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.
I actually can torrent lmao.
You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.
I’m not talking about legally\illegally, I’m talking about rightfully\unrightfully , the difference is in under whose control the category line is.
So you’re talking morally? Sorry but that’s not even worth discussing here.
Who’s deciding?
Who’s deciding what?
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.
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
Moneys decided it. No one is going to click on a image for a old wrinkly white guy
What’s a Dua Lipa?
Pretty funny that Dua Lipa is so opposed to this when her entire catalogue sounds like blatant ripoffs of other people’s music.
It’s pop electric music. Idk what you expect from it. But a quick look at her history shows she does a lot of collabs with different people and has at least one number one album. For what’s that worth. Your comment just sounds like a high schooler upset that people like other types of music.
My favorite part of her wiki page is this:
“Genesis” quotes and gets its title from the first book of the bible, which it shares a name with.
You’re going to waste your time criticizing something like this?
Your comment just sounds like a high schooler upset that people like other types of music.
Yes, that’s definitely it, rather than the multiple lawsuits and claims of plagiarism she has faced over the years.
Such as?
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I’ve heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
I don’t see how allowing AI robbery barons to steal copyrighted material would benefit a small fish in the pond of IP
I think copyright should last maximum 10 years. Plenty of time to earn enough from your creation.
Imagine how advanced we would be, as a civilization, if everything created before 2015 was free for everybody.
Honestly, I think our world would be a lot blander, and we’d have a whole lot less original content.
You probably only consume Hollywood prechewed crap and universal soup they call “music”
Creation is its own incentive.
And I can buy groceries with thoughts and prayers.
Do you make any money out of copyrights?
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
How many authors do you think would have written the books they did, if they weren’t able to make a living from their work? Most of the people creating works before copyright either had a patron of some description, or outright worked for an organisation.
The specific works? Who knows. It’s irrelevant
My point is your original premise was wrong. Creation DID happen without IP laws. People DO create with out the need for compensation/copy protection.
I propose, people will create things because they always have.
The original copyright law was created to protect authors from publishers. The current law is an abomination and should be removed.
You’re probably right, but saying we should abolish it altogether is insane. There’s a good reason we have these laws.
There are no good reasons.
Really? Artists getting paid for their work isn’t a good reason?
You know that for the vast majority of human history copyright didn’t exist, and yet people still created art and culture, right?
edit: If you’re gonna downvote, have the balls to explain how I’m wrong.
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister’s desk?
It’s not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn’t be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.
These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.
AI has been around for many years, and a lot has happened in that time. It’s had periods of high and low interest, and during its lows, it’s been dubbed AI winter.
And the current AI spring is just old people buying into bullshit marketing and putting all their money in a Ponze Scheme.
Throughout history, many things have been spent on useless things, but saying that AI is a Ponze scheme is, I feel, the same as saying that the Apollo program is a Ponze scheme or that government-funded research is another Ponze scheme.
PS: There were people who were against the Apollo program because they considered it an unnecessary expense, although today the Apollo program is more remembered.
The Apollo Program had an achievable goal, lots of beneficial byproducts, and was administrated by public offices.
Nothing about it is comparable. It’s like saying people hate snakes and some people also hate dogs therefor snakes are dogs.
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
I should create an AI start up and torrent all the content.
- 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?
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.
If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
they didn’t seed any downloads
So Meta, 100% leeching.
I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.
It doesn’t. You can download anything you want, distribution is what is illegal and criminal.
Downloading is still infringement. Distribution is worse, but I don’t think it’s a criminal matter, still just civil.
Maybe in some weird countries.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
No more ads on youtube
I identify as an AI company ☠️
no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.
But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa should release a song together.
Why? Did you learn nothing from her duet with Elton The John?
Cold Heart? I like that song.
Just a shame Elton was in it.
What has Elton John done?
Don’t Let Me Down, Just Don’t Start Now
Don’t worry, if they don’t you can just use ai to make them.
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
No, because training an AI is not “pirating.”
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren’t paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn’t get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
In fact when you think about the way organizations like RIAA and MPAA like to calculate damages based on lost potential sales they pull out of thin air training an AI that might make up entire songs that compete with their existing set of songs should be even worse. (not that I want to encourage more of that kind of bullshit potential sales argument)
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it’s something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn’t a generalized “you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of” law. It’s all about making and distributing copies of the data.
the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
One of the first steps of training is to copy the data into the training data set.
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I’m no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don’t have a license for.
