4 ms·

Alternatively, you can just believe in standard, copyright law which says you need a license to distribute much content. Most file sharing cases ruled in favor

Alternatively, you can just believe in standard, copyright law which says you need a license to distribute much content. Most file sharing cases ruled in favor of that. The AI companies have been bundling and distributing copywritten works for pretraining. They do illegal activities just to make the AI’s. That’s before considering them generating the training data or derivative works. So, there’s lots of risk which they’re just ignoring for money.

kmeisthax 3y ago
I don't want to have copyright law as it currently exists. It is a badly-negotiated bargain. The public gets very little out of it, the artists get very little protection out of it, and the only people who win are intermediaries and fraudsters. Keep in mind, this is the same copyright that gave us Prenda Law, an extortion scheme that bilked millions of dollars in bullshit settlements. Prenda Law would create shell companies that created porn, post it on BitTorrent, then have the shell companies sue anyone who downloaded it. Prenda Law would even post all their ongoing litigation on their website with the express purpose of making sure everyone Googling for your name saw the porn, just to embarrass you into settling faster. This scheme was remarkably profitable, and only stopped being profitable because Prenda slipped up and revealed the fraud[0]. Still, the amount of fraud you have to commit is very minuscule compared to the settlements you can extract out of people for doing this, and there's been no legal reform to try and cut off these sorts of extortion suits. Prenda isn't even the only entity that tried this; Strike 3 Holdings did the same thing. [0] If you upload your own content to BitTorrent, the defense could argue that this is implied license. Prenda's shell companies would lie about having uploaded the content themselves.

kmeisthax 3y ago

I don't want to have copyright law as it currently exists. It is a badly-negotiated bargain. The public gets very little out of it, the artists get very little protection out of it, and the only people who win are intermediaries and fraudsters. Keep in mind, this is the same copyright that gave us Prenda Law, an extortion scheme that bilked millions of dollars in bullshit settlements. Prenda Law would create shell companies that created porn, post it on BitTorrent, then have the shell companies sue anyone who downloaded it. Prenda Law would even post all their ongoing litigation on their website with the express purpose of making sure everyone Googling for your name saw the porn, just to embarrass you into settling faster. This scheme was remarkably profitable, and only stopped being profitable because Prenda slipped up and revealed the fraud[0]. Still, the amount of fraud you have to commit is very minuscule compared to the settlements you can extract out of people for doing this, and there's been no legal reform to try and cut off these sorts of extortion suits. Prenda isn't even the only entity that tried this; Strike 3 Holdings did the same thing. [0] If you upload your own content to BitTorrent, the defense could argue that this is implied license. Prenda's shell companies would lie about having uploaded the content themselves.