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.