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I’m sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone’s music without being tainted.
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We’re talking about training LLMs, there’s not anything more than people using computers going on here.
So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?
Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?
What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?
To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.
A lot of the griping about AI training involves data that’s been freely published. Stable Diffusion, for example, trained on public images available on the internet for anyone to view, but led to all manner of ill-informed public outrage. LLMs train on public forums and news sites. But people have this notion that copyright gives them some kind of absolute control over the stuff they “own” and they suddenly see a way to demand a pound of flesh for what they previously posted in public. It’s just not so.
I have the right to analyze what I see. I strongly oppose any move to restrict that right.
And what of the massive amount of content paywalled that ai still used to train?
If it’s paywalled how did they access it?
Publically available =/= freely published
Many images are made and published with anti AI licenses or are otherwise licensed in a way that requires attribution for derivative works.
The problem with those things is that the viewer doesn’t need that license in order to analyze them. They can just refuse the license. Licenses don’t automatically apply, you have to accept them. And since they’re contracts they need to offer consideration, not just place restrictions.
An AI model is not a derivative work, it doesn’t include any identifiable pieces of the training data.
It’s also pretty clear they used a lot of books and other material they didn’t pay for, and obtained via illegal downloads. The practice of which I’m fine with, I just want it legalised for everyone.
I’m wondering when i go to the library and read a book, does this mean i can never become an author as I’m tainted? Or am I only tainted if I stole the book?
To me this is only a theft case.
This isn’t quite correct either.
The reality is that there’s a bunch of court cases and laws still up in the air about what AI training counts as, and until those are resolved the most we can make is conjecture and vague moral posturing.
Closest we have is likely the court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent, and have mostly hinged on “intent” and “affect on original copy sales”. So based on that logic whether or not AI training counts as copyright infringement is likely going to come down to whether or not shit like “ghibli filters” actually provably (at least as far as a judge is concerned) fuck with Ghibli’s sales.
court decisions on music sampling and so far those haven’t been consistent,
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. (1991) - Rapper Biz Markie sampled Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally)” without permission
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005) - any unauthorized sampling, no matter how minimal, is infringement.
VMG Salsoul v. Ciccone (2016) - to determine whether use was de minimis it must be considered whether an average audience would recognize appropriation from the original work as present in the accused work.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) - This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis
That case is about fair use for parody.
Case law suggests using AI for parody is legal.
So streaming is fine but copying not
Streaming involves distributing copies so I don’t see why it would be. The law has been well tested in this area.
Well how does the AI company consume the content?
Which company us “the AI company?”
It’s exploiting copyrighted content without a licence, so, in short, it’s pirating.
“Exploiting copyrighted content” is an incredibly vague concept that is not illegal. Copyright is about distributing copies of copyrighted content.
If I am given a copyrighted book, there are plenty of ways that I can exploit that book that are not against copyright. I could make paper airplanes out of its pages. I could burn it for heat. I could even read it and learn from its contents. The one thing I can’t do is distribute copies of it.
It’s about making copies, not just distributing them, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to be bound by a software eula because I wouldn’t need a license to copy the content to my computer ram to run it.
The enforceability of EULAs varies with jurisdiction and with the actual contents of the EULA. It’s by no means a universally accepted thing.
It’s funny how suddenly large chunks of the Internet are cheering on EULAs and copyright enforcement by giant megacorporations because they’ve become convinced that AI is Satan.
I’m absolutely against the idea of EULAs but the fact remains they are only enforceable because it’s the copying that is the reserved right, not the distribution. If it was distribution then second hand sales would be prohibitable (though thanks to going digital only that loop hole is getting pulled shut slowly but surely).
Again, they are not universally enforceable. There are plenty of jurisdictions where they are not.
It’s not only about copying or distribution, but also use and reproduction. I can buy a legit DVD and play it in my own home and all is fine. Then I play it on my bar’s tv, in front of 100 people, and now it’s illegal. I can listen to a song however many times I want, but I can’t use it for anything other than private listening. In theory you should pay even if you want to make a video montage to show at your wedding.
Right now most licenses for copyrighted material specify that you use said material only for personal consumption. To use it for profit you need a special license
Copyrighted material can be used or reproduced only with a license that allows for it. If the license forbids you from using the copyrighted material for business purposes, and you do it anyway, then it’s pirating.
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’re assuming most of the commentors here are familiar with the legal technicalities instead of just spouting whatever uninformed opinion they have.
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
good luck. the keir starmer is a literal ai.
