3 ms·

You're taking an "everything not permitted is forbidden" approach, which contradicts the common law principle of residual freedom. This would automatically out

by flir 2y ago

You're taking an "everything not permitted is forbidden" approach, which contradicts the common law principle of residual freedom. This would automatically outlaw any new use of information (eg music sampling) by default. If all novel uses were banned from the outset, cultural progress would suffer immeasurably.

amelius 2y ago
I don't think cultural progress will suffer from copyright holders preventing AI from using their content. What I think will suffer more is the bank accounts of AI corporations.
- flir 2y ago
  So to be clear, you're arguing this one specific use (machine learning) should be knocked on the head? And not all novel uses? Because "content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data" is quite broad.
  - amelius 2y ago
    No, that's not what I said. If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it, we can do two things: (1) just grab the data (2) ask the content owners I think what is fair is closer to (2) than to (1). Especially since the data was originally intended for human consumption. What you call "training" is what another person might call "mechanized processing", and would not fall within fair use of the data.
    - flir 2y ago
      I'm honestly at a loss here. I can't figure out what your position is. > If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it [...] ask the content owners So is it "no commercial use without permission" you're arguing for? > mechanized processing Or are you arguing that training should fall under the existing mechanical license provisions for songs? I don't think you are, because those licenses are compulsory, and you seem to want an element of choice for the copyright holder. Ok, put the chatbots aside for the moment. If [brand new use] for a book is invented, and I buy a copy of that book and want to do [that new thing] with it, should the copyright holder of that book be able to block me?

by flir 2y ago

amelius 2y ago

I don't think cultural progress will suffer from copyright holders preventing AI from using their content. What I think will suffer more is the bank accounts of AI corporations.

flir 2y ago
So to be clear, you're arguing this one specific use (machine learning) should be knocked on the head? And not all novel uses? Because "content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data" is quite broad.
- amelius 2y ago
  No, that's not what I said. If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it, we can do two things: (1) just grab the data (2) ask the content owners I think what is fair is closer to (2) than to (1). Especially since the data was originally intended for human consumption. What you call "training" is what another person might call "mechanized processing", and would not fall within fair use of the data.
  - flir 2y ago
    I'm honestly at a loss here. I can't figure out what your position is. > If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it [...] ask the content owners So is it "no commercial use without permission" you're arguing for? > mechanized processing Or are you arguing that training should fall under the existing mechanical license provisions for songs? I don't think you are, because those licenses are compulsory, and you seem to want an element of choice for the copyright holder. Ok, put the chatbots aside for the moment. If [brand new use] for a book is invented, and I buy a copy of that book and want to do [that new thing] with it, should the copyright holder of that book be able to block me?