5 ms·
The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elega
by m3sta 1y ago
The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.
- Oras 1y agoIs that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
- elsjaako 1y agoCopyright is not a god given right. It's an economic incentive created by government to make desired behavior (writing an publishing books) profitable.
- kriops 1y agoYes it is. In every sense of the phrase, except the literal.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Zafira 1y agoA lot of cultures have not historically considered artists’ rights to be a thing and have had it essentially imposed on them as a requirement to participate in global trade.
- kolinko 1y agoEven in Europe copyright was protected only for the last 250 years, and over the last 100 years it’s been constantly updated to take into consideration new technologies.
- pyman 1y agoThe only real mistake the EU made was not regulating Facebook when it mattered. That site caused pain and damage to entire generations. Now it's too late. All they can do is try to stop Meta and the rest of the lunatics from stealing every book, song and photo ever created, just to train models that could leave half the population without a job. Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Microsoft and Google don't care about people. They care about control: controlling influence, knowledge and universal income. That's the endgame. Just like in the US, the EU has brilliant people working on regulations. The difference is, they're not always working for the same interests. The world is asking for US big tech companies to be regulated more now than ever.
- kolinko 1y agoRegulating FB earlier wouldn’t help much I think, it would grow just as fast with other, mostly US, markets and it would be just as powerful today.
- pyman 1y agoI don't agree with this. Facebook's power comes from how it gathered and monetised data, how it acquired rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp, and how it locked in network effects. If regulators had blocked those acquisitions or enforced stricter antitrust and data privacy rules, there's a chance the social media landscape today would be more competitive. Politicians and regulators probably received some kind of incentive or didn't get it. They didn't see how dangerous Zuk's greedy algorithms would become. They thought it was just a social site. They had no idea what Facebook employees were building behind the scenes. By the time they realised, it was already too late. China was the only one that acted. The US and EU looked the other way. If they'd stepped in back in 2009 with rules on privacy, neutrality, and transparency, today's internet could've been a lot more open and competitive.
- kriops 1y agoCoincidentally that’s about when we discovered god-given rights (John Locke died in 1704), so that makes sense.
- wavemode 1y agoTo be fair, "copy"right has only been needed for as long as it's been possible to copy things. In the grand scheme of human history, that technology is relatively new.
- vidarh 1y agoCopying was a thing for a very long time before the Statue of Anne. Just not mechanically. It coincided with the rise of mechanical copying.
- mr_toad 1y agoCopyright predates mechanical copying. However, people used to have to petition a King or similar to be granted a monopoly on a work, and the monopoly was specific to that work.
- vidarh 1y agoThe Statue of Anne - the first recognisable copyright law in anything remotely the modern sense dates to 1709. Long after the invention of movable type. Mechanical in the sense of printing with a press using movable type, not anything highly automated. Having to petition for monopoly rights on an individual basis is nothing like copyright, where the entire point is to avoid having to ask for exceptions by creating a right.
- klabb3 1y agoYes, 100%. And that’s why throwing copyright selectively in the bin now when there’s an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from creators to mega corps, is so surprising. It’s almost as if governments were only protecting economic interests of creators when the creators were powerful (eg movie studios), going after individuals for piracy and DRM circumvention. Now that the mega corps are the ones pirating at a scale they get a free pass through a loophole designed for individuals (fair use). Anyway, the show must go on so were unlikely to see any reversal of this. It’s a big experiment and not necessarily anything that will benefit even the model providers themselves in the medium term. It’s clear that the ”free for all” policy on grabbing whatever data you can get is already having chilling effects. From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly, to locking down of open web with anti-scraping. Were basically entering an era of adversarial data management, with incentives to exploit others for data while protecting the data you have from others accessing it.
- ramses0 1y agoYou've put into words what I've been internally struggling to voice. Information (on the web) is a gas, it expands once it escapes. In limited, closed systems, it may not escape, but all it takes is one bad (or hacked) actor and the privacy of it is gone. In a way, we used to be "protected" because it was "too big" to process, store, or access "everything". Now, especially with an economic incentive to vacuum literally all digital information, and many works being "digital first" (even a word processor vs a typewriter, or a PDF that is sent to a printer instead of lithograph metal plates)... is this the information Armageddon?
- isaacremuant 1y agoGovernments always protect the interests of their powerful friends and donors over the people they allegedly represent. They've just mastered the art of lying to gullible idiots or complicit psycophants. It's not new to anyone who pays and kind of attention.
- vidarh 1y agoWhy? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction. But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway. > From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoactually in much of the EU if not all of it Copyright is an intrinsic right of the creator.
- vidarh 1y agoIt is a "right" created by law, is the point. This is not a right that is universally recognised, nor one that has existed since time immemorial, but a modern construction of governments that governments can choose to change or abolish.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agowhat is a right that has existed since time immemorial? Generally rights that have existed "forever" are codified rights and, in the codification, described as being eternal. Hence Jefferson's reference to inalienable rights, which probably came as some surprise to King George III. on edit: If we had a soundtrack the Clash Know Your Rights would be playing in this comment.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoat any rate rights that are described as being eternal or some other version of that such as inalienable, or in the case of copyright moral and intrinsic, are rights that if the government, that has heretofore described that as inviolate, where to casually violate them then the government would be declaring its own nullification to exist further by its previously stated rules. Not to say this doesn't happen, I believe we can see it happening in some places in the world right now, but these are classes of laws that cannot "just" be changed at the government's whim, and in the EU copyright law is evidently one of those classes of law, strange as it seems.
- vidarh 1y agoAnd the relevant rights to exploit the work are almost never described as moral, intrinsic, inalienable or similar, so this is largely moot.
- arccy 1y ago"intellectual property" only exists because society collectively allows it to. it's not some inviolable law of nature. society (or the government that represents them) can revoke it or give it away.
- impossiblefork 1y agoYes, but that's also true of all other things that society enforces-- basically the ownership of anything you can't carry with you.
- CaptainFever 1y agoYes, that is why (most?) anarchists consider property that one is not occupying and using to be fiction, held up by the state. I believe this includes intellectual property as well.
- figassis 1y agoYou're alive because society collective allows you to.
- lioeters 1y agoA person being alive is not at all similar to the concept of intellectual property existing. The former is a natural phenomenon, the latter is a social construct.
- layer8 1y agoThe same is true for human rights. In the EU, an author’s moral rights are similar in character to human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights
- victorbjorklund 1y agoCopyright is literally granted by the gov.