Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 17:46:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vpq8ef$377im$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <l2dvrj55dbp6n7lqq5v0i0njvhg0p4en8a@4ax.com> <vpoin3$2qst3$1@dont-email.me> <vpq54s$36i1j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 18:46:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="acaa12586b92babd1a8d927ad045e143";
	logging-data="3382870"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ejf75z8nAfGQD4uGgcSGO"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fx+8DpQEA98I//yHHh55APUU+yM=
Bytes: 2743

On Feb 27, 2025 at 8:50:35 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 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?
> 
> You are if you read them to someone else.

Nope. Reading them aloud to someone in person is not a public performance any
more than inviting your friend over to watch a movie with you is a public
performance.