GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • @wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
    1•11 months ago

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to as a far-right position?

    • AI corporations should have the right to all works in order to train their AIs.
    • Copyright needs to be enforced.

    The first is very pro-corporation in one way, but can lead to an argument for all intellectual works to be public domain.

    The second is pro-mega-rights-owners, but also allows someone to write a story, publish it themselves, and make money without having it stolen from them.

    • @General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•11 months ago

      Fair use has always been a thing in the US.

      The US constitutions allows congress to limit the freedom of the press with these words: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      This has no room for fuck you, I got mine. Framing the abolition of fair use as enforcing copyright is an absolute lie.

      The view of copyright as some sort of absolute property right that can be exercised against the public is a far right position. (I’d argue that’s true for all property rights but that’s a different subject.) What makes it far right is that it implies unfettered, heritable power for a small elite. Saying that everyone has an equal right to property, as such, is so inane that it is worthy only of ridicule. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

      The NYT is suing for money. It owns the copyright to all those articles published in the last century; all already paid. Every cent licensing fee is pure profit for the owners; beautiful shareholder value. Benefit to society? Zero. But you have to enforce copyright. It’s property! You wouldn’t want some corporation to steal the cardboard boxes of the homeless.