“Generative” is not a thing in copyright law.
You regard them as different to tools like Word. That does not exist in the law.
When you originally posted that they OpenAI should be on the hook I thought you meant they were the ones commiting copyright infringement. Not that they would violate private contracts with their customers.
Private agreements is not my business.
There is however a push by both sides to settle this in law. Whatever happens will affect everyone.
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don’t contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.
Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.
It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.
Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
It’s not a breach of copyright or other IP law not to cite sources on your paper.
Getting your paper rejected for lacking sources is also not infringing in your freedom. Being forced to pay damages and delete your paper from any public space would be infringement of your freedom.
The decision is that even lending out ebooks against owned copies is illegal
What the IA may be illegal but is certainly not wrong.
I remember an Apple fanboy arguing that this made things better!
You don’t have to deal with digital ownership bullshit with existing physical media because some people broke the DRM.
The worst development for end users would be a normalization of physical media and new or (“updated”) physical formats and players.
With brand new DRM and more tightly controlled playback devices.
Why won’t they get a virus or something on Windows 10 with that same hardware?
Banana Mickey mouse republic
You presume much about what services I use. There is much to be said about the power private corps have over us, the complications of being unable or unwilling to use their services making you a de facto outsider.
I don’t see how these wrongs make another right.
Some of the actions alleged are actual crimes. It is a bad idea to have them handle para-legally. Sure being excluded from visiting bars is a light punishment (for someone actually guilty, completely unfair for an innocent person) but nothing guarantees it will stay there and won’t also be used leaked to prospective employers and other people. In fact the first time you get denied you could very well not be alone and have to convince people you are not a rapist or something.
It’s exactly the sort of information you not want bartenders and bouncers conjuring and trading in.
Yes totally reasonable some corpos and business get to claim you are a criminal and impose de facto penalties on you.
Exploits don’t care if you are actually the NSA or not. The NSA certainly knowns that yet they keep exploits secret at least from the public.
They have argued for key escrow for God’s shake.
They are primarily an intelligence agency. If you are not likely to be targeted by the NSA you are also unlikely to be targeted by any of their adversaries. They don’t give a shit if you get scammed, they are not the FBI, who also keep secret exploits and are anti-encryption.
Additionally using their “best” exploits on more simple targets still poses a risk to them being discovered and fixed. Therefore it’s beneficial to them for everybody’s security to be compromised. It also provides deniability.
Do you have any evidence those two people are still committing burglaries? The NSA is not an ex-intelligence agency.
It doesn’t matter if they know about security (which they do). A burglar could know about locks and home security systems, would you take his advice?
Their positions on security of others is dismissed on grounds of trust not of competence.
If there’s momentum for a return to physical media the copyright owners won’t start printing DVDs or BluRays for new or republished media.
They will push a new format with new media and players. They will use all they have learned from their previous failures to put more effective technical and legal hurdles to the users.
Perhaps we will break it again but it is not a given. If we don’t they will decide how youn can use your media.
As long as a standard “unblessed” usb-c cable will work fully with the phone it’s non-issue.