41–50 of 138 posts
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you can replace copyright with whatever the law wants to break Last but not least, generating csam and deep fakes porn on social medias and having to see it called free speech
All of that last one really says is that broadly speaking the average person has no idea what free speech actually is and the kinds of things that it covers. I put it in the same bucket as like the young kids uploading to YouTube with the comment no copyright infringement intended thinking it's like plagiarism.
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry Every day hundreds of links to archive.is are posted[1] to this website to get around paywalls. Technologists built file sharing tools to subvert copyright. It has never been one of the worst crimes imaginable in tech circles. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=tru... (85 instances in the la…
You might be looking at a small time horizon. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible. "We can't do this legally, so we should be allowed to ignore the law." If you can't build a model while respecting licenses, don't build a model. I don't want copyright to exist, at any duration, and I certainly think it should be much shorter than it is. However, as long as it exists, AI should not get any e…
If you can't do something which looks reasonable within the laws, it means that the laws have to change. I don't see how building such a model of historical documents would impact authors (which most of them are dead anyways).
Then change the law. For everyone, consistently, not just massive AI companies. Until then, deal with it.
> I don't see how building such a model of historical documents would impact the authors
It impacts the authors of new documents, who do not get to copy those historical documents, while an AI competing with them gets to. If you want those historical documents to be freely available, make copyright stop applying to them. For everyone, not just massive AI companies.
Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government. > Copyright Law Was Built for Human Scale No where in the law it has this kinda…
St. Augustine: "an unjust law is no law at all."
John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison: "a law repugnant to the constitution is void."
This is actually a fairly well established principle in common law. So, yes.
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
> Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition As the article has pointed out, it's not the principle that has changed, but the scale. Lots of things that are tolerable at small scale (e.g. lying, stealing) become disruptive to society at larger sc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be looking at a small time horizon. What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists ?
Let's not forget the death of Aaron Swartz.
I've never met someone who wasn't on Aaron's side on that one.
Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government. > Copyright Law Was Built for Human Scale No where in the law it has this kinda…
> If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? Yes.
That is not how the separation of power is supposed to work. If a law is bad, politics (preferably a democratic process representing the people) replaces the law with a better one. Until the new law comes into effect, everyone is supposed to abide by the old law, even if it's bad.
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
Usually when I see this opinion (yours), it leans on an uncharitable coloring of everybody who sees problems with copyright as "anti-copyright", when really those people largely are happy with the concept of protecting an individual's work. I.e. it is the age-old "those people" argument, where "those people" are a made-up conglomerate of opinions that are real, but come from slightly different contexts and from diffe…
In the case of copyright, think of it as anti-current-implementation of copyright rather than anti-copyright. For example, you could oppose the current copyright term, but that doesn't mean you are anti-copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact.