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.