3 ms·
> The fact that they don't and if it is discovered, it will mean all of the work generated by them is not copyrightable and therefore everyone is free to copy i
by exit 4y ago
> The fact that they don't and if it is discovered, it will mean all of the work generated by them is not copyrightable and therefore everyone is free to copy it. They'd also have to lie to the copyright office and the businesses they were selling their services. The only thing doing the work here is the lie.
you and i have extremely different impressions of how effective regulatory repercussions are at actually constraining behaviour.
circumventing laws and regulations really does do a lot of the work in the economy. vast amounts of plagiarised code run in software we touch every day. artistic work gets crudely lifted. i don't see something as powerful as ai content generation being constrained by dictums about what can be copyrighted.
- freejazz 4y agoWhat regulators? These are all private actors using contract law and copyright law. They are only as effective as the potential gain in winning a lawsuit and I never suggested otherwise. As I pointed out, already, yes people do copy now. I think your belief is mistaken that the triviality of creating the content is the fulcrum in this scenario. The fulcrum is profitability. Having to operate extra-judiciously and at the bottom of the barrel in order to make your grift isn't an exciting proposition now, and it's not going to be in the future.