If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to cancel any donations to these libertarian tech bros.
Wait… An attorney commenting on how an existing legal definition is likely to be interpreted…
This isn’t the EFF saying “AI is great” from the linked article. This is the attorney saying that the DOJ comment unfortunately is accurate in line of the existing definition if the exception.
The only defense they use is from the take of individuals or smaller groups training.
I get the knee jerk reaction wanting the EFF to come out against all AI, but that isn’t going to change the written laws. They’ve been fighting abuse via these laws for decades.
I hate Gemini etc as much as the next, but attacking the underlying capitalist and fascist push the big tech are doing via panic changes to what is supposed to be civil definitions instead of toward the criminal intent underlying is short sighted and will absolutely be leverage by those tech bros for even further destruction of what might be left of laws.
Anyone who thinks copyright law will stop bezos etc from harming the world is still thinking they can somehow get their government to tax them back to “normal wealth”.
Wtf? Lemmy has absolutely lost the plot if you start calling the EFF “libertarian tech bros”. Some of you tankies are so far removed from reality that it sometimes feels like I am in a psych ward when I read these comments. Shame on you, really. The people at EFF have done more for the betterment of humanity than all of you combined, and more than you ever will.
Not tankies, this comm is its own separate echo chamber
That’s why the mod team keeps up posts that target communities and harasses users.
Can I ask to what you’re referring?
Do you think “”“tankies”“” give a shit about fucking copyright law?
I like watching AI destroy the US and make a mockery of its laws. It’s funny to me.
Do you think “”“tankies”“” give a shit about fucking copyright law?
Yes, clearly they do. That’s why they hate AI shit.
You’ll find a much more nuanced take on AI if you actually look for it. China is very obviously pro-AI, they just think it needs to be regulated and controlled, but you’ll also notice their take on so-called “intellectual property” is quite different.
Your admin’s brains are cooked by AI, put him down for brain worms.
Wow, you suck.
k 🤣
This is the reply of people who don’t like experts knowing what they are talking about. Zero thoughts behind it.
k😒
After listening to Cory Doctorow’s latest book, I did see a different perspective on this. His argument is that the technical analysis of a copyrighted work has been fair use - it’s how we have search engines, for instance. The key is that you can’t copyright that generated analysis.
He also argues that copyright right now is so ridiculously tilted towards the major media/tech companies that any perceived benefit to the artist from it gets absorbed by the companies because the marketplace has become so consolidated.
If your expectation is that the EFF will denounce anything AI-related you should certainly cancel your donations. I’ve found them to be great champions of the lost cause of trying to preserve our digital rights. That they haven’t given up despite the insurmountable odds is inspiring to me.
Cory Doctorow has no credibility in regards to AI ever since he called opposition to AI “purity testing” among other strawman arguments. All the former “good guys”, the EFF, Cory Doctorow, Linus Torvalds, even fucking Debian (who once shipped a renamed version of Firefox because of potential copyright issues) are one after the other showing their true colours. Meanwhile the fascist creators of AI models openly state that they want to push the very people who created the work they copied to “train” their product, out of the market. This is one of the reasons we even have copyright. Call it tilted towards media all you want, they don’t just get to decide that it no longer matters now that it is inconvenient to the tech oligarchy.
He’s literally one of the top experts in their field, compared to someone who doesn’t like to read books and is proud of it.
Have you read the book or are you just dismissing the arguments without even considering them?
I read the book and you are right to point out that this d-bag is totally misunderstanding Cory Doctorow’s arguements.
What a chud.
In b4 you get banned from the mod being called out.
Well go ahead explain it to me then. Without personally attacking me if you please.
After you’ve gone up and down the thread saying how you’ll never listen? Fucking read the book, or just ask an AI if you’re that lazy; why should a human spoon feed it to you?
No, and I have no plans on doing so based on the arguments outlined by the initial post. Arguing that search engines and AI systems are even remotely similar is a false equivalency and doesn’t really make me hopeful that the rest of their book is worth reading. I don’t really want to know what kind of mental gymnastics are necessary to come to that conclusion, but it probably involves talking to a chatbot for copious amounts of time.
Just for the slow kids in the back of the class. Search engines surface my work to a larger audience. They make it discoverable. I can use this audience to generate an income for myself. This is a fair deal. AI systems take my work without compensation, create a lossy compilation of multiple other works and sell it back to that audience while leaving me with nothing. Fuck anyone who calls that “fair use”.
No, and I have no plans on doing so
Then you’re being ignorant and spreading bullshit. You’re the problem.
dogma, got it. and in return, i didn’t read the rest of your comment based on your asinine initial sentence. heavens forbid you should be exposed to ideas you don’t agree with. there’s no way that can enrich you, right??? certainly there’s no way it could help inform what I’m going to generously describe as your activism. best tune it out LA LA LA LA
Notice how its always the little guy that has to just accept things and be “reasonable” while fascist tech oligarchs can just do what they want. How dare I be dogmatic about something that is actively ruining my live and not buying the books by people actively furthering the cause of those oligarchs.
How dare I be dogmatic about something that is actively ruining my live and not buying the books by people actively furthering the cause of those oligarchs.
Even in your own words, you sound like a drone. Yes, how dare you be dogmatic about anything? How does this situation turn your shitty behaviour into positive behaviour? Explain how you being closed-minded and willingly ignorant helps you or anyone else cope with post-AI life? Explain how it helps you resist AI? You’re being fucking childish.
No one here is telling you not to resist AI. And you STILL can’t metabolize the idea that a dogmatic approach to your goals is counterproductive, and intellectually dishonest. You have a bugaboo, and you’re not going to help anyone under its influence.
