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: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 03:45:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vq38kh$16bei$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpnugk$2nkhb$1@dont-email.me> <vq2nh9$vm7q$1@dont-email.me> <vq2qq7$10hmi$1@dont-email.me> <vq37qq$12dlu$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 04:45:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e0ebb72c01fdd58afd188f28b55cd85";
	logging-data="1256914"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YKjRsmVD2paG3rEkqukbu"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:waUNMuHUFpJ2zfLCHwqLUd8emv0=

On Mar 2, 2025 at 7:31:38 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> 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.

Well, as long you acknowledge that your claim is merely your opinion and
nothing more.