Path: 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 22:31:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vq37qq$12dlu$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>
 <vq2qq7$10hmi$1@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: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 04:31:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c4c78e000236324c2c197afd964cde";
	logging-data="1128126"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8rG+vd8qq/okFaTtHIaXCU1t8i8krvGk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O3ncdgfxupCvEr0mBKSzgrzkfHA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq2qq7$10hmi$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/2/2025 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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 [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.

When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.


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