4 ms·
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. I don't think this is true. There's a huge amount of public domain works, as well a
by throw10920 3y ago
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML.
I don't think this is true. There's a huge amount of public domain works, as well as stuff licensed under permissive copyleft licenses, that can be used.
But, even if it did kill off open-source ML, it would still be necessary, because it's morally wrong to train ML models on copyrighted content without compensating the copyright owners (on their terms).
As a content creator, I explicitly do not want or consent to any of my creative works being used to train ML models without having a licensing agreement through which I am financially compensated.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoI’m sympathetic, but currently the courts don’t agree. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39364447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39364447 Morals are different from the law, but you seek a legal remedy, and those aren’t going well.
- throw10920 3y agoDoesn't the Ars Technica article of that post state that the courts have not rejected the claim of copyright infringement? > failed to provide evidence supporting any of their claims except for direct copyright infringement (emphasis mine) Where are the courts saying that models can be trained on copyrighted content? (I believe that it's possible but unless I'm missing something I don't see it in that Ars article)