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: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 04:35:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <vq0n68$ksbf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <0001HW.2D73E30003BE277030E3ED38F@news.giganews.com> <vq0koj$gp9o$1@dont-email.me> <f3m7sjl467rvn2npq2mg7h2to5v2lrfu1q@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 05:35:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="894792da372130ef9b29698f158cdbce";
	logging-data="684399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JjRteJisUtlx+lQF73Qu2"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XzCd8yOaJCZY3Uotjvgh5cTYT4A=
Bytes: 3181

On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:04:35 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 03:53:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>  On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 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?
>>>  
>>>  You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
>>>  to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
>>>  pass?
>> 
>> No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate
>> copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become
>> a
>> violation?
>> 
> 
> Two reasons, one is a computer doesn't as of yet have the same rights
> and privileges as a human being.

Rights and privileges don't enter into it. It's what the U.S. Copyright
Statute says that's relevant.

> Second is that when a computer reads a book it often is making a copy
> of the book in its memory. Which is different from what a human does
> when reading a book.

So if they programmed the AI to only recognize the book one character at a
time (which is probably how it currently works) it would be fine?