I’m actually pretty pro-AI (and in particular, pro-FOSS AI), so I’m pretty unhappy about this myself ;p
If nothing else, this kind of shit will mean that only the existing “Intellectual Property” holders will have access to using AI. It would entrench things even more >.<
Would commercializing the trained AI count as a commercial public performance though? The legal problems with AI don’t come with the training, but when you start selling it.
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: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
removed by mod
Once again it’s that “worst person you know just made a great point” headline
I’m actually pretty pro-AI (and in particular, pro-FOSS AI), so I’m pretty unhappy about this myself ;p
If nothing else, this kind of shit will mean that only the existing “Intellectual Property” holders will have access to using AI. It would entrench things even more >.<
It may be illegal to distribute it, but it’s not illegal to read it. Or train an AI on it, which is the same process.
Would commercializing the trained AI count as a commercial public performance though? The legal problems with AI don’t come with the training, but when you start selling it.
I don’t see what the problem would be. The AI model and its outputs are not derivative works from a legal perspective.
Huh. Neat