I would rather Zuckerberg do 6 months in jail and probation than fine Meta.
You aren't going to be able to make me anti-piracy just because some corpo benefits from it too.
Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
41–50 of 484 posts
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#42I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
The human savant will remember where they read it and give you credit. It might lead more people to read your work, and ultimately you make money. The AI won't even know where the page of text it's seeing came from, and people will avoid your book as they can just ask the AI. So you make less money. (Talking about specialized technical books here.)
Not necessarily.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#43I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
Why should an AI have the same rights as a human? How about then to grant AI all other rights, for example, to allow voting?(sarcasm)
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human?
Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#44I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
It’s different.
Hm. I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#45I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional.
A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
reading it after stealing it: gray area. producing & monetizing competing works devaluing the original is a problem
So is it a problem when humans produce and monetize competing works? My understanding is that there quite an industry in humans reading books and synthesizing their points. Cliff's Notes, for example.
I did some quick googling and most of cliffs notes guides are on public domain works so no problem there, they've also paid to license content, and also have been protected by fair use as parody
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#47I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional. A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.
I see that as a distinction - but does it make a difference?
If a company hired hundreds of savants, then it would be illegal for them to read books?
I don't follow.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should an AI have the same rights as a human? How about then to grant AI all other rights, for example, to allow voting?(sarcasm)
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human? Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet.
The issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is it a problem when humans produce and monetize competing works? My understanding is that there quite an industry in humans reading books and synthesizing their points. Cliff's Notes, for example.
I did some quick googling and most of cliffs notes guides are on public domain works so no problem there, they've also paid to license content, and also have been protected by fair use as parody
To Kill a Mockingbird, The Catcher in the Rye, Beloved, The Kite Runner, The Handmaid's Tale are all copyrighted works with a Cliff's Notes guide.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human? Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet.
The issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines.
Well - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law.