Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: OT: The AIs have it...
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 05:32:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vpotcv$3043m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <l2dvrj55dbp6n7lqq5v0i0njvhg0p4en8a@4ax.com> <vpoin3$2qst3$1@dont-email.me> <7bqvrj9lesemikspoaisll4i7ishkifmu4@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 06:32:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9e4eef3b99135bc25560edad000afd4c";
	logging-data="3149942"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yEOsi44fs2tFdgBdylo04"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kzcxxvm5Hh44X3KlayTvVjWVgKk=
Bytes: 2924

On Feb 26, 2025 at 8:28:22 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 02:29:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>  On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>  
>>>>  On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>>   1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
>>>>  
>>>>  I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
>>>>  etc.
>>>>  is a copyright violation in the first place.
>>>>  
>>>>  The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
>>>>  listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
>>>> than a
>>>>  human being reading a book and learning from it.
>>>>  
>>>>  Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
>>>> it's
>>>>  learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
>>>>  copyright violation but the other is not?
>>>>  
>>>  
>>>  The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
>>>  for anyone to use.
>> 
>> I don't pay for the books in my local library. Am I committing a copyright
>> violation by reading them?
> 
> No but you are checking out each book one at a time. The AI was
> trained on a large collection of books so no need to go through the
> delaying tactic of checking out a book (digital or physical) from the
> library.

None of which has anything to do with copyright. There's nothing in the
copyright statute that says it's only a violation if you read the books
super-quick.