3 ms·
> Question would be whether machine learning, unlike human learning, should be treated as copyright infringement. No, the question is whether those genAI we ha
by marcosdumay 2y ago
> Question would be whether machine learning, unlike human learning, should be treated as copyright infringement.
No, the question is whether those genAI we have around are mass copyrights violation machines or whether they "learn" and build non-violating work.
And honestly, I have seen evidence pointing both ways. But the "copyrights protection" institutions are all quickly to decide the point dismissing any evidence on philosophical basis.
- Ukv 2y ago> No, the question is whether those genAI we have around are mass copyrights violation machines or whether they "learn" and build non-violating work. I refer to the training process in question, which may or may not be be violating copyright, as "machine learning" since that's the common terminology. Question is whether that process is covered by fair use. Whether or not it actually "learn"s is not irrelevant, but I'd say more a philosophical framing than a legal one.
- marcosdumay 2y ago> I refer to the training process in question Yeah, you go for the red herring. All of the worthwhile debate is about the real violations. But the public discourse is surely inundated with that exact red herring.
- Ukv 2y agoI addressed model output (infringes copyright if substantially similar, as with manually-created works) and the process of training the model (requires collating/processing ephemeral copies, possibly fair use). What do you think the "real violations" are, if not those?