3 ms·
> Other parties doing is no excuse imo It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress. As an example, if it is easy to cr
by searchableguy 4y ago
> Other parties doing is no excuse imo
It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress.
As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or signature using AI models - they should no longer be considered effective evidence for contractual reason instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That is not going to work.
Past shouldn't dictate what we allow tomorrow.
- jacquesm 4y agoSorry, but that's not how the law works. Try that excuse the next time you're stopped for speeding and see how well it works.
- searchableguy 4y agoYour example is not good. Speeding is not a technical innovation that require any fundamental change. It is enforced in automated fashion and it is beneficial for the safety of public at large if reasonably implemented. All laws are made in interest of someone. Does the copyright apply to AI models since they are out of scope and weren't widespread when it came into force? Does the proposed benefit in the original law apply in practice? Are they more beneficial than the progress allowed by AI models who use them as training data? Is the copyright law practically enforceable on output generated by AI models?
- jacquesm 4y agoCopyright law is what it is today. Like it or not doesn't really matter. And yes, copyright law is practically enforceable, regardless of how copyright is broken. That's what the Berne Convention is all about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention Copyright is what FOSS depends on. For Microsoft to shit all over GitHub contributors rights is despicable.