- 0 Posts
- 30 Comments
If an AI has been trained on copyrighted material and can be shown to be capable of reproducing something close enough to said material, would that be infringement already or not? If you use a paid service like Midjourney to generate copyrighted content, the company is essentially selling you access to copyrighted content they lack the rights to.
I wasn’t aware that it was just YT’s system that had messed up and not the legal system. Crazy that one company has that much power.
If industrial secrecy is a problem, make that illegal too. We have a right to know where our products come from, anyway. If pharmaceuticals need to benefit in order to do research, instead of patents outlawing reproduction of their products entirely, just make other companies give the original researcher a cut of the profit while the patent lasts. A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.
Look at this.
Heart Afire is a song by Defqwop featuring Strix released on May 21, 2016, and removed from the the NCS YouTube channel on March 28, 2019 due to a copyright strike by Lemaitre, as this song sounded too similar to Lemaitre’s song Closer.
Having heard both songs, they really aren’t all that similar.
Pharmaceutical patents are insanely harmful to the average consumer, at least in the US. Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.
It’s true that restricting what AI can train on inhibits societal progress, but it’s consistent with current copyright laws because an AI is not a human and can’t be treated as anything more than an algorithm. What we’re learning here is that AI is bringing to light a problem in intellectual property law that’s plagued us for a long time: intellectual property being overly protected is harmful to society as a whole. I wouldn’t be opposed to AI training on data on the internet if people got the same treatment: let people reuse each other’s melodies, don’t protect likenesses so strictly, and for the love of humanity, no more pharmaceutical patents!
Crazy how google still does that, but youtube doesn’t. My guess would be that laymen were copy-pasting titles with hyphens in them and then getting confused when what they were looking for wouldn’t show up, which honestly makes sense. That could be solved by just having the little tricks visible somewhere near the search so that people can figure it out.
Seemingly, nobody’s voting on it at all either way. This was 2 years ago!
The error you’re making is treating people as groups instead of individuals. There being a lot of men in, for example, computer science doesn’t benefit the boys who aren’t but want to be in any meaningful way. You would never have a girls-only football team without having one for boys or open-enrollment alongside it, even if the boys get to play football in PE sometimes. Why is it suddenly okay when the subject is academic?
As long as young men and boys see that they are discriminated against, devalued, and excluded, there will always be grifters ready to convince them that their problems are caused by some other group of normal people instead of the people actually doing the discrimination and steering the values of society.
In my experience, you get full solidarity if you go far enough left. Mainstream politics is all about dividing people into groups and getting them to fight each other. The right convinces men and non-GSMs to hate women and GSMs by blaming all of their problems on them, while the center (Dems are NOT the left) does the same thing, but the other way around. All the while, the top 0.1% make record-breaking profits while we’re distracted.
But do things ever improve? Nope! Liberal decisions generally only place any value on the well-being of women and minorities, while conservative decisions generally only place any value on the bank accounts of those making the decisions. You have to go very far left before people start caring about men, and the people that far left aren’t numerous enough to create any meaningful change.
Gendered organizations take away valuable educational opportunities from the opposite gender when they have no alternative. Since this is about high schoolers, it’s worth noting that when I was in high school, there were some extra-curricular educational opportunities that were girls-only and had no open-enrollment equivalent whatsoever. Of course, if those same clubs only allowed boys, there would be a shitstorm and people would probably end up losing their jobs over it.
To be clear, my position is that copyright law should be loosened, not tightened. I know that it’s unreasonable and infeasible to limit AI like that, both for practical and competitive reasons.
When I said that it could be shown to generate copyrighted content, I didn’t mean it had a chance, I meant showing actual examples of it doing so. I also think that it should be allowed to do that, but so should everyone else. In my opinion, derivative works should almost always be allowed unless they can be proven to cause significant harm to the original creator.