is sentiments like this that are nonsense.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
Huh?
John Lennon admitted to hitting an ex girlfriend. He came out, apologised for it, and said he was trying to better himself but he had a whole load of problems.
Bizarrely, his ex later came out and said John didn’t beat her and that she didn’t know what he was talking about.
Ringo has also admitted to hitting a girlfriend before.
There are plenty of situations where you can hit someone and then feel bad and apologize for that, which in my opinion do not make you a piece of shit.
Say, I have BAD, ASD, probably ADHD (with the previous two hard to tell, a lot of intersections really and comorbidity … long story). I do get emotional, sometimes with destructive results. Haven’t hit anyone in many years, but can easily imagine doing that.
I never said he was a piece of shit.
I never said you did.
Weird reply, in that case.
Please, save the copyright industry! If using these for AI isnt made ridiculously expensive, we will never be able to build a proper monopoly on top of this tech!
They get popular artists to sign these things but its the record companies (all three of them) that are really behind this.
Greed have no age.
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa should release a song together.
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister’s desk?
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
Search is very different to create something.
In this context they’re identical - some automated process looking at all your content. While some of these agents may be honest, there’s no real distinction from search or ai or archive.
