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: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: OT: The AIs have it...
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:16:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vq23q4$rvpu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me>
 <0001HW.2D73E30003BE277030E3ED38F@news.giganews.com>
 <vq0koj$gp9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <0001HW.2D7416B003C8F76A30A6CD38F@news.giganews.com>
 <vq0n8g$ksbf$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 18:16:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cd3803a06b4684e4a2ba8a1249dae23";
	logging-data="917310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+7AqzFjst2Akppndlbxgny4PhwPJaTio="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:17WWCyennnB8AAcwhGdW2Oqz/5E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq0n8g$ksbf$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3765

On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of 
ideas.  When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then 
freely voice them from your understanding.  If, however, you *don't* 
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from 
the book, you violate copyright.  AIs, as yet, have no claim of such 
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.