Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vq0n8g$ksbf$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: 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 04:36:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <vq0n8g$ksbf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <0001HW.2D73E30003BE277030E3ED38F@news.giganews.com> <vq0koj$gp9o$1@dont-email.me> <0001HW.2D7416B003C8F76A30A6CD38F@news.giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 05:36:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="894792da372130ef9b29698f158cdbce";
	logging-data="684399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18q8WpMMOopKfT/ppw82k24"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UALtc51u467fKWlbe/GEnDDt37Y=

On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 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?
> 
> No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
> shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
> commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.

I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.

> That's mindless.

Indeed.