good luck. the keir starmer is a literal ai.
Good, fuck copyright these counts have enough money already.
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
Did this already play out at Reddit? Ai was one of the reasons I left but I believe it’s a different scenario. I freely contributed my content to Reddit for the purposes of building an interactive community, but they changed the terms without my consent. I did NOT contribute my content so they could make money selling it for ai training
The only logical distinction I see with s ai aren’t human: an exception for humans does not apply to non-humans even if the activity is similar
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”, it’s nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people’s artwork to directly compete against them.)
Oh good I see Labour are dealing with the real issues in society.
Modern Labour and not giving a fuck about workers, name a more iconic duo.
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 worry, if they don’t you can just use ai to make them.
Don’t Let Me Down, Just Don’t Start Now
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.
With a mercenary death squad, probably.
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.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/disney-mocked-fake-cgi-actors-crowd-scene
Using AI to cook up some fake actors as of a couple years ago.
Or Nintendo.
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.
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
No, because training an AI is not “pirating.”
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
And what of the massive amount of content paywalled that ai still used to train?
If it’s paywalled how did they access it?
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.
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)
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
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
That would be hilarious if someone made a website showing how they are using pirated Nintendo games (complete with screenshots of the games, etc) to show how they are “training” their AI just to watch Nintendo freak out.
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.
So did this UK “centre-left” party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They’ve dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to ‘predict’ future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone’s work without compensation.
If I hadn’t looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they’re a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk’s payroll.
Is anyone calling UK Labour centre-left? I would have thought theyd be sitting just inside the lower right quadrant of the political compass, they might have been centre left when Corbyn was the leader but that was a while ago and Starmer isn’t that kinda guy.
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Australia too.
We’ve been making fun of the UK too, you dummie
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Yes, that’s why Europeans make fun of both the UK and its former colony.
Kind of, its a little more complicated than that, I think its probably more accurate to say they have their own issues. The UK system is pretty different from the shitshow in the US.
They also use FPTP but have no electoral college and multiple parties including 4 major parties. So while there are multiple parties, in any given electorate you really need to vote for the party you hate the least that has a chance of winning. The two parties in an electorate that have a chance of winning varies across electorates and regions. They also have the House of Lords instead of a senate with members of House mostly being appointed (for life) rather than elected.
So … its own nonsense. Still seems less shithouse than the US system.
For life you say? Appointed? Sounds like someone already won in life and could retire at birth (owners class) then got punished by having to show up every once in a while to “make laws”.
Always has been.
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
You’ve got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven’t been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they’re separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
Thank you, I tried to condense it and may have condensed a little too hard aha
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing…
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
Can we just shut the fuck up about this fantasy “centre-left” already? There has not been a centre in a very long time, let alone a left. Regardless far-left or far-right, only options are authoritarian and not libertarian. Go compare Switzerland to enlighten yourself.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
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.
No more ads on youtube
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.
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 😞
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.
Well another two idiots that I’ll never listen to. Hey Metallica isn’t alone now
It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.
I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.
Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.
Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.
I’m an advocate of full copyleft mentality : free and open source for any use, including commercial. If I’m sharing my work then anyone can do anything with it, I’m not entirely sure about attribution yet though, probably a remnant of being raised in this society…
You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with. I never said AI companies are good or that they should be allowed to do everything, just that the copyright issue is not the problem for me.
Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with.
Cool but that issue is not in play here. That is not even close to a mainstream position and none of the actual players in this are working towards that outcome. Taking one side of this on that basis is silly.
You can call me ‘silly’ if you want, I’ve been called worse :-D
Does it matter that a position is mainstream for defending it ? I haven’t taken any “sides” on the AI topic in this thread, just stated my opinions regarding the subject of intellectual property, which is very inconsequential, furthermore we are on lemmy, that is not mainstream either. Do we have to “take side” and be split on every topic, tribally defending our “side”, because the other side are obviously idiots ?
Breaking: Two people whose fortunes depend on the existing world order urge lawmakers to ban something new that could disrupt that order.
No no they do it to protect the little artists!
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.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
As someone who has extensive experience with decompiling, I can say that working with binaries is usually a lot easier than with a source code.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
It devalues universal share value yea.
As if the music industry wasn’t exploiting artists already. I use Chatgpt to learn about chord progressions. Sue me
