• @HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    96 hours ago

    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?

        • @jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 hours ago

          I am aware of a lot of people who are very gung-ho about AI. I don’t know if anybody has actually tried to make a comprehensive survey about people’s disposition toward AI. I wouldn’t expect Lemmy to be representative.

  • @deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2510 hours ago

    I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.

    Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!

  • @deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1710 hours ago

    Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.

    One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞

    • @maplebar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 hours ago

      Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.

      But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.

  • @AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    612 hours ago
    1. There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
    2. What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
    3. 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?
    • @Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2822 hours ago

      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.

      • @golden_zealot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1720 hours ago

        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.

      • @finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        420 hours ago

        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.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      621 hours ago

      Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course

      • @reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        313 hours ago

        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.

  • @the_q@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 day ago

    I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…

      • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -722 hours ago

        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?

        • 100_kg_90_de_belin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          214 hours ago

          I don’t see how allowing AI robbery barons to steal copyrighted material would benefit a small fish in the pond of IP

        • @Scrollone@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          622 hours ago

          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.

          • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -521 hours ago

            Honestly, I think our world would be a lot blander, and we’d have a whole lot less original content.

        • Main
          link
          fedilink
          English
          522 hours ago

          Creation is its own incentive.

        • @Vespair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          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.

  • Lovable Sidekick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, but make their living day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output, because they don’t get any revenue streams from it to begin with. Realistically they’re the people most of us should identify with, but instead we rally behind the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they represent us. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.

    • @CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      223 hours ago

      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.