3 ms·

By the common IP definition. Reproducing something, in part or in whole, and making money off it. And before the whole "Copyright should be abolished" assertio

By the common IP definition. Reproducing something, in part or in whole, and making money off it. And before the whole "Copyright should be abolished" assertion rears it's head (again, it's already in this post at least twice), almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP. Copyright and IP are going nowhere.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
So I researched one particular AI system (Stable Diffusion) a bit when I was helping out a friend. By your definition, at very least Stable Diffusion is not stealing, and cannot possibly be stealing - at very least to the limits of my skill to satisfy my self of this as fact. * It does not in fact reproduce specific copyrightable things in part or in whole (except by accident, and these accidents have been reduced over time. This makes 'mens rea' hard to argue.) * Its output (being not by humans) is by definition in the public domain. This makes it a little hard to claim that it is being exploited for monetary gain. I won't deny that there are potential indirect effects, but if you go by direct legal definitions, it's - interesting. New law may be needed, but there too, things might be interesting. It's certainly not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be here, at least not for Stable Diffusion. * "Copyright protections on IP" seems to be a bit muddled. Can you explain how you are using the terms of art here? * Do you have a source for "Almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP"? Doesn't need to be extensive. I just wonder where you are getting the 50% number from, and I wonder if there's a breakdown available. + it seems lawsuit(s) on this are still ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see what the judge(s) actually rule.
- falcolas 2y ago
  I had a more detailed point by point argument, but it really boils down to this: Stability AI is breaking the intent of the law, even if it's technically respecting the letter of copyright and other IP protection laws. That disrespect of the intent matters more to me than playing armchair lawyer over the details.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    I really appreciate that you took the time to think about it. I do acknowledge the feeling you have that they must be breaking the law, or at least the intent of some law. I mean, they must be, right? People are so used to a certain way of thinking about things, after all. But ... the intent of copyright law would appear to be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I have the impression the rest is just the details of one way to achieve that end. Do you disagree? Do you think they're hurting this intent? Of course, maybe you'll argue that I'm over-simplifying. I might be. Could you lay a finger on what I should be paying attention to ? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...

Kim_Bruning 2y ago

So I researched one particular AI system (Stable Diffusion) a bit when I was helping out a friend. By your definition, at very least Stable Diffusion is not stealing, and cannot possibly be stealing - at very least to the limits of my skill to satisfy my self of this as fact. * It does not in fact reproduce specific copyrightable things in part or in whole (except by accident, and these accidents have been reduced over time. This makes 'mens rea' hard to argue.) * Its output (being not by humans) is by definition in the public domain. This makes it a little hard to claim that it is being exploited for monetary gain. I won't deny that there are potential indirect effects, but if you go by direct legal definitions, it's - interesting. New law may be needed, but there too, things might be interesting. It's certainly not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be here, at least not for Stable Diffusion. * "Copyright protections on IP" seems to be a bit muddled. Can you explain how you are using the terms of art here? * Do you have a source for "Almost 50% of the US economy is based, in whole or in part, on copyright protections on IP"? Doesn't need to be extensive. I just wonder where you are getting the 50% number from, and I wonder if there's a breakdown available. + it seems lawsuit(s) on this are still ongoing, so it'll be interesting to see what the judge(s) actually rule.

falcolas 2y ago
I had a more detailed point by point argument, but it really boils down to this: Stability AI is breaking the intent of the law, even if it's technically respecting the letter of copyright and other IP protection laws. That disrespect of the intent matters more to me than playing armchair lawyer over the details.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  I really appreciate that you took the time to think about it. I do acknowledge the feeling you have that they must be breaking the law, or at least the intent of some law. I mean, they must be, right? People are so used to a certain way of thinking about things, after all. But ... the intent of copyright law would appear to be "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I have the impression the rest is just the details of one way to achieve that end. Do you disagree? Do you think they're hurting this intent? Of course, maybe you'll argue that I'm over-simplifying. I might be. Could you lay a finger on what I should be paying attention to ? [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...