729
But I can't pirate copyrighted materials to "train" my own real intelligence.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
729 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
66353 readers
4405 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
Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It's a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws. We should be able too. But that isn't where our discussions were steered was it
It's copyright, not copywrite---you know, the right to copy. Copywriting is what ad people do. And what does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act?
load more comments
(8 replies)
Why does Sam have such a punchable face?
Business that stole everyone's information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.
Yeah I'll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared... Wankers.
Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can't have both.
Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I'm in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.
The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span--it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we'd be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.
5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.
You don't have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it's just you won't have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.
And how do you think that's going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
Just because corporations abuse it doesn't mean we throw it out.
It shouldn't be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.
Or maybe 5 years unless it's an individual.
how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?
it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…
We'll just having some copyright look like?
Probably allowing everything but producing reproductions.
Basically they could use the ideas from the book and whatnot to do whatever. But they couldn't just print duplicates with a different cover and sell them for cheaper.
the issue is that foreign companies aren't subject to US copyright law, so if we hobble US AI companies, our country loses the AI war
I get that AI seems unfair, but there isn't really a way to prevent AI scraping (domestic and foreign) aside from removing all public content on the internet
I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there's hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thanks that's very insightful and I'll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.
I think 5 years is a bit short.
It's so wild how laws just have no idea what to do with you if you just add one layer of proxy. "Nooo I'm not stealing and plagerizing, it's the AI doing it!"
If I'm using "AI" to generate subtitles for the "community" is ok if i have a large "datastore" of "licensable media" stored locally to work off of right?
"We can't succeed without breaking the law. We can't succeed without operating unethically."
I'm so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it's not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.
Too many people think they're superior. Which is ironic, because they're also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn't need all the unethical things that you're asking for.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Good.
Fuck Sam Altman's greed. Pay the fucking artists you're robbing.
They are US based right?
So they literally do whatever they want anyway regardless of what any law might say.
What if we had taken the billions of dollars invested in AI and invested that into public education instead?
Imagine the return on investment of the information being used to train actual humans who can reason and don’t lie 60% of the time instead of using it to train a computer that is useless more than it is useful.
But you have to pay humans, and give them bathroom breaks, and allow them time off work to spend with their loved ones. Where's the profit in that? Surely it's more clever and efficient to shovel time and money into replacing something that will never be able to practically develop beyond current human understanding. After all, we're living in the golden age of humanity and history has ended! No new knowledge will ever be made so let's just make machines that regurgitate our infallible and complete knowledge.
Where are the copyright lawsuits by Nintendo and Disney when you need them lol
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is "fair use", or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.
Organized crime exists to make money; the way OpenAI is burning through it, they're more Disorganized Crime
So pirating full works suddenly is fair use, or what?
Only if you're doing it to learn, I guess
Wait until all those expensive scientific journals hear about this
God forbid you offer to PAY for access to works that people create like everyone else has to. University students have to pay out the nose for their books that they "train" on, why can't billion dollar AI companies?
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.
No, taxes implies a monopoly on the training data. The government profits. The rights holders get nothing back.
If private data is deemed public for AI training then the results of that training (code+weights+source list) should also be deemed public.
fully agree, the only way I'm ok with fair use for AI is if the resulting product is public use. Even if they want to charge for the product to use their frontend, give the ability to use the system local (if your system can support it) much like how most self hosting software does it
50% is too little if you want to allow that
view more: next ›