If you think that copyright is there for the benefit of ordinary people, then I’ve got news for you.
I dislike the AI oligarchy as much as the next person. But copyright is never the tool to protect artistic integrity. Relying on it always fires back in favour of big corpos.
As you say. Laws don’t exist to shackle the ruling class.
At the same time, though, as long as the economic system remains what it is, copyright is often the only thing that allows artists to make a living off their work, even when its implementation has many problems.
You can say that we should focus on changing the economic system then, and sure, but that’s not going to happen tomorrow and in the meantime I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
That’s hardly universal. Most working artists don’t get a lot of income from a back library of material, unless you’re one of the last few independent stock photographers. They make income by working.
Artists who are employed or do contract work are often hired because someone is trying to make money off something that makes use of their work, and their ability to make money off that often depends on copyright. So it’s still ultimately a dependency on copyright, just with one layer of separation in between.
That leaves artists who make an income from doing some kind of performance, like concerts or plays. I guess that doesn’t really require copyright, but it’s a pretty limited subset of artists for whom this is possible.
Software developers, graphics artists, window painters, live musicians, session musicians, photographers and cinematographers, copy writers, florists, chocolatiers, dancers, interior decorators, animators, chefs, composers, and virtually every other kind of artist would still have a job in a world without copyright protection. If your art isn’t being mass produced, it’s not really relevant.
Sure, someone is going to need to write the firmware for the machinery in factories regardless of copyright protections, but who’s going hire animators if they can’t sell the final product or monetise it in any way without immediately competing against their own work? People who make commercials? Real bright future you’re depicting there.
But more importantly, aren’t you forgetting something fundamental here?
I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
This is not just about the artists, it’s also about me. And by me, I mean everyone, including artists, because they don’t just create art. Most of the art I enjoy is mass-produced: books are, films are, video games are. If those become economically unviable in the current economic system, then my art appreciation would basically become occasionally going to a concert or museum, and going through humanity’s backlog of works. Certainly, that backlog is large enough for many lifetimes, but while Cold War analogies are still relevant to some extent, it sure would be nice to enjoy something that speaks of today every now and then.
That’s a ridiculous statement. I make royalties from sales of an audio sample library I once worked on. If people just pirated that sample library and got it for free and didn’t buy it, I wouldn’t receive any royalties.
That’s called theft.
No, it’s not called theft. It’s called infringement. You don’t own the song, the poem, the story, the character, the image in the photo or the audio in the sample. One cannot own a song. What one has is an exclusive right to exploit a song.
I feel like your, “That’s called theft,” is an attempt to moralize and shame. But that’s only called infringement among those who agree it is, because they agree it is. There is no cosmic law that makes it so and there is really no financial reality that requires it to be so.
It’s not infringement if you use an algorithm that someone else figured out, and somehow software developers all manage. It’s not infringement if I build my house exactly the same as the one you have an architect design, but architects do okay. It’s not infringement when I perform a Jonathan Coulton song for money, and despite putting all his creative output in the Creative Commons, he still has a successful career.
The way things are are ARBITRARY and don’t reflect morality or need. Over time copyright law has become entirely detached from the needs of artists and instead reflects the needs of the capitalists who seek to exploit artists’ output.
That’s a very long-winded of saying you support the right for me to lose the money I deserve as the creator of a product. We have nothing left to talk about. Bye.
What? No it isn’t. Where did I say anything remotely like that?
Your anecdote doesn’t trump my anecdote; now we have two anecdotes.
Funny, I know plenty of artists who care very much about copyright. I am one of them.
None of these anti-copyright arguments hold any water for me. Copyright protects everyone, regardless of if they’re tiny or huge. If you believe that isn’t true because of the legal system favoring those with big pockets, that’s the problem, not the concept of copyright per se.
If you believe that isn’t true because of the legal system favoring those with big pockets, that’s the problem, not the concept of copyright per se.
An economics system in need of copyright will always implement it in favour of the powerful. You’re currently dependent on copyright. But that doesn’t mean that it is set up in your favour.
Copyright lead to the fact that you can’t use certain samples in your remix on youtube if you don’t want to get copyright striked to infinity by sony.
Wow, what a letdown…
How could experts in the field know better than random people online?!
Well, it’s transformative, though when it’s AI that’s not automatically good. I think there is no way to win the copyright suits against the AI companies after Google book scanning was ruled transformative. What I don’t understand is why they aren’t in jail for the unauthorized access and disruption caused by the damn scraping.
and I thought eff was one of the good ones
They still are, even if you disagree with them on one point. It might be worth noting that the EFF isn’t a copyright defence house. Their mission is different. They support the open Internet.
I’m on dbzer0 and they’re pro-AI. I’m not, but I don’t disrespect their POV in their house. I feel like I’m skating a fine line being subbed here. They’re also one of the only instances that supports freedom of speech. I just understand that some of that speech I don’t agree with.
These people evaluate things through dogma above all else.
Damn, what the fuck?
Well they’re partially funded by Google for many years now…
This isn’t the first time. They already have supported the AI industry’s mass copytheft.
Technically the truth. AI is trained on copyrighted works, but so is every artist alive today. There’s just a really important difference in human inspiration and creativity and a computer program piecing together what it’s already seen. One creates something new while standing on the shoulders of what came before, while the other just remixes what’s already there and tramples upon the backs of what came before. I think it’s important to know the difference.
The scale is also massively different. Some artist or intellectual reused the work of a few preceding people people and became famous (and sometimes rich) instead of them. But in the case of AI it’s a couple of already ultra rich owners vs millions of likely mostly struggling creators.
The law has suspiciously little to say about wealth concentration. Hm.
The main problem is that AI just creates what I call “Collage Slop”.
