5 ms·

The open web's ethos since its inception in the 1990s has been one of unrestricted access and fair use. Content published openly online inherently invites broad

The open web's ethos since its inception in the 1990s has been one of unrestricted access and fair use. Content published openly online inherently invites broad consumption, reproduction, and creative reuse by the public. This is not merely custom, but a fundamental aspect of fair use doctrine as applied to the digital realm. The four factors of fair use - purpose of use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount used, and effect on the market - overwhelmingly favor allowing free use of openly published web content. The transformative nature of most reuses, the public availability of the original works, the necessity of using entire works in many cases, and the lack of a traditional market for such content all support this interpretation. This longstanding practice has been the catalyst for unprecedented innovation and information dissemination. It represents a tacit social contract between content creators and users, establishing a de facto "freeware" model for open web content. Any attempt to retroactively impose strict copyright limitations would not only stifle innovation but also contradict decades of established legal precedent and digital norms. -As a side note, I’m not certain that training necessarily involves “copying.” —-Lastly, if anyone really thinks the Robert’s court is going to knee-cap AI, you’re soft in the head.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 2y ago
> Content published openly online inherently invites broad consumption, reproduction, and creative reuse by the public. You're using "invites" as a weaselword here. Then you go into the law, as if the law is discussing "invitations." Counterpoint: content published online is usually extremely hostile to reproduction, and the people who produce it are deathly afraid of other people copying their work and outranking them with it. > —-Lastly, if anyone really thinks the Robert’s court is going to knee-cap AI, you’re soft in the head. If you think the Roberts court is going to be hostile to copyright, you're insane.
amiantos 2y ago
I am optimistic but I feel sad when I remember when went through all this with sampling 30 years ago and now the music industry is more insular and controls every scrap of music they can find so no one can sample anything and even if your song has similar "vibes" to another, well, now it belongs to them as well. I'd wager that 90% of the people cheering on the RIAA (and copyright in general) now were singing a much different tune before they decided AI was a threat to their livelihoods. There's a lot of reasons to not be optimistic about the continued legal existence of freely available open source AI, because if the copyright holders have their way, they will be the only entities that control all the data needed to train it. And many people on the internet are all too happy to cheer this on without realizing that once the RIAA, MPAA, and publishers (when they finally figure out how to organize effectively like film and music has) hold the reigns, the AI will still exist, and it will still take all the same jobs, but all the open source and freely available AI that everyone could use, that could level the playing field for everyone... that's going to be illegal for people to use, without being able to pay the content rights holders. Just another way to keep it to have / have nots, same as it's always been.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 2y ago

> Content published openly online inherently invites broad consumption, reproduction, and creative reuse by the public. You're using "invites" as a weaselword here. Then you go into the law, as if the law is discussing "invitations." Counterpoint: content published online is usually extremely hostile to reproduction, and the people who produce it are deathly afraid of other people copying their work and outranking them with it. > —-Lastly, if anyone really thinks the Robert’s court is going to knee-cap AI, you’re soft in the head. If you think the Roberts court is going to be hostile to copyright, you're insane.

amiantos 2y ago

I am optimistic but I feel sad when I remember when went through all this with sampling 30 years ago and now the music industry is more insular and controls every scrap of music they can find so no one can sample anything and even if your song has similar "vibes" to another, well, now it belongs to them as well. I'd wager that 90% of the people cheering on the RIAA (and copyright in general) now were singing a much different tune before they decided AI was a threat to their livelihoods. There's a lot of reasons to not be optimistic about the continued legal existence of freely available open source AI, because if the copyright holders have their way, they will be the only entities that control all the data needed to train it. And many people on the internet are all too happy to cheer this on without realizing that once the RIAA, MPAA, and publishers (when they finally figure out how to organize effectively like film and music has) hold the reigns, the AI will still exist, and it will still take all the same jobs, but all the open source and freely available AI that everyone could use, that could level the playing field for everyone... that's going to be illegal for people to use, without being able to pay the content rights holders. Just another way to keep it to have / have nots, same as it's always been.