In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m naming my torrent client “AI” and now I have the right to download a car.
But downloading and illegally using that font is okay?
and the music
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?
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”.
Lords in the UK get a tax free allowance of £323 for every day they actually turn up to work. But nothing actually forces them to show up.
Always has been.
We’ve been making fun of the UK too, you dummie
Australia too.
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. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. 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
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.
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.
Yes this is definitely true. Although these days unfortunately it seems to be both the Conservatives, and Labour who are influenced by Reform. Even Labour have started parroting some of the same lines about immigration etc. I’m always disappointed about how little talk there is of stuff like cost of living, rent etc since these are often at the forefront of my mind whenever I vote.
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.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
As long as you use AI to generate it
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
God I hope so.
Yes.
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.
By “use” I actually meant “reproduce portions of” and “make derivative works of”
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.
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.
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…
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
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.
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn’t profit off of you.
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.
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.
Greed have no age.
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa should release a song together.
Don’t worry, if they don’t you can just use ai to make them.
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
I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.
