745
If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''
Otherwise, get fucked.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
745 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
66353 readers
4988 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!
What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?
I don’t think they’re wrong in saying that if they aren’t allowed to train on copyrighted works then they will fall behind. Maybe I missed it in the article, but Japan for example has that exact law (use of copyright to train generative AI is allowed).
Personally I think we need to give them somewhat of an out by letting them do it but then taxing the fuck out of the resulting product. “You can use copyrighted works for training but then 50% of your profits are taxed”. Basically a recognition that the sum of all copyrighted works is a societal good and not just an individual copyright holders.
50% is too little if you want to allow that
load more comments
(2 replies)
Training that AI is absolutely fair use.
Selling that AI service that was trained on copyrighted material is absolutely not fair use.
Agreed... although I would go a step further and say distributing the LLM model or the results of use (even if done without cost) is not fair use, as the training materials weren't licensed.
Ultimatelly it's "Doing Research that advances knowledge for everybody" that should be allowed free use of copyrighted materials, whils activities for direct or indirect commercial gains (included Research whose results are Patented and then licensed for a fee) should not, IMHO.
Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".
National security my ass. More like his time span to show more dumb "achievements" while getting richer depends on it and nothing else
Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro
Fine by me. Can it be over today?
I'll get the champagne for us and tissues for Sam.
Unfortunately, the tissues have a 1000% tarrif. Perhaps sandpaper will do?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why does Sam keep threatening us with a good time?
This sounds like socialism is good for capitalists
If artificial intelligence can be trained on stolen information, then so should be "natural" intelligence.
Oh, wait. One is owned by oligarchs raking in billions, the other just serves the plebs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For Sam:
Come on guys, his company is only worth $157 billion.
Of course he can't pay for content he needs for his automated bullshit machine. He's not made of money!
I hope generative AI obliterates copyright. I hope that its destruction is so thorough that we either forget it ever existed or we talk about it in disgust as something that only existed in stupider times.
Thing is that copywrite did serve a purpose and was for like 20 years before disney got it extended to the nth degree. The idea was the authors had a chance to make money but were expected to be prolific enough to have more writings by the time 20 years was over. I would like to see with patents that once you get one you have a limited time to go to market. Maybe 10 years and if you product is ever not available for purchase (at a cost equivalent to the average cost accounted for inflation or something) you lose the patent so others can produce it. So like stop making an attachment for a product and now anyone can.
"Thing is, land ownership also served a purpose before lord's/landlord's/capitalists decided to expand it to the point of controlling and dictating the lives of serfs/renters/workers. "
Creation's are not that of only the individual creator, they come from a common progress, culture, and history. When individual creator's copyright their works and their works become a major part of common culture they slice up culture for themselves, dictating how it may be used against the wishes of the masses. Desiring this makes them unworthy of having any cultural control IMO. They become just as much of an authoritarian as a lord, landlord, or capitalist.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that copyright also harms individual creators once culture has been carved up: Producing brand new stories inevitably are in some way derivative of previous existing works so because they are locked out of the existing IP unless they sign a deal with the devil they're usually doomed to failure due to no ability to have a grip on cultural relevance.
Now, desiring the ability to make a living being an individual creator? That's completely reasonable. Copyright is not the solution however.
yeah and its sorta silly to even pretend that there is private ownership of land given property tax and regulations. The truth is the state owns the land that it holds by military might and the citizens rent portions for their needs.
The problem with these systems is that the more they are bureaucratized and legalized, the more publishing houses and attorney's offices will ultimately dictate the flow of lending and revenue. Ideally, copywrite is as straighforward as submitting a copy of your book to the Library of Congress and getting a big "Don't plagiarize this" stamp on it, such that works can't be lifted straight from one author by another. But because there's all sorts of shades of gray - were Dan Brown and JK Rowling ripping off the core conceits of their works, or were religious murder thrillers and YA wizard high school books simply done to death by the time they went mainstream? - a lot of what constitutes plagarism really boils down to whether or not you can afford extensive litigation.
And that's before you get into the industrialization of ghostwriters that end up supporting "prolific" writers like Danielle Steele or Brian Sanderson or R.L. Stein. There's no real legal protection for staff writers, editors, and the like. The closest we've got is the WGA, and that's more exclusive to Hollywood.
yeah its the same with patent. I often think both should only be given to individuals and entities should not be able to have them.
load more comments
(7 replies)
So Deepmind is good to train on your models then right?
Oh, so now you're just going to surrender our precious natural resources to the Imperialist Chinese?!
Guys, I think we've got a Wumao over here. Someone get what's left of the FBI to arrest him and show his ass the fucking door.
Then perish, OpenAI. If your only innovation is a legal loophole then you did nothing.
AI always been about using stolen stuff
Sounds like another way of saying "there actually isn't a profitable business in this."
But since we live in crazy world, once he gets his exemption to copyright laws for AI, someone needs to come up with a good self hosted AI toolset that makes it legal for the average person to pirate stuff at scale as well.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I mean, if they are allowed to go forward then we should be allowed to freely pirate as well.
load more comments
(3 replies)
My main takeaway is that some contrived notion of "national security" has now become an acceptable justification for business decisions in the US.