3 ms·
> It has not yet been tested in court. courts don't create new rights, they interpret existing laws. I can't really see how the existing copyright laws can be
by chii 4y ago
> It has not yet been tested in court.
courts don't create new rights, they interpret existing laws.
I can't really see how the existing copyright laws can be interpreted such that a distinction could be made between a machine learning and a human learning.
- cudgy 4y agoMachines do not have rights. That is one distinction.
- chii 4y agoIt's not a right of the machine we're talking about, but the rights of the copyright holder that is purporting to claim that ML models trained with their works is a derivative of their works, and thus can claim copyright over the ML model. I do not believe such rights exist under current copyright laws. Others argue that it does (or ought to exist).
- omnicognate 4y agoThe fact that you can't see it doesn't mean others can't. The difference is blindingly obvious to me. Courts do indeed interpret existing laws. The question of whether current laws regarding human learning apply equally to machine learning is one of interpretation, precisely the sort of thing that is ultimately resolved by court decisions, including appeals potentially up to the supreme court, establishing precedents. Until that process takes place, your interpretation is just your interpretation, not the interpretation.