3 ms·

Their defense seems to be that AI requires crime to exist, so they should be allowed to do crime. This is not a defense permitted in any body of law. They're go

• spencerflem 1y ago
  They got the federal govt, they’ll be fine
• jeroenhd 1y ago
  AI training on copyrighted materials for scientific reasons is borderline legal. Scientific progress is generally considered a decent reason to skirt around copyright issues. AI can exist in a legal sense (assuming nobody torrents content, thereby spreading the content rather than just pirating it). The problem with AI industry is that they took the scientific exception intended for the betterment of mankind and then tried to turn that into a profit model. Many if their base models are borderline legal, but using those for making money requires some kind of regulation or deal. I expect this to get resolved by having mandatory AI royalty fees that are added to every AI subscription, to be handed out to the creative industry. It's how my country and a few others responded when tape made it possible to record songs from the radio. It'll satisfy the huge companies (because they'll be paid more the more works they have) and spit in the face of smaller creatives or mere hobbyists. It'll cost a couple of billion to grease the wheels, but if these companies work the same way the cryptocurrency industry paid off the Trump campaign, it won't be a difficult problem to solve.
  • woleium 1y ago
    like the Spanish blank CD tax that lines recording industry executives pockets?
• karakot 1y ago
  well, if they're not allowed to do crime in the US, they will outsource it to other places.