Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vq2qq7$10hmi$1@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 23:49:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <vq2qq7$10hmi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <vq23q4$rvpu$1@dont-email.me> <vq2it3$umv9$4@dont-email.me> <vq2nh9$vm7q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:49:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e0ebb72c01fdd58afd188f28b55cd85";
	logging-data="1066706"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HSFxuDdYCaV48jAYloS/s"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2XdtkjXGpGJ2PsnRLb7g9SheQZw=

On Mar 2, 2025 at 2:53:29 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>  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.
>>  
>>  No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
>>  the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the
>> last
>>  40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the
>> works
>>  in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions
>> of
>>  books to answer people's questions on the internet.
>>  
>>>  AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
>>>  understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
> 
> Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.

Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.

> But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of 
> understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then 
> there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases, 
> *without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright 
> (regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).

I'd love to some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.

>     "Booze works faster than chocolate"
> 
> wouldn't violate copyright, whereas:
> 
>     "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
> 
> would.