"Copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression" and cannot be avoided.
Apparently, stealing other people’s work to create product for money is now “fair use” as according to OpenAI because they are “innovating” (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?
“Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,” wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.
OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit “misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.”
All the AI race has done is surface the long standing issue of how broken copyright is for the online internet era. Artists should be compensated but trying to do that using the traditional model which was originally designed with physical, non infinitely copyable goods in mind is just asinine.
One such model could be to make the copyright owner automatically assigned by first upload on any platform that supports the API. An API provided and enforced by the US copyright office. A percentage of the end use case can be paid back as royalties. I haven’t really thought out this model much further than this.
Machine learning is here to say and is a useful tool that can be used for good and evil things alike.
Nah. Copyright is broken, but it’s broken because it lasts too long, and it can be held by constructs. People should still reserve the right to not have the things they’ve made incorporated into projects or products they don’t want to be associated with.
The right to refusal is important. Consent is important. The default permission should not be shifted to “yes” in anybody’s mind.
The fact that a not insignificant number of people seem to think the only issue here is money points to some pretty fucking entitled views among the would-be-billionaires.
My major issue with copyright is how published works can have major cultural significance. How it can shift ideas and shape minds. But your not allowed to have some fun with on a personal level. How can it be the norm that the most important scientific knowledge and other culturally significant material is locked behind such restrictive measures. Essentially ensuring that middle class and especially poor people are locked out.
If you publish something, even if it’s paid, you don’t deserve such restrictive rights. You deserve to be compensated for your work but you don’t deserve to make it into a extortion racket.
My view on your second point is if you have posted it publicly with no paywall, maybe you should still get some percentage revenue but you don’t have a say in what it can be used. To place restrictions on what it can be used for when posting it publicly is academic as it’s basically unenforceable.
We live in a society which revolves around the discovery and sharing of ideas. We are all entitled to a certain amount of the sharing of that information. That’s the whole point. To have some business man who was in the right place at the right time create an extortion racket out of something culturally significant they almost certainly didn’t create is wrong.
Sorry if this is all over the place. I’m writing this while tired.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
All the AI race has done is surface the long standing issue of how broken copyright is for the online internet era. Artists should be compensated but trying to do that using the traditional model which was originally designed with physical, non infinitely copyable goods in mind is just asinine.
One such model could be to make the copyright owner automatically assigned by first upload on any platform that supports the API. An API provided and enforced by the US copyright office. A percentage of the end use case can be paid back as royalties. I haven’t really thought out this model much further than this.
Machine learning is here to say and is a useful tool that can be used for good and evil things alike.
Nah. Copyright is broken, but it’s broken because it lasts too long, and it can be held by constructs. People should still reserve the right to not have the things they’ve made incorporated into projects or products they don’t want to be associated with.
The right to refusal is important. Consent is important. The default permission should not be shifted to “yes” in anybody’s mind.
The fact that a not insignificant number of people seem to think the only issue here is money points to some pretty fucking entitled views among the would-be-billionaires.
My major issue with copyright is how published works can have major cultural significance. How it can shift ideas and shape minds. But your not allowed to have some fun with on a personal level. How can it be the norm that the most important scientific knowledge and other culturally significant material is locked behind such restrictive measures. Essentially ensuring that middle class and especially poor people are locked out.
If you publish something, even if it’s paid, you don’t deserve such restrictive rights. You deserve to be compensated for your work but you don’t deserve to make it into a extortion racket.
My view on your second point is if you have posted it publicly with no paywall, maybe you should still get some percentage revenue but you don’t have a say in what it can be used. To place restrictions on what it can be used for when posting it publicly is academic as it’s basically unenforceable.
We live in a society which revolves around the discovery and sharing of ideas. We are all entitled to a certain amount of the sharing of that information. That’s the whole point. To have some business man who was in the right place at the right time create an extortion racket out of something culturally significant they almost certainly didn’t create is wrong.
Sorry if this is all over the place. I’m writing this while tired.