It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they’ve been created.
I’m pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I’m definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn’t going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.
People are not “suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property”. Instead they wonder why some companies can violate those rules on an unprecedented scale whiteout consequences.
the reason they can “violate” the rules is that violation is defined loosely enough that feeding millions of legally aquired contents to the AI is probably as legal as making a collage.
I think it’s more about the unequal application if those laws. People have had their lives ruined for sharing an mp3. These companies infringe on literally everything and they get rich.
I bet the next step is that the folks vibe coding emulators and replacements for major software suites are going to get serious fines, while artists are going to continue to get ripped off in the name of “innovation”.
This is very much the problem I have. We have officially reached the point where the average artist on Deviant Art has less intellectual property rights than the average even LLC let alone megacorp like Disney.
So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
Exactly. What happened to “restriction of what a user can do with software or its source code is an infringement upon the users’ rights”? I’m not saying that AI companies are acting in the spirit of FOSS, they’re not, their models aren’t even open-weight (for the most part), but the issue is not the training on materials that ought to be public domain anyway. There’s plenty of ethical issues with modern technology. It’s not sustainable at all, the supply chain is full of slavery, it generates huge amounts of emissions, etc. People’s primary concern being pearl clutching about “plagiarism” shows where their priorities lie. If AI companies have plagiarised then I couldn’t care less. It’s everything else they’re doing that’s the problem.
It frustrates me to see that people are suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property right of people to control creations after they’ve been created.
I’m pretty skeptical of AI and have my doubts that it will be a net good, but I’m definitely not gonna suddenly be pro-copyright as part of that fight. Copyright has traditionally been used to entrench corporate interests, and strengthening those protections isn’t going to suddenly win a fight against some kind of AI dystopia.
People are not “suddenly protective of some kind of intellectual property”. Instead they wonder why some companies can violate those rules on an unprecedented scale whiteout consequences.
the reason they can “violate” the rules is that violation is defined loosely enough that feeding millions of legally aquired contents to the AI is probably as legal as making a collage.
I think it’s more about the unequal application if those laws. People have had their lives ruined for sharing an mp3. These companies infringe on literally everything and they get rich.
I bet the next step is that the folks vibe coding emulators and replacements for major software suites are going to get serious fines, while artists are going to continue to get ripped off in the name of “innovation”.
This is very much the problem I have. We have officially reached the point where the average artist on Deviant Art has less intellectual property rights than the average even LLC let alone megacorp like Disney.
So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
That would essentially be a position in favor of prosecuting Aaron Swartz
No. Aaron did not distribute any of the work, settled in a civil suit and was prosecuted later.
Copyright was not the problem there.
Either one would be better than the current situation. And let’s be real, we aren’t gonna have a say in it anway
People shouldn’t be and companies should, neither should be, both should be, the current situation, in order of decreasing preference.
Well i think the issue is if licenses become worthless then that’s also bad for the GPL
Exactly. What happened to “restriction of what a user can do with software or its source code is an infringement upon the users’ rights”? I’m not saying that AI companies are acting in the spirit of FOSS, they’re not, their models aren’t even open-weight (for the most part), but the issue is not the training on materials that ought to be public domain anyway. There’s plenty of ethical issues with modern technology. It’s not sustainable at all, the supply chain is full of slavery, it generates huge amounts of emissions, etc. People’s primary concern being pearl clutching about “plagiarism” shows where their priorities lie. If AI companies have plagiarised then I couldn’t care less. It’s everything else they’re doing that’s the problem.