3 ms·
IMO yes. The entire purpose of copyright law is to protect the incentive to create new material. A huge portion of the value prop of AI is that it captures the
by llamaimperative 2y ago
IMO yes. The entire purpose of copyright law is to protect the incentive to create new material. A huge portion of the value prop of AI is that it captures the incentive normally bound for the creators of the training material (i.e. the whole point is you can ask the AI and not even see, never mind pay, the originator).
- AlexCoventry 2y agoI'm not a lawyer, but I think the bar for contributory infringement is much higher than that. I think you'd have to find representatives of the defendants actually indicating somehow that people should use it that way. It seems to me that Grokster, etc.'s encouragement of their users to infringe copyright was an important factor in them losing this case, for instance. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/
- llamaimperative 2y agoEncouragement is definitely not a required element. https://www.cantorcolburn.com/news-newsletters-387.html https://www.cantorcolburn.com/news-newsletters-387.html
- zozbot234 2y agoAsk the AI for what exactly? Factual information? That gets very low protection from a copyright point of view, especially when separate random answers by the AI will routinely show completely different rephrasings of the AI's response - implying that it can generalize well beyond the "expression" contained in any single answer, and effectively reference the underlying facts.