3 ms·

If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Isn’t that why we publish; so it

If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Isn’t that why we publish; so it is consumed and becomes, I’m a sense, part of the entity that consumes it? If I read a book on how to repair a television and then subsequently go and help someone fix their TV do I owe the publisher because the person I have fixed the TV for doesn’t need to buy their book, robbing them of revenue? this is the argument here right? The AI is allowed to pass on information at learns from the published works. Well that’s already happening. Maybe we just need to rethink how we fund publications because it’s never been a very good model anyway. In fact, it’s consistently been problematic. Not just because AI has came about.

eesmith 2y ago
> If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Algorithms aren't "informed". Even if that content is indeed part of the human, that doesn't let the human violate copyright law, so why should the algorithm have additional rights? We've long established that passing on information can be fine, or can be illegal, depending on the circumstances. That's true for people, so why not for algorithms? For example, if you read a book on how to repair a television and then subsequently write a book on how to repair a television, with a structure drawn from the book you read, then it's a copyright violation and you may have to pay damages. It's best you work out a license agreement first with the copyright holder. The argument here is that the individual copyright holders should be allowed to work out a license agreement, rather than letting the UK government provide a default agreement on an opt-out basis. If you want to change copyright law, say so, and provide suggestions. That "problematic" covers up a big pot of worms.

eesmith 2y ago

> If a human is allowed to consume content and be informed/influenced by it then I don’t see any reason why an algorithm can’t. Algorithms aren't "informed". Even if that content is indeed part of the human, that doesn't let the human violate copyright law, so why should the algorithm have additional rights? We've long established that passing on information can be fine, or can be illegal, depending on the circumstances. That's true for people, so why not for algorithms? For example, if you read a book on how to repair a television and then subsequently write a book on how to repair a television, with a structure drawn from the book you read, then it's a copyright violation and you may have to pay damages. It's best you work out a license agreement first with the copyright holder. The argument here is that the individual copyright holders should be allowed to work out a license agreement, rather than letting the UK government provide a default agreement on an opt-out basis. If you want to change copyright law, say so, and provide suggestions. That "problematic" covers up a big pot of worms.