I have a freely accessible document that I have a cc license for that states it is not to be used for commercial use. This is commercial use. Your policy would allow for that document to be used though since it is accessible. This kind of policy discourages me from easily sharing my works as others profit from my efforts and my works are more likely to be attributed to a corporate beast I want nothing to do with then to me.
I’m all for copyright reform and simpler copyright law, but these companies need to be held to standard copyright rules and not just made up modifications. I’m convinced a perfectly decent LLM could be built without violating copyrights.
I’d also be ok sharing works with a not for profit open source LLM and I think others might as well.
devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] 1 day ago
That “freely” there really does a lot of hard work.
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It means what it means, “freely” pulls its own weight. I didn’t say “readily” accessible. Torrents could be viewed as “readily” accessible but it couldn’t be viewed as “freely” accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are “freely” accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neurons. If payment for reading is expected then it isn’t free.
Womble@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But they are copyright infringement, which costs more than theft.