3 ms·
The angry tone is making the details harder to grasp. The first thing the article does is point to an older article about a previous FTC statement. In it, TechD
by ImAnAmateur 3y ago
The angry tone is making the details harder to grasp. The first thing the article does is point to an older article about a previous FTC statement. In it, TechDirt seems to disagree about what fair use is and then uses that disagreement to say that the FTC is saying that fair use itself is bad.
Am I reading this right? That posturing is frustrating.
Still... The argument that developing these tools under the assumption that publicly available data is fair use is what allows upstarts to develop LLM AI tools instead of giant companies is very astute. I think it's 100% correct. It makes me understand why LLMs are a battleground for copyright reform.
I appreciate that the article makes the stance of both sides understandable. It's enough to make me begrudgingly say that I'm glad for having read it.
- freejazz 3y agoI agree with you. It's a bit disingenuous to report the issue as pro or anti fair use when the real question is what constitutes a fair use? Similarly, statements like: "they held with a ridiculously one-sided panel of folks from the creative industries, who more or less all agreed that everyone should be forced to give them money at every opportunity." just reflect Techdirt's own bias as to what they believe the outcome should be. I also think that Tech Dirt's analysis of the FTC's position is conclusory regarding the downstream effects of increasing wealth concentration and reducing competition. It seems like Tech Dirt came to this in the absence of any thought as to what the implications would be for competition in a world where training data of copyrighted materials don't need to be licensed. I'm not so sure that such an outcome would improve competition in creative fields, and I'm not seeing anything from Tech Dirt explaining how they got there.