It’s not unreasonable to demand AI companies to play by the same rules as everyone else.
But when you hate those very rules, shouldn’t you be cheering on the people that are seemingly ignoring them and are likely to try and challenge them in court/lobby to be changed/removed? Right? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that?
Oh, but not when those people are evil capitalist companies that make AI product lol.
umbraroze@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
Like I said, the AI companies are not on the same side. The AI companies in the fight for their own selfish reasons. They’re eventually just going to make the copyright situation even more byzantine. They also make the copyright reform/abolition people look bad.
It’s like if I say I’m an Anarchist and then I have to constantly say “well actually I don’t advocate for looting and vandalism nonsense, those dipshits don’t know shit about Anarchism”. Do you know how hard it is to advocate for more reasonable copyright policy reflecting modern times, when the current big crisis in the mind of artists and creators are the dipshit companies blatantly violating the law?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 week ago
One issue is that they’re not blatantly violating the law though. There’s no law saying you can’t create art etc of copyrighted material. It’s legal basically unless you’re then selling it.
With training AI models, again there’s nothing illegal about that. Some companies and people want it to be illegal, but it currently isn’t and realistically never should be since laws exist around the use of copyrighted content (as mentioned above). Why should it matter if it’s a computer doing the “learning” compared to a person?
It’s what you do with the content that is controlled by law, not how you created it.