Path: ...!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: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:04:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <vq4nfl$1d6e4$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>
 <vq38kh$16bei$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 18:04:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c4c78e000236324c2c197afd964cde";
	logging-data="1481156"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184aFtBdXdmjb1iqvbe9sPB5AspWRciFLE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jhliMCN6z/K4FI3nG+ozpUAYUNg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq38kh$16bei$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6288

On 3/2/2025 10:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

I acknowledge that the *logic* underlying law is what interests me.