4 ms·

>I don't think people would care as much about AI reusing code or images or text so directly if people were allowed to do so too. But the system is never going

by Aerroon 8mo ago

>I don't think people would care as much about AI reusing code or images or text so directly if people were allowed to do so too. But the system is never going to get changed if something doesn't give. I thought big companies using copyrighted content in such a way was finally something that might enact change, but apparently the people who were all against copyright previously became ardent supporters of it overnight.

AngryData 8mo ago
I support opening up copyright massively, but it might help getting it changed if AI companies were made to follow the same restrictive rules as humans and had the same incentive to push for changes copyright legislation/law. Right now AI companies and investors have no reason to lend support behind opening up ip law because it doesn't help them while it bolsters non-AI competition.
- Aerroon 8mo ago
  Why would AI companies support change now? They've already been fined. Now it's too late, because now it's in their best interests to be against it. The time for change was before, but then everyone became a staunch copyright defender.
salawat 8mo ago
>the people who were all against copyright previously became ardent supporters of it overnight. Oh, no, no. You misunderstand my friend. I might loosely be called one of those who was anti-copyright, but turn my desire to see it's draconian enforcement cranked up to 11 on corporations. I believe fundamental reform is necessary, however, if you're running a for profit enterprise, and have not in good faith with the laws of of the land, which let's be clear, AI companies absolutely haven't; there is no mercy deserved. If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing, then these companies should not exist in any way shape or form in a functioning justice system as currently configured. That they do illustrates the woeful state of our State. Things need to change.
- Aerroon 8mo ago
  >If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing That's the same thing these corporations were found guilty of though. Or well, maybe not even that, since it was about downloading copyrighted material, not necessarily sharing: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-settlement-pirated-chatbot-training-material https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-... >The company has agreed to pay authors about $3,000 for each of an estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.
  - salawat 8mo ago
    Which on the sliding scale of means is bullshit. And I'm pretty sure Grandma/Little Jimmy didn't get the option to negotiate.

by Aerroon 8mo ago

AngryData 8mo ago

I support opening up copyright massively, but it might help getting it changed if AI companies were made to follow the same restrictive rules as humans and had the same incentive to push for changes copyright legislation/law. Right now AI companies and investors have no reason to lend support behind opening up ip law because it doesn't help them while it bolsters non-AI competition.

Aerroon 8mo ago
Why would AI companies support change now? They've already been fined. Now it's too late, because now it's in their best interests to be against it. The time for change was before, but then everyone became a staunch copyright defender.

salawat 8mo ago

>the people who were all against copyright previously became ardent supporters of it overnight. Oh, no, no. You misunderstand my friend. I might loosely be called one of those who was anti-copyright, but turn my desire to see it's draconian enforcement cranked up to 11 on corporations. I believe fundamental reform is necessary, however, if you're running a for profit enterprise, and have not in good faith with the laws of of the land, which let's be clear, AI companies absolutely haven't; there is no mercy deserved. If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing, then these companies should not exist in any way shape or form in a functioning justice system as currently configured. That they do illustrates the woeful state of our State. Things need to change.

Aerroon 8mo ago
>If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing That's the same thing these corporations were found guilty of though. Or well, maybe not even that, since it was about downloading copyrighted material, not necessarily sharing: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-settlement-pirated-chatbot-training-material https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-... >The company has agreed to pay authors about $3,000 for each of an estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.
- salawat 8mo ago
  Which on the sliding scale of means is bullshit. And I'm pretty sure Grandma/Little Jimmy didn't get the option to negotiate.